Why Must the Church Come to Accept Evolution?: An Update

April 2, 2010
Category: Guest Features

Why Must the Church Come to Accept Evolution?: An Update

"Science and the Sacred" is pleased to feature essays from various guest voices in the science-and-religion dialogue.

As many of our readers know, the videos in our Conversations collection were filmed during the 2009 Theology of Celebration workshop in New York City. A primary goal of the Conversations project has been to provide an accessible platform from which leading scholars can explain their views on current topics in the science-and-faith dialogue. One or more Conversations entries have appeared on Science and the Sacred each week since the first release of the collection in January 2010.

Dr. Bruce Waltke, professor emeritus of Old Testament Studies at Regent College, and Professor of Old Testament at Reformed Theological Seminary (RTS), attended the Theology of Celebration conference and presented a white paper, entitled Barriers to Accepting the Possibility of Creation by Means of an Evolutionary Process: I. Concerns of the Typical Evangelical Theologian. He was an active participant in the discussion periods, was deeply respected for his insights, and was highly loved for his spirit. Those of us who had not met him before were not surprised to see how he had come to gain so much respect in the evangelical community.

On Wednesday, March 24, Science and the Sacred featured the first of several video interviews with Dr. Waltke. In this video, Waltke discusses the danger that the Church will face if it does not engage with the world around it, in particular by acknowledging the overwhelming amount of data in support of biological evolution, which many evangelicals still reject. The original commentary for the video can be found here.

The video blog quickly became one of our most popular entries, and at the time of posting this update, it had received over 2,000 views and well over one hundred comments. On our YouTube channel, the video has been viewed an additional 2,900 times.

On Monday, March 29, Dr. Waltke informed us that the administration of RTS had asked him to request that the video be taken down. Dr. Waltke himself indicated that he still agreed with the content of the video. Indeed, Dr. Waltke has written previously on his support for theistic evolution (discussed here). However, given the brevity of the video, Dr. Waltke is concerned that his views might not be correctly understood.

For example, Dr. Waltke believes in a historical Adam and Eve, and was concerned that some might construe his appearance on our site as his own tacit approval for their non-historicity. In actuality, BioLogos does not take an official position on the historicity of Adam and Eve.

Dr. Waltke was also concerned that some might construe that he is not sufficiently supportive of those who think differently than he does on issues such as the age of the earth and evolution. He wanted to make it clear that this is not the case. As many of our readers know, we at BioLogos attest that the Young Earth position is not scientifically or theologically credible, and that the Intelligent Design movement has a reached a dead end. Nonetheless, we respect Dr. Waltke’s desire to make it clear that he thinks these views may be credible.

We had hoped that Dr. Waltke would support our proposal to keep the video posted, as long as a clear elaboration of his concerns was provided alongside it. After all, those who have seen the video will note that he is very articulate in presenting his thoughts, and he maintains that he still agrees with all that he said. But despite repeated attempts to find an alternative solution, it has become clear that Dr. Waltke feels that the only remedy to his predicament is to remove the video.

The BioLogos Foundation is aware of the inconvenience that this will cause for many viewers, especially at the peak of the video’s popularity. We are also aware that to make such a change is highly unusual by journalistic standards. Still, out of respect for Dr. Waltke, we are honoring his request to remove the video on at least a temporary basis.

The fact that Dr. Waltke felt he was unable to leave the video in place, despite the fact that he still agrees with its contents, is an extremely important statement about the culture of fear within evangelicalism in today’s world. Leading evangelicals who support evolution are rightly fearful of personal attacks on the integrity of their faith and character. Even when they believe that scientific data must be taken seriously, and that science has revealed the ways in which God created the world, they are more willing to be associated with those who are clearly wrong about God’s truth as revealed within His World, and who are thereby also wrong about how they understand His Word. How will the Church ever come to discern truth and falsehood if academic discourse is neutered for fears of public perception? This situation, before us, more than any that we are familiar with in the one year history of biologos.org, poignantly demonstrates the importance of the task we all have.

There are countless people, especially young people, who are discovering that the world of science is not out of touch with reality. Data emerge every day that make this even more clear. As Dr. Waltke himself says in the video, we cannot allow Christianity to become a cult––but this is what will happen if the Church continues to turn its head. When young people discover that neither the science they’ve been taught in their churches nor the theology that undergirds it are credible, many will feel they have to throw out their faith. For the sake of those countless young people, and for the sake of intellectual integrity, courage of conviction is required.

We Christians focus sometimes solely on protecting the past. We must also protect the future and prepare for it. We need to stand up to the forces that will harm our young people, even when others call on us to retreat. Dr. Waltke retains our respect in so many ways and we thank him for stating so clearly on his video what he believed then and still believes now.

We have now taken his excellent video down. Instead, we post here his statement of clarification, as delivered in email correspondence between the BioLogos Foundation and Dr. Waltke on Wednesday, March 31st. We understand that other versions of this list have already been circulated across the Internet. We also understand that RTS chose to distribute this list before an agreement had been reached with the BioLogos Foundation. We regret the confusion this action may have caused for our readers.

Dr. Bruce Waltke’s Statement of Clarification:

“I had not seen the video before it was distributed. Having seen it, I realize its deficiency and wish to put my comments in a fuller theological context:

  1. Adam and Eve are historical figures from whom all humans are descended; they are uniquely created in the image of God and as such are not in continuum with animals.

  2. Adam is the federal and historical head of the fallen human race just as Jesus Christ is the federal and historical head of the Church.

  3. I am not a scientist, but I have familiarized myself with attempts to harmonize Genesis 1-3 with science, and I believe that creation by the process of evolution is a tenable Biblical position, and, as represented by BioLogos, the best Christian apologetic to defend Genesis 1-3 against its critics.

  4. I apologize for giving the impression that others who seek to harmonize the two differently are not credible. I honor all who contend for the Christian faith.

  5. Evolution as a process must be clearly distinguished from evolutionism as a philosophy. The latter is incompatible with orthodox Christian theology.

  6. Science is fallible and subject to revision. As a human and social enterprise, science will always be in flux. My first commitment is to the infallibility (as to its authority) and inerrancy (as to its Source) of Scripture.

  7. God could have created the Garden of Eden with apparent age or miraculously, even as Christ instantly turned water into wine, but the statement that God “caused the trees to grow” argues against these notions.

  8. I believe that the Triune God is Maker and Sustainer of heaven and earth and that biblical Adam is the historical head of the human race.

  9. Theological comments made here are mostly a digest of my chapters on Genesis 1-3 in An Old Testament Theology (Zondervan, 2007).”

We sincerely hope these points of clarification will remove any confusion about Dr. Waltke’s position on biological evolution. We apologize to our readers for the inconvenience of removing this video.

As part of our email correspondence with Dr. Waltke and the administration of RTS, we have extended an invitation to engage in a dialogue with RTS regarding their concerns about the substance of this video, and any ways the video implies that Dr. Waltke’s beliefs differ from those of RTS. This page will be updated with further information as it becomes available.

Filed Under:
science, religion, evangelicals, Bruce Waltke, Genesis, creationism, evolution, Adam, Eve, theology, removal, video, Conversations, Reformed Theological Seminary, culture, creation

Share |

Comments (138)
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.


  1. Luke - #8274

    April 2nd 2010

    It is surely a sad day for evangelicals everywhere when attempts to integrate science and faith lead to such hostile reactions from people such as John MacArthur and Douglas Wilson. They are quick to criticise and make accusations that supporters of modern science have “ceased to speak with an evangelical voice on this issue; they’ve unwitting become the heralds of a naturalistic, rationalistic, and anti-Christian worldview.” However, I don’t see any of them on here engaging in meaningful dialogue.

  2. Ben Landrum - #8275

    April 2nd 2010

    Would it be possible to shoot another video, possibly with these clarifications (without making the video too long)?

  3. KM - #8276

    April 2nd 2010

    We’re at the beginning of a massive paradigm shift in evagelicalism with respect to science and in particular evolution. It is going to be painful and difficult. There has been so much preached and printed against evolution from an evangelical viewpoint that the shift will not happen quickly. I have no doubt people have and will lose their jobs and positions of influence because of this change.  But the shift will come, as it did in the geocentric debate 400 years ago.

    Just remember John 15:12: “This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you” (ESV)

  4. pds - #8278

    April 2nd 2010

    From the first time I saw it, I thought the video was somewhat misleading because of its brevity.  That is one reason I posted a link to a discussion of Dr. Waltke’s paper in which he called for genuine dialogue between TE and ID proponents.

    Unfortunately, Biologos has the reputation of being an ID bashing organization.  I am not sure how much Dr. Waltke realizes this.

  5. Carlos A. - #8279

    April 2nd 2010

    This feels like something out of the Inquisition, the middle ages. Interestingly, the Catholic church today does not deny evolution, because it does not read the bible literally. Hopefully evangelical churches will get to that point soon.

  6. RBH - #8280

    April 2nd 2010

    KM wrote

    I have no doubt people have and will lose their jobs and positions of influence because of this change. 

    People are already losing their jobs; recall Rick Colling, formerly of the biology department of Olivet Nazarene.

    This points up the central problem that is at the heart of religious disputes: There is no mutually agreed principled way of resolving those disputes, and so suppression (via either self-censorship or institutional censorship) inevitably come into play.  Sometimes the censorship is subtle, sometimes blatant.  Not infrequently it leads to schism, whether it is individual schism—the departure of a few disaffected individuals—or the separation of large numbers of disputants into factions within denominations and into competing offspring denominations.  The People’s Front of Judea vs. the Judean People’s Front vs. Judean Popular People’s Front is only a mild exaggeration.

    If BioLogos is to accomplish its goals it must first address the problem of conflict resolution in religious disputes.

  7. Jerry - #8281

    April 2nd 2010

    A respected evangelical like Waltke “comes out” as a theistic evolutionist. He can expect to get the 21st century version of what happened to Galileo to in turn, happen to him. Over the past 5 centuries, with respect to managing change, the church has not changed one bit. It can get nasty with zeal to protect the status quot. But there will be more and more leaders who will follow Waltke in this and that will be a good thing.

  8. Russell Roberts - #8284

    April 2nd 2010

    RTS has a vested interested in taking away the keys of knowledge. They have made their choice. The contrast of RTS with Dr. Enns, who willingly sacrificed his occupation to speak the truth is remarkable. In Enns we see the image of a God who went to the cross to be obedient to the Father. I hope Waltke grows bold in the Holy Spirit and reconsiders.

  9. Gregory - #8285

    April 2nd 2010

    “In actuality, BioLogos does not take an official position on the historicity of Adam and Eve.” - BioLogos summary

    Should we then expect in the future a *pro-historical* Adam and Eve video or article or series to help provide some balance to Dr. Pete Enns’ recent multi-part series of *anti-historical* Adam and Eve writings, so that BioLogos can indeed reflect the ‘no-position’ position expressed above?

    Waltke clarifies:
    “Adam and Eve are historical figures from whom all humans are descended”

    Those at BioLogos who pro-evolution (as is Waltke along with most of us who visit the site), but who are anti-historical A&E simply have to eat this correction.

    “Evolution as a process must be clearly distinguished from evolutionism as a philosophy.” - Waltke

    This needs to be done more clearly at B-L. TEs and ECs fail at this distinguishing for obvious reasons. B-L has an opportunity to define new territory, going beyond the failures of TE and EC.

  10. pds - #8291

    April 2nd 2010

    “This feels like something out of the Inquisition.”

    “the 21st century version of what happened to Galileo”

    Wow.  Quite a lot of overheated rhetoric in the comments.  RTS apparently asked him to give “a fuller theological context.”

    Waltke stated:

    “I had not seen the video before it was distributed. Having seen it, I realize its deficiency and wish to put my comments in a fuller theological context.”

    Does Waltke believe that or is he lying and violating his conscience?  I guess we can look forward to more “RTS bashing.”

    This is nothing compared to what ID proponents have endured.  Are we going to discuss the “culture of fear” among scientists who support ID?

  11. Mike Gene - #8292

    April 2nd 2010

    RBH:

    This points up the central problem that is at the heart of religious disputes: There is no mutually agreed principled way of resolving those disputes, and so suppression (via either self-censorship or institutional censorship) inevitably come into play.

    As opposed to the manner in which the atheist accomodationists and New Atheists have resolved their heated disputes with science over the years. LOL!  Haven’t you guys figured out that Michael Ruse’s recent series of essays are not all that different from Waltke’s actions?

  12. Wyatt Roberts - #8297

    April 2nd 2010

    “Leading evangelicals who ‘support’ evolution?” Might I suggest rewording this? I believe evolution is true, accept it as fact, but I do not “support” it in any meaningful sense of the word.

  13. Bilbo - #8303

    April 2nd 2010

    “In actuality, Biologos does not take an official position on the historicity of Adam and Eve.”

    So we should attribute Biologos’ concern to re-interpret the doctrine of the Fall to ...?

    YECs don’t think their position is dead.  Until somebody offers a plausible theory for the origin of life, IDists won’t consider their position dead.  TEs and ECs don’t consider their position dead. I suggest that the most useful thing Biologos could do would be to work for unity, despite our differences.  I don’t consider the people here to be heretics or fools.  Just mistaken about some of the facts of natural history.  And that’s not enough to prevent me from having fellowship with them.  I suggest we all strive for that same attitude.

  14. pds - #8304

    April 2nd 2010

    Did either side propose posting the entire video uncut, instead of the brief clip that Biologos liked?

  15. swe - #8305

    April 2nd 2010

    PDS,

    Cool your jets.

  16. pds - #8328

    April 3rd 2010

    To clarify my comment in #8291, I asked:

    “Does Waltke believe that or is he lying and violating his conscience?”

    I personally think Waltke is sincere.  My question is directed to various comments such as #8284:

    “I hope Waltke grows bold in the Holy Spirit and reconsiders.”

    Reconsiders what?  He did not retract any of his statements or convictions.  He repeated his affirmation of his version of TE, but gave it more context.

  17. pds - #8329

    April 3rd 2010

    swe,

    Cool my jets?  Should I have not asked that question?

  18. Darrel Falk - #8331

    April 3rd 2010

    It is important that we make one point very clear.  Although BioLogos does not take an official position on the historicity of Adam and Eve, we do take a firm position on the scientific fact that two people could not have been the genetic progenitors of all humankind (see Monday’s upcoming post.).

    So what do we mean by saying we don’t take an official position on the historicity of Adam and Eve?  Some believe that Adam and Eve were the first spiritual progenitors of humankind.  See N.T. Wright’s BioLogos video on Adam and Eve, for example.  Others hold a view more akin to what Alister McGrath presented in Wednesday’s Test of Faith video. 

    Science doesn’t help us to decide between these two possibilities.  The data is silent.

    But Adam and Eve as the genetic progenitors of humankind?  No.  On this the data is very clear.

    Have a Blessed Easter,

    Darrel

  19. RJS - #8339

    April 3rd 2010

    John Stott has an section in his commentary on Romans entitled “The historicity and death of Adam” (p. 162-166). Stott finds that “the narrative itself warrants no dogmatism about the six days of creation, since its form and style suggest that it is meant as literary art, not scientific description.” He also finds it likely that the snake and trees are meant to be understood symbolically in Gen 2-3.  He holds to the historicity of the original human pair 6000-10,000 years ago largely because of the genealogies (esp. Luke 3)—- but not in the sense most think.  He does not deny any of our scientific findings - and will even accede to the possibility (probability) that creation from dust is a Biblical way of saying that God breathed his divine image into an already existing hominoid. But…

    “The vital truth we cannot surrender is that, though our bodies are related to the primates, we ourselves in our fundamental identity are related to God.”(p. 164)

    In Stott’s discussion Adam’s “federal” headship extended outwards to his contemporaries and onwards to his descendants. The idea of other humans in other parts of the globe is not a problem as Stott describes it.

  20. RJS - #8340

    April 3rd 2010

    I think that Stott relies too much on the historicity of the biblical genealogies including Luke 3. I don’t hold to a the historicity of a unique pair living 6000-10000 years ago. Exactly how one should consider adam as an individual or not is a real conundrum we must deal with ... but without Christ our status is “sinner,”  through Christ and Christ alone we are now justified. This we hold fast.

    Is Stott’s view an acceptable one?  I think Pete would say it does not do justice to the intent of Paul ... but is the intent of Paul really the point - or can God use Paul despite his first century perspective to convey a theological truth?

    How we reconcile the incontrovertible data with the unfailing testimony of God’s story told in scripture is a key issue - and an issue that can only be faced head on through open dialog trusting in - as Dr. Waltke said in the now pulled video - the providence of God in all of history.

    (Your character limit is annoying 2500 might be a better compromise)

  21. Rich - #8351

    April 3rd 2010

    Mr. Falk (8331):

    Suppose, for the sake of argument, that someone asserted that Adam and Eve lived, not 6,000 years ago, but 150,000 years ago, or, if you wish, 1.5 million years ago, or any other number that you please, in light of our best data on the first appearance of hominids.  Could there then have been an Adam and Eve, by which would be meant a first human couple, from which all currently living human beings have descended?  Or does the genetic data rule that out, too?

    What I am getting at is:  is the “scientific” problem with Adam and Eve not that 6,000 years ago is way too late for a first human couple, but that the idea of a first human couple, the ancestor of all modern human beings, is itself untenable?  If it is the latter, can you give us two short, non-technical paragraphs explaining why?

  22. Darrel Falk - #8357

    April 3rd 2010

    Rich (8351),

    Dennis Venema and I try to do just that on Monday.  We’ve had to do it in about eight paragraphs, but we’ve tried to summarize in a manner that doesn’t get too technical.  See what you think.

  23. Erp - #8361

    April 3rd 2010

    There are plenty of human couples in history from whom all current humans are descended.  There is no human couple who are the sole ancestors.  Their children only partnered with their brothers and sisters and grandchildren only with their siblings and first cousins, and so on.  As soon as some married outside the lineage other ancestors would exist.

    If there had been there would be evidence of a severe genetic bottleneck (Homo sapiens may have had some genetic bottleneck [species cut perhaps to 10,000 individuals] perhaps some 50,000 to 100,000 years ago but this is debated). 

    The following has a brief description of bottlenecks
    http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/bottlenecks_01

  24. pds - #8364

    April 3rd 2010

    Darrel,

    You say

    “we do take a firm position on the scientific fact that two people could not have been the genetic progenitors of all humankind.”

    What evidence do you think specifically establishes this as a “fact”?  Please be specific.  I have heard people make general reference to “the genetic evidence.”  I would like to know the specific evidence and your specific logical reasoning that allows you to assert this as a “fact.”

    Thanks.

  25. pds - #8372

    April 3rd 2010

    Darrel,

    Looks like you are going to answer at least some of our questions on Monday.  Thanks.  Here is a more specific question:

    Waltke has stated that God “by direct creation made ADAM a spiritual being, an image of divine beings, for fellowship with himself by faith.”  It also seems possible that God intervened in human history to specially create or affect other human beings.

    If God did what Waltke and others believe he did, how would this have affected the genetic evidence?  How would this affect the certainty of the historical conclusions we could draw from the genetic evidence?

  26. Gregory - #8378

    April 3rd 2010

    “Although BioLogos does not take an official position on the historicity of Adam and Eve, we do take a firm position on the scientific fact that two people could not have been the genetic progenitors of all humankind” - Darrel Falk

    So then, as far as natural, spiritual and cultural histories go, we are faced with a situation wherein there *could have been* an historical Adam and Eve, while at the same time accepting that “two people could not have been the genetic progenitors of all humankind.” Even if several BioLogos figures are leaning toward an anti-historical position, they simply cannot close the door that Adam and Eve could have been ‘real’. This is significant to note in terms of a lack of certainty.

    If BioLogos wants to be consistent with the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christian churches on this topic, then adopting the historical possibility of physical, real, flesh and blood, willful, storytelling, choosing Adam and Eve sounds like a good option. Why cater to Protestant splinters on this crucial issue?

    p.s. saying ‘the genetic evidence’ is just a subset of appealing to ‘evidence’ in general. Who’s to say that ‘genetic evidence’ is more powerful than other types of ‘evidence’ about Adam and Eve?

  27. Darrel Falk - #8380

    April 3rd 2010

    pds,  8372

    This fits into the same category of question as, if God made the earth in six 24 hour days, 6,000 years ago, what characteristics would you expect it to have? The answer is that it could have whatever qualities that God wanted to endow it with….including embedding into it all the qualities required to make it look like it was 4.5 billion years old when it was really only 6,000 years old.  I’m not sure we gain anything by posing those sorts of questions, but it is because we *can* pose them, that few things are known with 100.00 percent certainty.  We need to settle for something less for that very reason.  Is not this one of Dr. Benner’s chief points in the various posts he has made (and will continue to make) on this site?

    Wishing you a blessed Easter, pds,

    Darrel

  28. pds - #8396

    April 3rd 2010

    Darrel,

    Thanks for the quick reply.  There is a big difference.  Allowing for God to intervene in biological history is very different than insisting on the whole YEC agenda.  Defending your position by lumping the two will not convince many people.

    You used the phrase “scientific fact” about an historical event that happened long, long ago.  Then you acknowledged “few things are known with 100.00 percent certainty.”  The boiling point of water at sea level is a fact.  Your claim that “two people could not have been the genetic progenitors of all humankind” is not a fact but your inference to the best historical explanation based on the scientific evidence that we have now.  Your confidence in it seems to be based in part on heavily naturalistic assumptions that many Christians do not share.

    Your claim that it is a “scientific fact” shows a clear error in your scientific methodology or your scientific reasoning or both.  It is quite simply bad science.  Christians would do well not to make such errors in evaluating the evidence and in evaluating the certainty that we can have based on the evidence.

    I wish you a very happy Easter as well.

  29. Unapologetic Catholic - #8397

    April 3rd 2010

    Thank you for confirming the science.

    “Could there then have been an Adam and Eve, by which would be meant a first human couple, from which all currently living human beings have descended?  Or does the genetic data rule that out, too?”

    Yes, but the answer cannot be faily set forth in the limits of a blog.  The extemely short answer is that a bottleneck of two indivuals would create a clear genetic marker that in humans does not exist.  It does exist on other species known to descend from just two indviduals.  Onthis suubject I recommend “The tears of the Cheetah.”  Cheetahs show the signs of an extreme bottlekneck and the book explaisn why that is signficant and how such bottelknecks are detected.

  30. Unapologetic Catholic - #8407

    April 3rd 2010

    PDS,

    You missed the point.

    You earlier asked: “If God did what Waltke and others believe he did, how would this have affected the genetic evidence? “

    Two very serious questions for you to illustrate the point being made:

    1.  If God created Adam did He create Adam with the same genentically caused inability to absorb vitamin C as all other humans?

    2.  Did God create Adam with a belly button?

    The answers to these questions demostrates why this statement is accurate:

    “This fits into the same category of question as, if God made the earth in six 24 hour days, 6,000 years ago, what characteristics would you expect it to have? {it coudl ahve had] it all the qualities required to make it look like it was 4.5 billion years old when it was really only 6,000 years old”

    If God created Adam with a navel, a vitamin C deficency and other common human genetic defects then He created Adam “with the appearance of decent” from parents and that event would not be detectible just as the YEC “appearance of age” cannot be detected.  If, on the other hand, He did not create Adam with a genetic heritage, including a navel and vitaimin C deficiency, then that event would be detectible.

  31. pds - #8426

    April 3rd 2010

    UC,

    My main point is that Darrel is making a claim about historical events.  This is in the realm of history or historical science, so the methodology and epistemology must reflect that.  It is not the same kind of “science” as operational sciences with repeatable, observable data.

    If he is taking current genetic data and extrapolating back, he can draw inferences to the best explanation.  But such inferences will depend on a whole host of assumptions.

    You give 2 scenarios.  There are in fact thousands of possible scenarios of how God might have done it.  All the variations will affect how detectable it will be.

    The big question in my mind is this:  if God did intervene like Waltke believes, how would that have affected the genetic record?  We don’t know.  Even if the intervention only tweaked the genetic record, that would throw off extrapolations based on the current genetic record.  And it does not require any assertion that God was trying fool us.

  32. Unapologetic Catholic - #8452

    April 3rd 2010

    ” We don’t know.”

    But that’s the point you’re missing and why you didn’t answer my questions. 

    We do know what the genetic record looks like.  The genetic record looks exactly like it would look if all humans had ancestors.  There are no “extrapolations” being made.  Certain primates don’t make vitamin C very well and must supplement their diet.  That deficiency is pretty well fixed in time, and all descendants from that event suffer from the same deficiency.  There are numerous similar events in genetic history placing any individual in the chain of ancestry to the present day. 

    There is no evidence of any human born without a navel or any of the other inherited genetic markers for homo sapiens such as vitamin C deficency.  If God specially created Adam, He did so in a way that Adam’s DNA looked just like all other humans—inherited.  Maybe God didn’t intend to fool us, but His creation of Adam left no different mark on the genetic record that His creation of you and me. 

    I suspect God created Adam the same way He created us.  Could He have done it differently? Certainly.  It does not appear that He chose to do so.

  33. eddy - #8577

    April 4th 2010

    “We need to stand up to the forces that will harm our young people, even when others call on us to retreat.”

    This is a strange statement to read from BioLogists. “Protecting young people”, really? Liberal thinking that has historically proved to be dangerous to the Church is what BioLogists think is going to protect young people, uh?

    FYI, some of us here who believes A&E are real historical progenitors of all human races are also young people (I’m just 27 yrs old), and we can easily discern your efforts display blatant destructive ethos to those young people you claim to be protecting.

  34. eddy - #8582

    April 4th 2010

    What I;m trying to figure out really is this thing that why according to the Evolutionary theory humanity could not have descended from two individuals?

    Some people say we descended by birth from populations and not individuals. Certainly those populations that we descended also descended from another populations and even when regress back more so, cant we reach to a point where we can get two individuals?

    Some one also said this “The extemely short answer is that a bottleneck of two indivuals would create a clear genetic marker that in humans does not exist.  It does exist on other species known to descend from just two indviduals.”


    So by any means, it is quite possible to for humans to descend from two individuals. Just that we cannot detect the bottleneck effect in us that we see in other animals that descended from two individuals. Could it be that God performed a miracle to erase that bottleneck effect just as He performed a Easter miracle? Or BioLogists no longer believes God can intervene in Nature?

  35. Ben Landrum - #8611

    April 4th 2010

    Mike, can you explain away the large amount of evidence supporting evolution?  If you really think it is necessary to reject evolution in order to be a real Christian, please do so on scientific grounds.  Otherwise, the world will NOT be convinced.  From a scientific background, I can assure you that this is the case.  Also, I believe evolution has occurred and is still occurring, but I’m considering going to seminary one day, so I’d be upset if they all shut down.  grin

  36. Nick Matzke - #8614

    April 4th 2010

    “Some one also said this “The extemely short answer is that a bottleneck of two indivuals would create a clear genetic marker that in humans does not exist.  It does exist on other species known to descend from just two indviduals.””

    The short version of the what the “marker” is: each individual can only contain 2 alleles at any given gene (because each gene exists in 2 copies, one on each set of chromosomes in the diploid individual).  Two individuals = 4 possible alleles for each gene.  All their descendents will contain only those 4 alleles (probably fewer as some will be lost by random drift).  Mutation can create new alleles, but this is a very slow process.  The human population, though, e.g. at iimmune system genes, has thousands of different alleles for certain genes.

    “So by any means, it is quite possible to for humans to descend from two individuals. Just that we cannot detect the bottleneck effect in us that we see in other animals that descended from two individuals. Could it be that God performed a miracle to erase that bottleneck effect just as He performed a Easter miracle? Or BioLogists no longer believes God can intervene in Nature?”

  37. Nick Matzke - #8615

    April 4th 2010

    This argument is exactly analogous to saying that God miraculously made the Earth look old, even though it’s really actually 6,000 years old.  Sure, it’s hypothetically possible if a miracle-worker exists.  But it’s a completely unconstrained explanation, it can be invoked to explain away any data whatsoever, and definitely has to be excluded from science.

  38. Mike Gendron - #8620

    April 4th 2010

    Ben, Scientific evidence once convinced alot of people of global warning, then we found out the scientists were fabricating their data. It was all a hoax tio create a political movement. Environmentalists and their liberal friends can use it to attack oil and coal companies. They can use it to attack current forms of fossil fuel energy production and push renewable energy sources. Contrast that scientific hoax with God’s holy infallible, inerrant, supremely authoritative word which declares the account of creation to be objective truth. Why would any Christian deny what God has revealed? Why would any Christian support scientific data which directly opposes and nullifies God’s creation?

  39. Doug E - #8635

    April 4th 2010

    Mike - if one accepts a “literal historic” interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2, how does one then reconcile “thou shalt not kill” with the 87 times that God commanded that people should be put to death for things such as adultery, for not honoring parents, etc?  What about Jesus teaching re divorce, about money, about plucking out eyes and cutting off hands, and so on?

  40. Ben Landrum - #8642

    April 5th 2010

    Mike, I’d have to say that I disagree that evolutionary science nullifies God’s creation.  That’s what (I think) is great about BioLogos.  We’re a group of committed Christians willing to wrestle with the theological challenges of very compelling science.

    From somebody inside the research world, trust me that there are some bad eggs that fabricate data (like the climate scientists you refer to).  Episodes like this ruin faith in the scientific enterprise (just as sex scandals damage the image of the church).  But most scientists are not schemers trying to ruin orthodox Christian faith; they’re normal people like you and me doing often mundane things in order to better understand, for example, the development of fruit fly embryos.

    You may never accept that evolution occurred, but please be patient with us here as we try to work through what evolution means for Christianity (at least for ourselves).  If you can demonstrate that evolution is a big lie, you’d get nothing short of a Nobel Prize (and we won’t need BioLogos)!

  41. Don Huebner - #8651

    April 5th 2010

    Actually, the genetic bottleneck occurs with Noah and his sons, not Adam. Here we have 4 humans with the same Y chromosome from which all of us guys have descended. Since there are only about 200 generations since then, the current variation among Y chromosomes vastly exceeds what is expected. Indeed, it predicts derivation from about 70,000 years ago. In addition, all of the genetic diseases would have to have come from the 8 individuals on the ark. Again, this would have required mutation rates vastly beyond anything noted. Yes, God could have performed any miracles to provide this appearance. But why would he do it unless he wanted to deceive us?

  42. eddy - #8662

    April 5th 2010

    “This argument is exactly analogous to saying that God miraculously made the Earth look old, even though it’s really actually 6,000 years old.  Sure, it’s hypothetically possible if a miracle-worker exists. 

    Nick, I do agree with almost everything you have said there.

    “But it’s a completely unconstrained explanation, it can be invoked to explain away any data whatsoever, and definitely has to be excluded from science.”

    My only problem is for BioLogists who claim to be christians (and I believe they are) to interprete every piece of information based on purely naturalistic assumptions and using only materialistic methods to explain Christianity.  Christianity, from its foundation, is not based on strict naturalism. Science, as being performed nowadays, tries to eliminate every trace of supernaturalism and miracle working ability of the deity the BioLogists claim to believe in. But BioLogists cannot to have it both ways without coming out as oddballs of either side. They must weigh where their loyalty lies and, if they want be perceived in any meaningful sense, they must make a consistent decision about these things.

  43. Richard Colling - #8675

    April 5th 2010

    RBH,  thanks for remembering. 

    You said:
    If BioLogos is to accomplish its goals it must first address the problem of conflict resolution in religious disputes.
    —-
    Good point, but in the current culture, a very difficult challenge.

    As seen here and elsewhere, Christian scientists and theologians can attempt to communicate peace regarding evolution, but some creationists in the church only want war;  and they will do all in their power to destroy those who do not see things their way. I sincerely hope Dr. Waltke does not become another casualty of the creationists. 

    Dr Waltke’s clarifications are noble and generous, but he should be aware that there is no appeasing creationist critics.  Rick

  44. John - #8676

    April 5th 2010

    When opposition to evolution and global warming are coupled, I tend to believe that the position is either Republican or generic anti-science, not something based on the Bible.  I would bet my next month’s paycheck that most people who don’t believe in evolution and global warming also find a scriptural basis to oppose health care reform.

  45. Bryan Elliott - #8680

    April 5th 2010

    “Why Must the Church Come to Accept Evolution?”

    Because it’s real and demonstrable.  It’s like asking “Why Must the Church Come to Accept Radio Waves?”, or “Why Must the Church Come to Accept the Heliocentric Model?”

    Oh, sorry, I forgot - it didn’t for a very long time.

  46. pds - #8683

    April 5th 2010

    Don #8651,

    You said,

    “Yes, God could have performed any miracles to provide this appearance. But why would he do it unless he wanted to deceive us?”

    Does God heal?  What if a man prays that God will heal his wife’s breast cancer, and God responds by tweaking her BRCA genes?  What if the first humans lived 200,000 years ago, and God tweaked human genes once every 200 years to heal in answer to prayer?  That would mean 1000 changes to the human genes.  How would that affect our current calculations?  What if God intervened 5 times each year?  Now we are at a million changes.

    If God does things out of his love, and there are SIDE EFFECTS that affect the human gene pool, God is not deceiving us.  We are deceiving ourselves by having too small an understanding of God and his work in history.  Job 38 is instructive.

    (cont.)

  47. pds - #8684

    April 5th 2010

    (cont.)

    Darrel said, “we do take a firm position on the scientific fact that two people could not have been the genetic progenitors of all humankind.”

    I stand by my statement that this is bad science.  It also seems to involve bad history, bad theology or bad logic, or all of the above.  I have never seen anyone at Biologos articulate the proper methodology for the historical sciences as well has Stephen Meyer has.

    Nick and Don, do you agree with Darrel that his position is a “scientific fact”?

  48. Maurizio - #8705

    April 5th 2010

    I appreciate the work of Biologos and all of the contributors.

    Here’s a scenario. A respected scientist who is a committed Christian in his or her own field. Pick one - genetics, biology, geology, etc. goes out and does scientific reasearch in a specific topic. He/she spends years testing, evaluating, sharing his data with his peers and from all those years of study and testing concludes based on the DATA and EVIDENCE before him that (pick one of the following:)

    1. Humans share a common ancestor with primates
    2. The universe is billions of years old
    3. The fossil record shows that there was not a worldwide flood.
    etc, etc…

    etc, etc.

    Does this scientist now have to completely reject the data because when he/she turns to the Bible, it contradicts the Biblical record? What if this happend across the world? Can you even imagine a scenario like this?

  49. David Wood - #8724

    April 5th 2010

    As a student at RTS-Orlando, and fan of BioLogos I am deeply saddened by two realities:

    First, on the part of BioLogos, that it would post a video of such brevity that it fails to include a fuller theological context for Dr. Waltke’s views, and takes unfair advantage of his lack of familiarity with social media (“sound bites”).

    Second, with RTS, ... See Morethat it would become involved in this conversation in such a heavy-handed way as to give the appearance of “censoring” Dr. Waltke’s words.
    This is truly a sad day for the evangelical world.

  50. Unapologetic Catholic - #8746

    April 5th 2010

    “Nick and Don, do you agree with Darrel that his position is a “scientific fact”?”

    Of course he does, and Nick did a very good job of explaining why that is so. 

    Why do you continue to ignore the several explanations offered to you?

    Can you send me to the reference where Stephen Meyer explains why all humanity descended from one couple?

  51. John Warren - #8815

    April 5th 2010

    “BioLogos does not take an official
    position on the historicity of Adam and Eve.”
    Does Biologos take an official position that Jesus knew what He was talking about?

  52. John Warren - #8976

    April 6th 2010

    Well said, TEC. In the words of C. S. Lewis, “Whence comes the Innovator’s authority to pick and choose?”

  53. Bob Wetmore - #8979

    April 7th 2010

    I was really shocked as I read through all of these comments to the complete disregard of the entire concept of salvation history in the Bible.  To deny Adam and Eve as real people is to deny the salvation historical plan of God as revealed in the Scriptures.  Adam’s role is not only the father of the human race but he also serves as our head, so that in Paul’s theology those who are born of women are “in Adam.”  If we deny the first Adam and the biblical fact that his action plunged the earth into depravity, disease and corruption, why on earth would anyone see the second Adam (Jesus Christ) as historical?  I don’t understand how you can talk about faith without history, which for Christianity is the core of faith.

  54. Tim Patterson - #8999

    April 7th 2010

    .”..we at BioLogos attest that the Young Earth position is not scientifically or theologically credible,”

    What you at BioLogos attest is so sad to hear.  And I believe it must be so sad for our LORD to hear.  The Young Earth position is indeed the biblical position.  And since it is biblical it is scientifically credible.

    “and that the Intelligent Design movement has a reached a dead end.” 

    I certainly agree with you on this.  The ID movement is not based on the Scriptures so it does indeed lack little foundation.

  55. Camille K. Lewis - #9057

    April 7th 2010

    All of us who have gotten fired from conservative Evangelical institutions for exercising our academic freedoms *within* the bounds of orthodoxy need to start a club. It’s just sick how often this happens.

  56. Rich - #9063

    April 7th 2010

    Camille K (9057):

    I don’t understand your point.  If a conservative seminary or college sets forth clearly what views it shall allow to be taught, and what views it shall not allow to be taught, and then fires someone for stepping outside of the boundaries, I see no problem with this—from a contractual or institutional point of view, I mean.  The institution has not broken any promise to the teacher, and is honoring the wishes of the parents who send their kids there expecting a certain doctrine to be upheld.

    It would be different if the institution promised greater intellectual freedom than it in practice allowed.  For example, if an institution promised freedom to all variations on Protestant theology, but then fired someone for being Arminian, due to the influence of a powerful Calvinist faction on the board of governors, that would be wrong.  But anyone who thinks she has the right to say there was no historical Adam in an institution saturated in the traditional interpretation of Paul is only deceiving herself. 

    If you want intellectual freedom in the interpretation of the Bible, teach in a secular university.  You’ll be allowed to say anything you want about Adam there.

  57. Jeff Setzer - #9093

    April 8th 2010

    It continues to amaze me how that the “emperor’s clothes” is still being “seen” to exist, when they, in fact, do NOT.  The more people who affirm that they DO exist place pressure on the “wafflers” who cannot decide whether or not to go along wih the game.  Macro-evolution HAS no evidence, as is affirmed by some evolutionists themselves (e.g. Colin Paterson) who admit the total lack of evidences.  As a child recognized that the emperor had no clothes, it must take an unbiased observer to point out to the crowd the obvious:  Evolution has no clothes!  It is naked, unscientific, unproveable, non-factual and faith-based, human-generated BIAS that has come to be called “science” by so many when it is NOT within the realm of true science, for it canNOT fit even the basics of the scientific method of being observeable, testable, or repeatable.  I pity those who continue to trust its nakedness as factual.

  58. Rosedale - #9100

    April 8th 2010

    It is sad that academic freedom is lost because of untold fears this topic represents. Evolution never was a threat to Christianity. It is like they invented a ghost and continually run away in fear from their own creation. Perhaps one day evangelicals will learn that an interpretation of the Bible is not sacred and should not dictate their science.

  59. Rich - #9135

    April 8th 2010

    Rosedale (9100):

    I don’t see that academic freedom an issue regarding evolution or a historical Adam or any other subject on which a seminary professor might have an opinion.  Christian denominations, by their very nature, are committed to dogmatic positions, and academic freedom, by its very nature, demands the right to question even the most sacrosanct dogmas.  You don’t have to read Calvin or Luther for very long before you realize that they didn’t give two figs for academic freedom, but only for the right to enforce their truth against others’ falsehoods.  They denied to the Anabaptists the right of criticism they claimed for themselves, which shows how deeply they were committed to academic freedom as such.  Thus, I find the appeal to “academic freedom” very odd.  If you want academic freedom in the interpretation of the Bible, don’t teach in a conservative seminary, teach in a secular religion department.  Then you can say that evolution is true and that there was no historical Adam.  But if conservative churchgoing folk are paying your salary, you have to accept the fact that he who pays the piper calls the tune.

  60. Scott - #9185

    April 8th 2010

    Oh what a surprise! Evangelicals sliding further to the left while trying to look good in two camps-the scientific and the Scriptural. Lets see this has been going on with that name since about 1948 right? Why so-called Christians are forced to preclude their faith by adherence to worldly wisdom has been a question since the first mention of the likes of Demas. Call us naive, Fundamentalists, anti-scientific, whatever you may, but we won’t be trying to appeal to Scripture for evolution. To show God causing trees to grow for their evolutionary process is sadly without any expository merit. Dr. Waltke may be respected by men but it is God that he must show his faith to not them. It will not take a video to show the holes in his beliefs at the last trumpet call. Perhaps you can appeal to the growth of trees to show God how sincerely you learned of evolution as a Biblical doctrine? I mean we all know without the Bible evolution wouldn’t be understood at all.

  61. Roger D. McKinney - #9314

    April 9th 2010

    “Waltke points out that to deny scientific reality would be to deny the truth of God in the world.”

    Why do Christians insist that the theory of evolution has overwhelming scientific support and that there is no disagreement among scientists on the issue? There used to be a good debate among scientists on evolution. Roger Lewin, a devout evolutionist,  wrote “Bones of Contention” to demonstrate the lack of scientific evidence for the theory. Scientists achieved a type of consensus on the issue through an inquisition of their own. That was the point of Philip Johnson’s series of books (Darwin on Trial) and Ben Stein’s film “Expelled—No Intelligence Allowed.” An inquisition against anyone who even doubts the theory of evolution has been going on in universities for decades. Why don’t evangelicals who are so concerned about science deplore that?

    Theistic evolutionists attribute far more evidence and consistancy to the theory than do actual scientists. Why is that?

  62. Glenn - #9331

    April 9th 2010

    As to the topic of theistic evolution…it is an oxymoron.

    To expand on what someone else here said; ‘Micro evolution’ is small changes within a kind (ie dogs. all those different breeds, but they are all still dogs or the finches beaks of Darwin fame, changes in the beaks, but still all finches); micro evolution is scientific, observable and testable.

    Macro evolution, which postulates one kind turning into another completely different kind - ie reptiles into birds, is not scientific, observable or testable. There is no, repeat, no evidence whatsoever anywhere that supports or demonstrates macro evolution in any way size shape or form.
    Darwin himself recognised and commented on the complete lack of said evidence, but he assumed that it would turn up in the future, well here we are in the future and still no evidence at all.

    The usual ‘bait & switch’ used by evolutionists is to point to micro evolution and say “look, there is evidence for evolution”, but they include macro evolution in that statement.

    We have got so used to ‘Billions’ of years being bandied about that some have lost sight of the fact that 6000+ years is very old

  63. GlennG - #9491

    April 11th 2010

    I think it rather amazing that Dr. Waltke would move in this direction when there is a clear trend among even hard-core Darwinists to question the whole macro-evolution as capable of producing transitions between various life forms, simply because there is no means of producing ever-more complex sets of information (DNA), which in all other endeavors we would immediately recognize as being the product of intelligence.

  64. john walsh - #9500

    April 11th 2010

    DID SOMEONE REALLY SAY THAT INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS DEAD?????????

    I am convinced that in the next 20 years it will be the primary position due to evidence disproving the chance element of origins!!!

  65. Humblesmith - #9597

    April 13th 2010

    I urge everyone in this debate to take thier positions slowly and carefully. As a student of church history, several times over the centuries Christians have taken positions that were designed to harmonize Christianity with the current perceptions of the world. They thought they were doing good, thought they were helping to save Christianity. But in the end, they did more damage to the cause of Christ than they ever imagined.  Those of us who are apologists are still trying to undo what damage was done in theology and philosophy over the last 300 years.

    We should never shy away from honest intellectual inquiry. But remember: both science and theology attempt to explain the truth about the real world. Sometimes theology is wrong, sometimes science is wrong. If we add up how many times each has been wrong over the last 300 years, I’ll take theology any day of the week. At any point in history, the classic doctrines of our faith have held up much greater than the current views of science. My college astronomy text is not even a good doorstop, let alone good for study any longer.

  66. Trevor K. Part 1. - #9623

    April 13th 2010

    I guess I just have to repeat the statement here:

    Who do you believe? The unerring, infallible God or sinful, wicked and fallible Man?

    The REAL issue is why you choose to believe in evolution in the first place. The bible is quite clear on this issue: Exodus 20:11 addresses man’s obedience to six days of labour and in the same breath equates those exact six days with God’s creation of heaven and earth and all that in them is.
    There can be no dispute, it is as clear as daylight - six literal days for man = six literal days for God. The context is pin-sharp, clear and totally unambigious.

    To top it all - Moses says that GOD wrote those words himself on a tablet of stone. So believing in evolution with it’s millions/billions of years quite clearly contradicts GOD himself.

    It comes down to who will you believe?  Who is your authority?
    God’s word in which He gives an eye-witness account of what occurred at creation, or man’s fallible, speculation of things he had no part in?

    Get the basics right, then there’s no need to worry about Adam and Eve. God said they’re real so believe God, not man

    Continued below….

  67. Trevor K. Part 2. - #9624

    April 13th 2010

    For those who feel that Science contradicts the bible - please get your ducks in a row. Operational science does NOT contradict the bible. Historical/Forensic science as understood by evolutionary theory does. Why? Because it’s man’s opinion/interpretation of what the actual facts represent. In this case it’s the age of the earth as inferred from the ratios of parent and daughter products of radiometry.  evolution NEEDS deep time, without it, it is lost. Hence the NEED to have the age of the earth be 4.5 billion years.
    How do you create an earth without those daughter products already in place? It’s simply impossible - but this is what evolutionary thinking would like you to believe - that there was none. If you go further - where does the parent element come from in the first place?
    According to Big Bang theory it was created in a super-nova event - because it couldn’t be created in the star’s normal lifecycle - which only delivers iron.
    But surely that same event would have created daughter products as well?  Oh, and so by the way, it’s sheer speculation as to how those elements get created - take it on pure faith [ sound like religion already?]

    Continued Below…

  68. Trevor K. Part 3. - #9625

    April 13th 2010

    Take it also on pure faith that the earth got created by the bombardment/collisions of rock and meteorites etc. Go and examine the physics involved [energy transfer, momentum, the works] - totally impossible speculation. It really is poor science.
    It’s far more plausible to believe that a super-intelligent being put earth together the way it is. And remember - age of rocks are inferred based on the assumptions made. Ratios tell you absolutely nothing about the age of the earth, only that there are ratios between measured amounts of elements.
    As for evidence for evolution - which evidence? Fossils? Speciation? Which evolution are you talking about? Molecules to man or adaptation and speciation within a Kind?
    If the former, you’d be extremely hard pressed to find transitional fossils - there are NONE, ZERO, ZIPPO, NADA, NOTHING. And that is a FACT. So eat it and rub your shirt on your stomach.

  69. Trevor K. - #9627

    April 13th 2010

    Refer:  Bryan Elliott - #8680

    The Roman Catholic church at that time was influenced by Aristotle’s geocentrism - bad science. And THAT is what they held onto. Galileo was a God-fearing man, not a secular scientist seeking his own way. He was trying to enlighten church leaders who had gone astray because the bible does not in any place teach that the earth is the centre of the universe. They were holding onto secular ideas and philosophies.

    So in effect the same kind of thing is happening today : The secular philopsophy of evolution is insiduously creeeping in as science and anyone who dares to question it faces the inquisition. Whilst it’s quite clear from God’s word that there’s no place for billions of years. Who do you believe? God or Man?

  70. Merv - #9667

    April 13th 2010

    To Humblesmith (9597 above):  Well -stated!  To Trevor & others above:  I for one choose to believe God over man.  Which is why I’m taking most of what you state above with a considerable grain of salt.  God’s creation (accurately understood) will not contradict God’s Scriptural revelations to us (accurately understood).  As a Christian that is my position of faith.  And I will venture that we agree on that from what I have read above.  Christians who cherish certain traditional understandings of Scriptural so high that they refuse to learn or adapt when creation just doesn’t conform to that belief have already shut out one of God’s books written for us.  You say the Bible never taught that the earth is the center of the universe.  That is easy to

  71. Merv - #9668

    April 13th 2010

    observe now.  But in Galileo’s time it was thought the Bible most certainly DID confirm the earth’s immoveability.  You will point out that this is a mid-use or misunderstanding of certain passage—-which is my point here, exactly.  Now if only you could see the parallel between that our current tendency to latch onto man’s traditions rather than just pursuing Truth wherever it leads! —None of which entails any loss in faith in Scripture.  Our understanding of both of God’s book grows as we read them together, letting them clarify each other for us.

  72. TEC - #9674

    April 13th 2010

    Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind and said,
        “Who is this that darkens counsel
      By words without knowledge?
        “Now gird up your loins like a man,
      And I will ask you, and you instruct Me!
      “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?
      Tell Me, if you have understanding,
    Job 38:1-4

  73. Merv - #9680

    April 13th 2010

    Man puts an end to darkness, And to the farthest limit he searches out the rock in gloom and deep shadow.  He sink a shaft far from habitation, forgotten by the foot;  ...  He puts his hand on the flint; he [man] overturns mountains at the base.  He hews out channels through the rocks, and his eye sees anything precious.  He dams up streams from flowing, and what is hidden he [man] brings out to light.     

    —Job   (in chapter 28)

    —-what a beautiful summary of what we today call science and technology!  And yet his following thoughts .... but where can wisdom be found?  ... in the fear of the Lord ...  still applies just as much today as well.  The Job 38 passage you quoted above puts us all equally in our place no matter what we think we know about origins of the earth whether we claim 6000 or 4.5 billion years.  ...Indeed since Job’s time, we could now give at least some small humble answer to that question.  But we would still be subject to the same awe of what God has done that we do know about as well as the what we don’t yet know.

    —Merv

  74. Kendalf - #9681

    April 13th 2010

    Merv, in Galileo’s time it was also thought that science most certainly did confirm the earth’s immovability. This was only resolved when instruments improved to the point that stellar aberration and stellar parallax became observable, thus providing (far after Galileo’s time) true observational evidence for the motion of the Earth.

    Trevor K (#9627) is correct about the Church holding onto the reigning scientific paradigm of the day, which later turned out to be incorrect.

    See this post for a more in-depth look at the debate about heliocentrism.

  75. Kendalf - #9683

    April 13th 2010

    (cont)
    Certainly we should pursue the truth wherever it leads, and I am fully in agreement with you that God’s revelation through nature will not contradict God’s revelation through Scripture, but it just seems that more often than not (in regard to Galileo) people emphasize the misinterpretation of Scripture but not the associated misinterpretation of nature that resulted in the Galileo affair, not to mention all the personal egos involved.

  76. Merv - #9692

    April 13th 2010

    I agree & am aware that it was the best science of the day and didn’t originate from the church but from Greek thought (as I think Trevor suggested earlier).  In fact, everybody was sure of it from time immemorial.  But it still makes a useful reminder of how well-meaning religious folks can be so sure the Bible teaches something (in this case was taken to be complicit with a reigning paradigm), but then it turns out to be man’s wisdom and not God’s.  Anti-evolutionists think that this only points one way >>> at TE folks or anybody else that takes science seriously.  But it’s a double edged sword.  A reminder that if you take the Bible literally where it wasn’t meant to be taken literally; you start making it say things that don’t originate from God.  Then there is the piper to pay for it later. 

    —Merv

  77. Robert Todd - #9709

    April 14th 2010

    Which Bible version do these people use? 
    k7vhq@earthlink.net   Bob

  78. Trevor K. - #9711

    April 14th 2010

    Refer: Merv - #9667 #9692

    Merv,

    What are you trying to say, really?

    Perhaps you’d like to state clearly and unambiguously what your standpoint is. It sounds to me strangely like someone sitting on a fence waiting to see where to jump. Are you saying that you believe Genesis is a literal account or are you of the opinion it’s merely an illustration giving a grand overview of creation?
    It would be most helpful if you could state clearly if you believe in evolution or not rather than hiding behind a lot of intelligent sounding words. So which is it?

  79. merv - #9715

    April 14th 2010

    I don’t apologize for ‘fence-sitting’ where science is concerned,—-or dragging fences this way & that since the glory of science is in its changeable nature.  But in the spirit of your desire to know exactly where I stand, here it is:

    I don’t believe the creation accounts of Genesis are literal & I don’t believe they were written to convey to us what we now call scientific information.  I think the evidence for a billions year old earth rather than a thousands year old is overwhelming, and short of absolute proof (where God literally creates a myriad of coincidental appearances) I think the ancient earth is about as solid as conclusion as science can make.

    I’m less dogmatic about common descent, but even here I think there is much more evidence explained by it than problems created by it.  So scientifically, I lean that way too at this point (which pretty much puts   ....

  80. merv - #9716

    April 14th 2010

    me in your ‘TE’ category.  But I don’t believe in ‘Evolution’ as a philosophy or a scientific religion as some of the more high-profile anti-religious scientists of today have tried to make it.  I reject the tradition of T.H. Huxley in trying to pit Christianity/religion against science.  I know more ‘believe’ in Evolution than I ‘believe’ in Gravity.  So I refuse to accept the label ‘Evolutionist’ even though I do believe it continues to survive as a fairly robust theory at this point.  (Not that it explains everything, mind you, and isn’t even close to explaining ultimate origins of life from a pre-biotic environment.)  But I’m not dogmatic either way on that and am happy to sit on fences.  I don’t hold out for science or I.D. to definitively discover God’s fingerprints, or how He interacts with and guides creation.  For those who…

  81. merv - #9717

    April 14th 2010

    want black & white explanations on that the only answer to be had is:  “I don’t know.”

    But this I DO know (as a matter of faith and testimony—-NOT founded in science):  God created us ——NOT just Adam & Eve, but he knit each & every one of us together in our mother’s wombs.  (Psalm 139:13)  (Regarding the historiocity of an actual Adam & Eve, I could go either way—- maybe they were entirely metaphorical and represent the human race, maybe they were a chosen by God to be a ‘Federal head’ of peoples, or even just the Israelites.  A lot of intelligent Christians have made good arguments many ways, so I unapologetically remain on the fence on that one – AND see Paul’s theological use of Adam reduced not one whit by the metaphorical possibility despite what many of you insist.) —-It doesn’t seem likely to me thought that we were all biologically descended from Noah or Adam.  But I don’t pick any fights…

  82. merv - #9719

    April 14th 2010

    over that one.

    continuing what I DO know:  that our existence here is not random or meaningless (contrary to militant Evolutionist drivel which you all should know better than to take seriously.——such assertions go way beyond the reach of any science and represent Evolutionist philosophy, not evolutionary science.)  I know this as a matter of faith, because the Bible tells me so;  it isn’t a matter of science.

    I DO know that Jesus was the son of God, crucified, and risen again.  This also is a matter of testimony and faith.  Science doesn’t touch it other than to highlight for us how fantastic and miraculous such an event is.  In fact this last paragraph is really the crux, the center of everything and all the voluminous paragraphs before it are really a distraction from what is of central importance in the Bible and in creation.  We should be reading our Bibles in light of the gospels, not in light of Genesis disputes.  I respect your need to challenge all this since you hold a certain kind of inerrancy as such an indispensable doctrine.  And I agree with you that we all need to flesh this out as seekers of truth which is why I took the time

  83. merv - #9720

    April 14th 2010

    this morning to try to give a more complete answer.  Hopefully this doesn’t fall in the category of I Timothy 1:4 or 6:3 -5.  Whatever you may now think of me, I still think of you as a brother in Christ.  If I am dangerously wrong in the things I think I know, then I pray for God to gently correct me—-I may presumptuously extend that prayer to you as well, though I pray it more fervently for myself.

    In Christ,
    —Merv
    (Truth seeker to the end; as I believe all Christians should be…  will be happy to clarify further on anything as I can)

  84. merv - #9721

    April 14th 2010

    ... and of course I can only look with exasperation at my typos above which I hope are obvious enough to not distract from points being made.  Towards the beginning of 9716 it should read “I no more believe in ....”  instead of “I know more ...”. 

    My brain knows better than my fingers did ... you got the unedited stream-of-consciousness version of an essay this morning.

  85. Merv - #9724

    April 14th 2010

    One more clarification that is more significant than trying to clean up my many typos…

    When I said our existence here is not ‘random’ or ‘meaningless’—-I’m much more dogmatic on the latter word than the former and I separate the two more easily than perhaps many here will.  The term ‘random’ bears a lot of unpacking; more than I will attempt here.  But suffice it to say, I don’t think it an un-Scriptural concept.  (Proverbs 16:33 & other New Testament uses of the same).  A scientist using the word ‘random’ when attempting to describe a process does not get my dander up nearly as quickly as a scientist using the word ‘meaningless’ and then trying to pretend the latter word was somehow scientific.

    —Merv
    (now ... to refrain for using my work time today to keep checking back in here for responses!  so many temptations ...  please take shots at my inconsistencies and force me to at least attempt some clean-up.  I really listen—-which is what debate, at its best, is all about.)

  86. Trevor K. - #9728

    April 14th 2010

    Merv,
    Quite a mouthful you’ve given there. Thanks for the considered answer. It raises a lot of questions but I’ll refrain from asking them for the moment.

    Like you I’ve also been walking in the “evidence for science” camp until little by little I clarified for myself what exactly is Science and what is man’s speculation that is passed for Science.

    Please do take the time to read what I’ve said about Exodus 20:11.  Consider the implications of that verse as well as the implications of what happens to Jesus’ reference to Genesis if it cannot be taken literally.
    From your reply I think I can assume you’ve probably heard the arguments on that score already. The conclusion of that particular argument is simply that if you do not believe in Genesis as a literal, historical account then you might as well throw Christ out the window too.

    So the upshot of the discussion here is simply that a lot of prayer and searching is required.

    May God the father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit be with you as you travel the road set out for you.

  87. Roger D. McKinney - #9750

    April 14th 2010

    merv: “I think the evidence for a billions year old earth rather than a thousands year old is overwhelming…”

    And just on pure science, not considering the Bible at all, I disagree that there is any evidence at all that the earth is billions of years old. If you study how scientists “date” geology, you’ll find it is mostly circular reasoning. The very first attempts at dating the age of the earth was done by simple guesses based on one faulty assumption—uniformitarianism. The uniformitarian assumption asserts that the only forces that have ever acted upon the earth at any time in history are those that we can observe today. So early evolutionists asked themselves how how it might have taken for annual floods to lay down the sediment that we observe and they concluded at first millions of years. And by their assumptions, that is the only conclusion they could have come to.

  88. Roger D. McKinney - #9751

    April 14th 2010

    But there was never any proof that the earth is that old. The assumption of uniformitarianism requires it. But if at some point in the past, something different did happen, such as the Biblical flood, then the uniformitarian assumption is completely wrong and the ages wrong. Later, when scientists came up with the radioactive dating methods, they “calibrated” them using the guesses on ages of past geologists because those ages had become set in stone. And if you read Roger Lewin’s “Bones of Contention” you’ll see that radioactive dating methods are highly inaccurate. The range of dates is so large that paleontologists pick the date that is closest to the age of the rock strata, which age was determined a century ago by guessing.

    You may choose to believe that the evidence for an ancient earth is better than that for a young earth, but you should be willing to admit that it is no where close to being overwhelming. Young Earth scientists have some pretty good evidence for their position, too. Have you seen Walt Brown’s book at creationscience.com?

  89. merv - #9800

    April 14th 2010

    Thank you, Trevor for your prayerful words.  I did see your reference to the Exodus passage.  Those who are already willing to countenance a metaphorical six days of creation don’t consider it as big a leap as you probably do to understand God’s (symbolically needed) 7th day rest in the same way.  I do understand (I think) the danger of “picking and choosing” what passages are literal and which aren’t.  I’ve obviously already engaged in some of that myself.  But I would add that I think nearly everyone else does this too —-even you, perhaps?  What I think to be a non-threatening example of this is with parables.  You may point out that parables in the Bible are explicitly labeled as such which should definitively prevent narrative content from being taken as such.  Others, though, may allow that stories not explicitly labeled as parable nevertheless were written to be that (I’ve heard this suggested of the book of Job.)  But back to the “safely labeled” parables:  Imagine my

  90. merv - #9801

    April 14th 2010

    surprise when I heard of a confrontation with a lady I personally know well who was hotly indignant when somebody suggested to her that the story of the prodigal son was not a real historical event!  To her, even the suggestion that God would lie in such a way was scandalous.  (I’m assuming you are at least willing to allow that parables are there for greater purpose than mere chronicling of events.)  If so, how would you answer her?  We Christians come in a glorious variety of flavors, don’t we?  Just so long as it is one Lord, one Spirit ...

  91. merv - #9805

    April 14th 2010

    To Roger;  I haven’t read everything you reference here… but I do have Walt Brown’s book on my shelf here at home “In the Beginning” 7ed.  And I have skimmed and referenced it.  I was most fascinated with is discussion of the moon’s orbit and the apparent shortage of time for it to get where it is according to its current rate of precession.  It’s been a while so the arguments aren’t fresh on my mind any more.  Many of his arguments have been answered in places like talkorigins.org (You would find this and similar sites quite hostile, with their unveiled mockery of creationism, but nevertheless if you can blow away much of the ideological chaff and concentrate on the kernels of real insights in such places, it will help you either refine your arguments or discard the truly discredited ones.  (or of course, you could end up persuaded that the earth isn’t really young.  –being changed is always a danger in honest research.)  I’m afraid though I have failed to find any YEC rebuttals to the rebuttals.  It would appear on many such arguments that creationist detractors seem to have had the last scientific word.  I’m open to web sites or places I may have missed.

  92. merv - #9806

    April 14th 2010

    One other thing I should mention;  I have read (and though I disagree with him I very much respect him)  Kurt Wise.  He is a YEC and a paleontologist who studied under Stephen J. Gould no less, but who maintains his belief in a young earth.  He maintains that his conviction comes from the Bible alone and not from science at all.  So he seems to concede what you probably won’t:  that belief in a young earth is in spite of much prevailing evidence; but he simply chooses to maintain what he sees as a faithful reading of Scripture and then just trusts that whatever it is in science that makes the earth look old will somehow all work out in the end.  Along this same vein, you are probably familiar with the RATE II conference of Christian scientists who are committed to a young-earth reading and a global flood.  I haven’t read their reports first hand, but I do understand that they took an unprecedented step of conceding in their last conference that there are formidable scientific problems that remain substantial challenges to the young-earth position.  They remain committed to it, nevertheless, trusting that problems will somehow be worked out.  This is (I think) a refreshing

  93. merv - #9807

    April 14th 2010

    departure from what I view as previous denials of any problems and an honest admission that yes, there are some lines of evidence that at the very least do give a formidable appearance of age.  But even if such things don’t sound like welcome changes to you, they should challenge any person defending such a position to take stock and continue studying.  For all I know you are in the middle of all this and probably know more about it than I do.  If so, I apologize for any of this that may sound condescending.  I don’t want to sound like those who accuse each other of all manner of deceit or other insulting things.  Places on the web where people who differ over all this can have respectful exchanges without it degenerating into a flame war —-those are few & far between. 

    End of my ramble for the moment.
    —Merv

  94. john hinson - #9829

    April 15th 2010

    I commend Dr waltke for his years of service to RTS.  I was fortunate enough to sit under his teaching.  RTS unfortuately still shows limited academic freedom.  I am not surprised, just saddened by those who are afraid to challenge themselves.  Dr Waltke is to be commended for years of service to the cause of spreading the gospel and challenging those under his care.

    John C Hinson

  95. Roger D. McKinney - #9851

    April 15th 2010

    Merv, Actually I have been at this about 40 years. I have read a lot on both sides. A few years ago two professors from Calvin College, I believe, wrote a book on geology that was supposed to end the controversy once and for all and prove beyond reasonable doubt that the earth is billions of years old. I’m sorry I can’t remember the name of the book, but you probably know which one I’m talking about. It was an interesting book and made some good points, but I can summarize its main argument with this: the majority of geologists disagree with the young earth theory. I was very disappointed.

    Of course old earth geologists have evidence for their theory. Few people would follow a theory with no evidence whatsoever. Young earth creationists also have scientific evidence. Walt Brown’s book is a good summary of it with excellent references. Both sides do a poor job of responding to the criticisms of the other, but I think the Young Earth crowd does a better job; the old earth crowd seems to just assume that the Young Earth guys are too stupid to bother with.

  96. Roger D. McKinney - #9852

    April 15th 2010

    I don’t think that Old Earth has no supporting evidence whatsoever. I think Young Earth has the better evidence scientifically. However, I have known good Christians who looked at the same evidence and disagreed.

    Evidence alone is not enough to convince anyone. Each of us attach different weights to each piece of evidence. What some might think is overwhelming evidence, others dismiss as nothing. Personally, I tend to attach more weight to evidence for a Young Earth because it agrees with a natural reading of the Bible. Science and the Bible agree with a Young Earth theory. I happen to place more emphasis on the rules of hermeneutics than do others and I can’t make the Bible agree with an old earth and be true to the principles of hermeneutics.

  97. Roger D. McKinney - #9853

    April 15th 2010

    However, if someone else places less importance on hermeneutics and more on science, then he will place more weight on the evidence for an old earth. I won’t say that person is a bad Christian. I have known several great Christians who were TEs.

    What makes me angry is the TE assertion that there is no science whatsoever to support a Young Earth. That’s just dishonest. Or the assertion that scientists are not human and don’t have prejudices. Thomas Kuhn taught us that scientists are very human. They develop a paradigm and ignore all evidence that contradicts that paradigm until the evidence becomes too great to ignore.

  98. Roger D. McKinney - #9855

    April 15th 2010

    But what probably predisposes me toward a young earth theory is the history of the theory of evolution. The promoters before Darwin were atheists and saw evolution and an old earth as a serious blow to Christianity. The godly men of the day opposed it on scientific grounds, especially Gregor Mendel. To me, Darwin was not a great scientist at all. He came up with nothing new. He was the willing dupe of the atheists who were too afraid to go public with their atheistic ideas, so they used Darwin to promote them. Evolution has been the primary weapon against Christianity for the past 150 years. So yes, I admit that I place more weight on evidence for a young earth than evidence for an older one. But that doesn’t mean the evidence doesn’t exist. And that doesn’t mean I can’t put aside my prejudices once in a while and give the evidence for the other side honest consideration. I have done so for 40 years and I think the scientific evidence for a young earth is better, not overwhelming, than the evidence for an ancient one.

  99. Tyrone Browne - #9860

    April 15th 2010

    Can someone tell me where did the genetic information come from to change a biological blob to all the differnt species that are around us and secondly, why is man superior in intellect etc, to all the other animals?
    Evolution is a joke.

  100. Merv - #9917

    April 15th 2010

    Roger stated: “... two professors from Calvin College, I believe, wrote a book on geology that was supposed to end the controversy once and for all and prove ...”

    Actually I’m not familiar with the work.  But it their main thrust was, as you suggest, that most geologists agree on this; then I would have shared your disappointment with it as well.  I agree that large scale consensus on things is of limited & suspicious value.  (which is not, however, to deny that it has any value whatsoever.)

  101. Merv - #9918

    April 15th 2010

    Roger wrote:  “...What makes me angry is the TE assertion that there is no science whatsoever to support a Young Earth. That’s just dishonest.”

    I’ve seen mirror statements like this one aimed at YECs instead.  It probably comes from the impression (embellished by hyperbole & maybe a bit of wishful thinking) that all the arguments of the “other side” were addressed and knocked down with none remaining that haven’t been dismissed.  And of course, what qualifies as a “fatal knock-down” response to may vary considerably in the eye of the beholder as well.  But it does illustrate how invested people are in defeating their opponents.  Finer points of truth often get lost in the heat of battle.

    —Merv

  102. John Knapp II, PhD - #9920

    April 15th 2010

    I’m sorry, but so much of this is too murky to intelligently respond to, because from the point of Waltke’s “clarification,” “EVOLUTION” is nowhere defined.  He should know better.  Ask ten people was it is, and means, and see all the answers you get.  Definitions (and assumptions) are all over the place, so, it must be clearly defined to talk about.  And, for the record, I say this as a PhD in sci. ed. who believes in biblical inerrancy (google it for the Chicago statement), who has written science texts, and one who cares deeply and has written about these matters.

      —JKII

  103. Rich - #9951

    April 16th 2010

    Roger (9852):

    By a “natural” reading of Genesis you mean a historical-literal one.  That would not strike all Christians and Jews at all times and places as the “natural” reading; have a look at the Greek Fathers, e.g., Origen.  And when you speak of “THE rules of hermeneutics”, as if there is only set of rules that is “correct”, you are engaging in wishful thinking.  In fact there are many different schools of hermeneutics, and what the Bible “means” or “teaches” is quite different, depending on which school you follow.  In the end, Old Earth, Young Earth, theistic evolution and every other position applies both scientific and hermeneutical principles to Bible-evolution discussions, so it’s not a question, as you suggest, of some putting more weight on science and some on Biblical interpretation.  It’s always a question of relating two different types of investigation, which is hard because very few people are naturally good at both types.

  104. Roger D. McKinney - #9960

    April 16th 2010

    Rich: “In fact there are many different schools of hermeneutics…”

    If by that you mean that there are a lot of different methods that people use to interpret the Bible, that is true. But there is only one science of hermeneutics. It is logic and honesty applied to the interpretation of any communication. For example, if I say my favorite color is red and you interpret that to mean that I am a communist, because red is their symbolic color, then you have violated several principles of the science of hermeneutics. And you have been very dishonest. There is a science of hermeneutics that is very consistent in its principles.

  105. Rich - #9974

    April 16th 2010

    Roger (9960):

    I have never met a Biblical scholar who would say anything as stupid as the example you give, so I’m not sure why you are giving it.  In any case, the word “science” means “systematic knowledge”, and since the principles of hermeneutics are disputed, there is no science of hermeneutics, i.e., no single discipline called “hermeneutics”, parallel to “organic chemistry” or “Euclidean geometry” or “Newtonian physics” in which there is worldwide agreement among the experts.  Thus, not only the methods of interpretation differ, but even the systematic discussion of the methods of interpretation (i.e., the hermeneutics) differs from sect to sect, seminary to seminary, university to university.  Do you think that the “Biblical Hermeneutics” seminar would cover all the same material, with the same attitude, at Bob Jones University and at Yale?  In any case, your conclusion that an old earth or theistic evolution cannot be compatible with a sound reading of Genesis presupposes literal-historical commitments which come from a certain type of Protestant theology, not from any “science” of hermeneutics.

  106. Rich - #9993

    April 16th 2010

    Roger:

    Just to avoid any misunderstanding, when I used the word “stupid” in the above post I was not referring to you personally.  I was agreeing with you that the interpretation of “red” as a marker for “communism” was ridiculous, and my point was that no well-trained Biblical scholar would ever offer a crudity such as that in a Biblical interpretation.  Of course, there are people who do say things that are that stupid about the Bible, but they are not trained Biblical scholars. 

    The rest of my point remains:  there is no neutral, objective science of Biblical hermeneutics from which one can derive rules which say things like:  “Genesis 1-11 cannot be interpreted as myth or legend but must be interpreted as an accurate chronicle.”  All such conclusions are based on the literary and theological presuppositions, not to mention the cultural background, of the interpreter.  So whether the Bible is compatible with an old earth, or evolution, cannot be settled by any appeal to allegedly objective hermeneutical principles.  If we’re honest, we just take our best shot at interpreting the scientific data, and take our best shot at interpreting the Bible, and make no pretense of complete neutrality.

  107. The Mirror - #9995

    April 16th 2010

    To Scott 9185:

    LOL! Hysterical.

    Thank you for that enlightening thesis defending the free exchange of ideas.

  108. Roger D. McKinney - #10003

    April 16th 2010

    Rich: “I have never met a Biblical scholar who would say anything as stupid as the example you give, so I’m not sure why you are giving it.”

    You must hang out with a bad crowd. I know lots of scholars that would make the same point. And yes there is a science of hermeneutics. There may be some disagreements over finer points, but not the major ones. Hermeneutics is applied logic. Are there different schools of logic? I can see why TE’s get a rash with the mention of hermeneutics; it limits one’s flexibility dramatically. But if one doesn’t apply the rules of hermeneutics, then one is dishonest.

  109. Roger D. McKinney - #10008

    April 16th 2010

    Rich: “The rest of my point remains:  there is no neutral, objective science of Biblical hermeneutics from which one can derive rules which say things like:  “Genesis 1-11 cannot be interpreted as myth or legend but must be interpreted as an accurate chronicle.”

    Obviously not. But clearly you don’t know much about hermeneutics. Rule #1 is to determine what the author’s intent was. You do that by looking at the whole document. The author of Genesis clearly intended the book to be history. There is no evidence internally to suggest that he intended it to be myth, poetry, or anything other than history. Now he could be wrong. He may have thought he was writing history but was mistaken. Anyone is free to decide that. But you cannot say that the author intended Genesis to be anything but history. And if the author was wrong, then it is not any type of communication from God. It’s all myth.

  110. Roger D. McKinney - #10009

    April 16th 2010

    Rich: “Do you think that the “Biblical Hermeneutics” seminar would cover all the same material, with the same attitude, at Bob Jones University and at Yale?”

    Yes, it would. Have you ever read a textbook on hermeneutics?

  111. Rich - #10059

    April 16th 2010

    Roger (10008):

    Authorial intent is the number 1 rule in hermeneutics?  Funny, I tend to agree, but you’d be amazed how many world-class scholars think that authorial intent is not automatically the decisive criterion in determining the meaning of a text.  You are unaware of the serious academic dispute over this?  And funny that those major scholars who *do* think that authorial intent is central cannot seem to agree on what the intent of the author of Genesis was.  Apparently you see simplicity where the learned see difficulty.  You must be wiser than Origen, the most learned of the Greek Fathers, who denied that all of Gen. 1-11 was meant to be taken literally.  It is too bad that Origen is not still alive, so that he could sail from Alexandria to Grand Rapids and get a list of books on hermeneutics from you.  And you should definitely let the faculty of comparative religion at Chicago know that a myth can never be a communication from God.  They clearly don’t know what they are talking about.  Oh, and tell us the names of the those textbooks on Biblical hermeneutics that would be agreed upon by James Barr and Ken Ham.  (You do know who James Barr is, don’t you, without having to Google his name?)

  112. Kevin - #10064

    April 16th 2010

    how about we grow some integrity and put the video back up?

  113. merv - #10066

    April 16th 2010

    Okay, Rich & Roger .... before you ramp up the sarcasm any further, Rich, or before either of you come to blows, let me just interject a thought or two. 

    I’m inclined to agree that a great rule of understanding is to have a grasp of author intent.  And I can be just as dismayed as the next guy about turning things into “post-modernist” “living” documents where all meaning is supposedly supplied by the reader instead.  I don’t buy it either.  BUT… that is a rejection of a straw-man extreme form of an idea.  There may be legitimate times then “human author intent” would be too limiting.  When Paul or other N.T. writers see Scriptural fulfillment in (or make theological points about, say Adam) are they not going beyond original author intent?  You may say, well, God was the author.  Fine.  But then that puts all “author intent” speculations on equal footing since there is no “literary method” that could nail down God’s intent for all time.  But human authors used by God ...  they could be studied and most would not have foreseen the entire scope of how their writings would come to be used by Christians.  In short,  the Spirit may legitimately lead us quite beyond “human author intent.”

    —Merv

  114. Rich - #10073

    April 17th 2010

    OK, Merv, I’ll behave.  Let me state my argument again without the sarcasm:  (1) There is no universally accepted set of hermeneutical principles in academic Biblical studies (or academic literary studies of any kind); (2)  Even if there were a universally accepted principle that the meaning of a text is found in the author’s intended meaning, not all scholars agree on how to determine the author’s intended meaning; (3) Not all scholars agree that the author of Genesis 1-11 intended the stories contained therein to be read as historical chronicles.  Beyond this, I would say that you have picked a good example:  the superseding of the intention of Old Testament authors by New Testament re-interpretation.  So I come back to my original point:  the so-called “rules of hermeneutics” aren’t non-partisan.  Their contents and application are dictated by theological concerns.  Rich may believe that Ken Ham is a better interpreter of Genesis than Origen, but he can’t invoke a “science” of hermeneutics to validate that conclusion.  The history of Biblical exegesis shows the non-existence of any consensus regarding such a science.

  115. Rich - #10074

    April 17th 2010

    Ooops!  It should have been “Roger”, not “Rich”.  That last bit above should read:

    “Roger may believe that Ken Ham is a better interpreter of Genesis than Origen, but he can’t invoke a “science” of hermeneutics to validate that conclusion.  The history of Biblical exegesis shows the non-existence of any consensus regarding such a science.”

  116. merv - #10090

    April 17th 2010

    That all sounds reasonable to me, Rich.  Of course, I already pretty much share the same camp of thought you come from.  Roger will be the true test of how convincing your argument is.

    —Merv
    P.S.  Can’t speak for Roger, but I DID have to google ‘James Barr’.  Mainstay authors for one camp of people may stay at the fringe of consciousness to others from different traditions.  Well, okay—-maybe it just means I haven’t read widely of many theologians.

  117. Denis O. Lamoureux - #10105

    April 17th 2010

    A very, very sad state of affairs.

    Dr Bruce Waltke was one of my professors in seminary (Regent College, Vancouver BC). He’s a first rate Old Testament scholar and wonderful Christian. When he opened the class in prayer, I wanted to open my eyes and write his prayer down because it was that good.

    Evolution is indeed a FACT, and my evangelical brothers and sisters in Christ need to come to terms with it. The Church came to terms with Galileo, and I trust we will come to terms with Darwin.  And I pray that we can limit the damage, so that we don’t have the shameful “resignations” of amazing Church leaders like Dr. Bruce Waltke.

    Denis O. Lamoureux
    PhD (Evangelical Theology) PhD (EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY)
    Associate Professor of Science & Religion
    St. Joseph’s College, University of Alberta
    Website:  www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure

  118. Rich - #10118

    April 17th 2010

    Merv:

    Thanks for your comments.  The point that I was making in the aside about Barr was that if Roger did not immediately recognize the name “James Barr” and had to look up who Barr was, then he did not know the name of the man who was, for a couple of decades, the most famous Old Testament scholar in the world, and by common consent, even among those who violently disagreed with him, one of the greatest Old Testament scholars in the world.  Not to recognize Barr’s name would be to show that one was completely unfamiliar with the main stream of Old Testament scholarship, and therefore that one had no business talking about Biblical “hermeneutics” at all.  It would be like never having heard of Thomas Kuhn or Karl Popper, but holding forth on the nature of scientific theories.  (Of course, not having heard of Barr would not disqualify one from having an opinion on the meaning of Genesis, but it would disqualify one from pronouncing authoritatively on Biblical hermeneutics.  It was Roger’s overconfident generalizations that I was criticizing, not his particular views on Genesis.)

  119. Trevor K. - #10262

    April 19th 2010

    Refer:  Rich - #10118
    Barr is as much human as Roger is and hence fallible in his interpretations. The only real authority we had in human form was Jesus. People were in awe of the fact that he spoke with authority. And so they should have been. Jesus is God!
    This same Jesus said: If you don’t believe Moses and the prohpets, even if one rose from the dead, you still would not believe. You don’t believe that Moses wrote:”..and God spoke these words….for in six days God created the heaven and earth and all that in them is…”. So you’ll always be an unbeliever.

  120. Rich - #10268

    April 19th 2010

    Trevor K:

    I never said what I believed or didn’t believe.  I was said that someone was writing overconfidently about Biblical interpretation.  And I never said that James Barr was infallible in interpretation.  I said that anyone who hadn’t heard of James Barr wasn’t familiar with the main stream of Biblical scholarship, and that anyone who wasn’t familiar with the main stream of Biblical scholarship had no business pronouncing authoritatively on hermeneutics.  I don’t know if Roger has heard of James Barr or not, because he dropped the conversation.  In any case, his views on Biblical interpretation struck me as narrow.  Regarding Jesus, his interpretation of the Old Testament was loose and flexible, in accord with the rabbinic style of the day—nothing at all like the mechanical conception of “inerrancy” of today.  Jesus wouldn’t have wasted five minutes arguing against radioactive dating or trying to prove that light could exist before the sun.  He was interested in the spirit, not the letter.  Unfortunately for Dr. Waltke, “conservative” Christians in America aren’t much like Jesus in that respect.

  121. Trevor K. - #10276

    April 19th 2010

    Refer: Rich - #10268
    Jesus was also the one who said to the pharisees: “You have a fine traditon of putting aside the word of God….” Jesus was radical in applying the spirit of the law - to the extreme - to wit - his comments about adultery. And please note where He got the quote from : The ten commandments! Whatever Jesus said was fully written in the Law of Moses, or Torah if you prefer. Literally. I stand by my assertion: Jesus also said: If they will not listen to MOSES and the prophets,.....they will not believe.
    Here’s a thought - how to define a theist evolutionist:
        “Those who firmly believe in the Age of Rocks instead of in the Rock of Ages.”
    Why? You don’t believe Him when he said: “.. created in SIX days..”
    Brutal? Harse? Unfortunately so, because people’s eternal lives are at stake here. There is no place for pussy-footing around.

  122. Rich - #10280

    April 19th 2010

    Trevor:

    I’ll let you have the last word.  Too bad you wasted it on cliches.

  123. Ken - #10283

    April 19th 2010

    Trevor K,

    You can rant on, question our theology, and even impugn our credibility till you are blue in the face, but it doesn’t actually make the data disappear.

    PRIMATE ANCESTORS: EVIDENCE FROM DNA COMPARISON: http://www.fileden.com/files/2009/4/9/2397423/van der Meer 2009 Primate Ancestors Evidence From DNA Comparison v3.pdf

  124. Roger D. McKinney - #10294

    April 19th 2010

    Rich: “(1) There is no universally accepted set of hermeneutical principles in academic Biblical studies (or academic literary studies of any kind);

    You seem to be hung up on “unversally accepted.” Why is that a criteria for anything? The majority has almost always opposed the important truths. Jesus said that the way is narrow and few people find it.

    (2)  Even if there were a universally accepted principle that the meaning of a text is found in the author’s intended meaning, not all scholars agree on how to determine the author’s intended meaning;

    Again, I couldn’t care less what the majority thinks. I care about what is true. Hermeneutics is nothing more or less than the principles of logic applied to textual interpretation. If the principles of logic are wrong, then we have no way of determining the truth about anything. Original intent is crucial to the meaning and interpretation of the text because it agrees with the principles of logic and honesty. To make an author say something he never intended to say is dishonest and “bearing false witness.”

  125. Roger D. McKinney - #10295

    April 19th 2010

    (3) Not all scholars agree that the author of Genesis 1-11 intended the stories contained therein to be read as historical chronicles.”

    So?! By including the geneologies, dates, numbers, events in chronological order, etc., the author of Genesis made it clear that he intended it to be history. You can argue that he was wrong, but not with his intent.

  126. Roger D. McKinney - #10297

    April 19th 2010

    Truth does not consist in consensus. The fact that most people think is does shows how much progress post-modern philosophy has made into Christian thinking. Post-modernism says there is no such thing as truth, so all we can do is discuss things and hope to come to a consensus. I realize I’m a dinosaur in danger of extinction, but I still believe in objective truth discernable by logic and evidence.

    But if you’re going to go all post-modernist on the Bible, then I suggest that you be consistent and do the same thing with science and admit there is not truth just consensus. But keep in mind Pauls’ warning that men suppress the truth in unrighteousness.

  127. Rich - #10308

    April 19th 2010

    Roger:

    I did not say that you should care what the majority think.  But you should care what the educated think.  Evidently you do not, because your comments on how to read the Bible indicate a lack of familiarity with what the educated have written. 

    Don’t impute positions to strangers.  I do not endorse post-modernism.  And you shouldn’t be throwing around academic jargon like “post-modernism” and “hermeneutics” until you have a better understanding of what they mean.

    I have no problem with people of simple faith.  My problem is with people who pretend to scholarly knowledge that they don’t have.  You’re making statements in my professional field that I know to be either bluffs, errors, or undergraduate misunderstandings.  There is no virtue in a defense of Christian faith based on fake scholarship.  Leave the teaching role to those trained to fulfill it.  When you make bad arguments to try to save Christianity, you actually embarrass Christianity, and that’s not what you want to do.  I’ll sign off here.

  128. Roger D. McKinney - #10323

    April 19th 2010

    Rich: “Evidently you do not, because your comments on how to read the Bible indicate a lack of familiarity with what the educated have written.”

    I imagine I could name a few writers that you haven’t read, too. I do care what educated people have written and have read a lot, but few people say anything new. And It doesn’t matter how educated people are; they can still be wrong. Education does not instill wisdom.

    Rich: ” do not endorse post-modernism.”

    You clearly do, but won’t admit it. I hear the same thing from socialists all the time. “I’m not a socialist” they scream. But when I aske them which points of socialism they disagree with, they can’t. You’re attitude toward the concept of objective truth shows that you are very post-modern in thinking.

  129. Roger D. McKinney - #10324

    April 19th 2010

    Rich: “My problem is with people who pretend to scholarly knowledge that they don’t have. “

    Oh, so now you’re going to pull rank on me. Appeal to authority is the refuge of everyone who has lost an argument on evidence and logic.

    If you have logical arguments or evidence to present, then do so. But don’t hide behind the appeal to authority fallacy.

  130. BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th) - #10344

    April 19th 2010

    The Church does not have to “accept Evolution”.  All we can say is “Evolution is compatible with Faith & the Teachings of holy Scripture”.    That’s it!

  131. Trevor K. - #10399

    April 20th 2010

    Refer:  Ken - #10283
    You are quite right, Ken. All my bluster won’t change the data. There’s no problem with the data. The problem lies with the interpretation of the data. You have to make assumptions to interpret anything that deals with the past simply because you were not there. In fact no one human being was there. Your and every other evolutionist’s interpretation is, well, open to interpretation!
    Take the case of the 18 million year old Salamander here: www.physorg.com/news176660912.html.  Soft tissue/blood cells etc. have been shown to deterioate even under the best lab conditions and last at most 100k years, max. So the logical conclusion would be that the fossil is at most 100k years old. But no, that cannot be since we MUST have it at 18Ma. So, the resolution is: fantastical preservation, as yet unknown to man to d ate. So off we go, looking at all previous fossils for soft tissue and investigate preservation methods.

  132. Trevor K. - #10403

    April 20th 2010

    Refer:  BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th) - #10344
    Mmmmhhhh, very interesting statement you’re making here.

    I can of course interpret it as follows:
    “Evolution is compatible with Faith [in The Age of Rocks] and the teachings of holy scripture [ according to fathers Darwin and Lyle]”

    Just a thought!

  133. Rich - #10431

    April 20th 2010

    Roger (10324):

    Lost what argument?  I never made any argument.  I never said how Genesis should be interpreted.  You were the one who claimed certainty about that.  The only “argument” I made was that it is unwise to be too certain about one’s Biblical interpretation, given that the most competent Biblical scholars in the world so frequently disagree with each other.

    I told you I didn’t endorse post-modernism, and you said I did but wouldn’t admit it.  It’s generally considered bad manners, when someone tells you what he believes, to say or imply that he’s lying.  Also, you uttered some nonsense about my not believing in “objective truth”.  I neither said nor implied any such thing.  You perhaps mean that I don’t agree with your Genesis interpretation, which in your own mind is “objective truth”.  I would prefer to say that whatever Genesis teaches is indeed true, but that it’s far from clear that you know what Genesis teaches.

    And by the way (your 10003), I’m not a TE.  Stop imputing views to people you don’t know.

  134. nathan - #11864

    April 30th 2010

    Jerry - #8281:
    Waltke is not a theistic evolutionist.  Read his statement.  Theistic evolutionists don
    t believe in Adam & Eve.

  135. Nicholas Christie-Blick - #14774

    May 24th 2010

    A second difficulty is that fossil and genetic data demonstrate a clear continuum between humans and animals. So the fudge in which humans are supposed to have been created after the Universe was permitted to set the stage through protracted natural development won’t fly. The simplest interpretation of available facts is that our existence as individuals and as a species is the result of a huge array of contingent events over billions of years. Were any detail to have been different, we wouldn’t be here. Biblical creation made sense when the Earth was the center of the Universe, when the timescale of ‘creation’ was short, and when it could be claimed that Man was unique. None of those propositions has survived scientific scrutiny. We must contemplate an alternative: There is no god, at least no entity remotely consistent with the god of contemporary religions. God was created in our likeness, by us, and not the other way around – a cultural holdover that while worthy of scholarship in a historical context has outlived its usefulness as an explanation for our place in nature or as a basis for the organization of society.

    Nicholas Christie-Blick
    Professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences

  136. Nicholas Christie-Blick - #14776

    May 24th 2010

    “I would have clarified in writing that by evolution I mean theistic evolution, not naturalistic evolution.” - Bruce Waltke, RTS-Orlando letter of resignation.
    http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/archives/2010/04/bruce_waltke_he.html

    “Adam and Eve are historical figures from whom all humans are descended; they are uniquely created in the image of God and as such are not in continuum with animals.” - point one in the statement above.

    The difficulty for Dr Waltke is two-fold. First, while it may be claimed that every physical, chemical and biological interaction at all timescales over the Universe’s 13.7 billion year history since the Big Bang was determined in advance by god, so as to arrive at the present, there is no basis for such a view other than to preserve the concept of god at all costs. Indeed, the essence of both genetic drift and Darwin’s concept of natural selection – the primary mechanisms by which evolution is thought to take place – not to mention the environmental context of evolution, is random change, not directed change. While superficially attractive, the concept of ‘theistic evolution’ therefore is fundamentally at odds with our understanding of natural phenomena. (continued)

  137. Michelle M. - #15832

    June 1st 2010

    A fundamental truth of Christianity is not being addressed.  If man is evolved from apes, at what point, then, did our souls enter our bodies?  Did our souls just evolve?  Do apes have souls?  Are some apes still in the process of developing souls - or did the evolution process just cease at some point?

    The theory of the evolution of man negates the concept that man was created with a soul and a conscience.  It negates Gods ultimate plan and man’s reliance and need for God.
    1 Corinthians 1:20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? (NASB ©1995)

    Truth is truth.  It does not need to be edited to gain converts.

  138. Nicholas Christie-Blick - #16512

    June 5th 2010

    Dear Michelle M.:

    Humans did not ‘evolve from apes’ and it has not been asserted that we did. We share a common ancestor (an earlier species).

    The soul is a human invention. There is no basis for it. Evolution has not ceased. It can be observed in action today.

    The concept of evolution has survived more than 150 years of testing - a term that refers to a procedure or activity in science in which an idea might in fact have failed. The most compelling of these tests is the consistency between anatomical arguments and those based upon molecular biology, a field that emerged nearly a century after publication of Darwin’s ‘Origin of Species’ and the one in which Francis Collins has expertise.

    Explanations of our origin involving a god or gods are simply no longer needed. Nothing in what we now understand of the Universe and its history is consistent with planning. God was created in the likeness of Man, by us, and not the other way around.

    The fact that people across cultures appear to need some version of god is a fascinating observation worthy of study, but it has no bearing on whether such an entity exists.

    Nicholas Christie-Blick
    Professor

    • Add Your Comment

    • Science & the Sacred welcomes both critical and supportive voices in our comments section. However, please be sure to read our Ground Rules for Commenting before posting. We reserve the right to remove any comments we deem inappropriate.

    • You have 1250 characters remaining.