Maybe you're not up to date on this stuff. I know I'm a bit lagging at times. So, there is this self-proclaimed Christian organization called The BioLogos Foundation that is seeking to argue Christianity into the 21st century by assuring us that a literal interpretation of Scripture is a stupid way to go since science has demonstrated that at the very least Genesis is wrong. No "Creation". No "Flood". No literal Adam and Eve. Get over it. Get on the bus. We need to get this train moving out of the Dark Ages so we can reach the world for Christ in the now. Okay, there's that. Recently a well-known, fairly well-respected Christian preacher named Tim Keller wrote a paper for BioLogos to help Christians see evolution and the Bible as compatible. That, you see, should solve a lot of the conflicts between the world and Christianity, and for many Christians between what they see in science and what they see in Scripture. Keller argues for "theistic evolution".
Now, we've all likely heard that term, but we're all likely unclear on what it means to varying degrees. Just so we're on the same page, here's what it means. Theistic evolution argues that God used evolution as His means of creating the world. He guided natural processes to make the world we see today. (Understand that this concept, intended to align Christianity with science, is opposed by science at its core because science here is dedicated to a naturalistic-only view.) So while science (ignoring God) would see natural processes at work, we Christians would know that behind those processes there was a guiding hand. There, see? All fixed.
Well, maybe not. There are problems. Theistic evolution requires some premises, some conditions that we must accept. We must accept (and Keller agrees) that Genesis 1 (at least) is not an actual account of Creation. Indeed, we have to rule out Adam and Eve as the proto-parents of the world. Adam was not the "first Man" as Paul suggests, but one of a many. Sin did not bring death to humanity. It had been happening for millenia. Then, of course, more of Scripture starts to break down. Adam was not made from the dust of the earth (Gen 2:7) and Eve was not made from Adam's rib (Gen 2:22). Not all humans are descended from Adam and Eve. Genesis 3 is mistaken when it says that God cursed the ground and Paul was mistaken when he said that all creation groans under the curse (that never happened). God spoke strangely to the Israelites when He told them to honor the Sabbath on the seventh day like He did at Creation (which never happened, certainly not in seven days). Indeed, every time we come up against science, it appears that the Bible needs to give ground. An underlying premise must, therefore, be in place here. Science is right; the Bible is in question.
Look, if, after all, we just need to realign our understanding of the Bible to correspond with science, why bother with the Bible. It's clearly not an understandable, reliable document. Stupid Christians for thousands of years have failed to figure out what we enlightened believers have only recently discovered thanks to the anti-theist scientists of the day ... that the plain reading of the Bible is wrong. I suspect, if we're careful in our dealings, holding the Bible to the shining light of modern science, we can eventually eliminate all those silly difficulties like miracles, divine intervention, or Resurrection. If we're very careful and faithful to the anti-theists of the day, we can probably eliminate Christianity entirely. Now, can't we all just get along?
11 comments:
Why bother with the Bible? Because it's great, rightly understood. The same reason you bother with the Bible right now, right?
I'm not sure with your beef with this idea, even if ultimately you decide to interpret the Bible differently. The idea being discussed is extremely orthodox: It is important to read the Bible aright, to rightly divide the Bible's passages. It's important to read poetry as poetry, not commands. It's important to read parables as parables, it's important to read history as history and myth as myth.
You DO agree, right, that IF God decided to pass on the Creation account using a mythic format, it's not really any different than Jesus passing on truths using parables, is it?
You may ultimately decide that you think literal history/science is what is being used in Genesis, but I can't see faulting those who - seeking God's Truth - believe it to be something else.
It seems like this to me: The parable of the rich man and Lazarus - I think most people think it is a parable. However, I know some believers who think it does not fit the formula for a parable. Jesus uses a real person's name (whereas in parables he usually said, "There was a certain man..."), for instance.
Okay, so those people believe that text to be not a parable, but a real story of some sort. No problem, it's just a disagreement over interpretation.
Why the antagonism towards fellow believers who simply disagree with your traditional interpretation?
The umbrella of Theistic Evolution looks like compromise, but like you pointed out, it is just another means of removing God from the process. There is just no way to keep Evolution and Scripture at the same time. There are several sub-sects within Theistic Evolution, but in the end, they all deny either Evolution or Scripture. The two are mutually exclusive, no matter how much people want them to be the same.
This post kind of goes along with yesterday's, when belief and Scripture collide, what do you do? Luckily, there are scientists out there working to show that Scripture and science are compatible, but Evolution plays no part in either. Evolution opposes Scripture, and cannot not be scientifically verified (based on the scientific method). Truly, Evolution will always remain a hypothesis, but it has unfortunately been given the rank of fact, without due process.
Given the fact that it will be impossible to prove, unless, that is, you are proving what you already assume, it seems evident that we all are living by faith of some kind; some in man, and his ability to tell us just what was going on millions, or even billions, of years ago, and others in God, and his ability to reliably communicate with his creation. I personally don't believe in evolution. I've not seen sufficient evidence that I exist as a result of morphing life forms. My eyes alone are inexplicable through evolution... except through just-so stories where someone guesses how they came to be, then calls that guess science.
I appreciate that some people want to reconcile what is unbelievable in their minds with what is more believable... you know... to accommodate their own internal discords. The only question is, which one of those positions is which?
I'm not typically posting Dan Trabue's comments, but this is an essential question. "What's wrong with saying that the Bible speaks in mythical form?" Very popular perspective (although a good number of theistic evolutionists won't go there ... but that's because they see the problem that Dan doesn't).
Let's take the biblical account of Genesis as myth. God did not create the world. Evolution did. (As David rightly points out, the two are mutually exclusive. Evolution is defined as absent of guidance, defined as apart from God, defined as the result solely natural processes. In general, "evolution" is "gradual change", but Darwinian Evolution, that belief intended to answer the question of origins, demands "no hand of God".) Theistic Evolution requires that there was no "Adam and Eve", no "First Man". Evolution demands that there was no "seven days of Creation" in any form. So we're just talking myth here when the Bible refers to Creation, Adam and Eve, and such. Most will have to include the Flood as well, although it may be the mythified version of a real, localized flood. But surely no real "Noah". Okay? We're all on board here. It was myth, not historical. Where does that leave us?
It means that Jesus was mistaken when He referenced those events as if they were historical. It means that Paul was completely wrong when he referred to Adam as the "first man" (and, consequently, Christ as the "last man"). It means that God was absolutely confused when He told Israel to honor the Sabbath in the same way that He rested on the "seventh day" (because, after all, no such event ever occurred). There was no original sin. We are not all sons of Adam and daughters of Eve. Creation was not corrupted by Man's sin. Death was not introduced to Man because of Adam's sin. There were, on the other hand, more humans and, consequently, more "parents". There were thousands of years of deaths prior to anyone committing any sin at all. And the undergirdings of everything Christian are wrenched out from under us. We can't trust Christ. He, foolishly, thought it was true. Paul, ridiculously, thought it was an historical account. Sin is not the issue we were told it was. Death is not the wages of sin. We are not the offspring of Adam and, therefore, Christ is not the "last Adam". Adam didn't exist. We've based our beliefs of sin and death on a myth, a myth that all of Christendom before us understood to be history, but now, in these last days, we've finally wrestled the truth away from the Holy Spirit who was unable, up until we achieved our Great Enlightenment, to tell us. Thank God we're not as stupid as those prior folk.
Am I being antagonistic towards fellow believers because it just doesn't really matter? No, we've come up against a more serious question than mere interpretation. Dan doesn't know it, apparently, but the skeptics do. If they can demonstrate that the Bible is wrong and we're just working on myth here, then it isn't merely a disagreement or a minor shift in understanding. It is the end of Christianity on its face. No Adam. No sin. No justice (wages of sin). God doesn't even get it. No reliable information at all. My question isn't for "fellow believers". My question is, "If we don't care about Adam, sin, God's understanding of history, whether or not Christ or Paul got it, then why care about any of it?" My question is "Who are you going to trust?" Dan trusts science. I don't.
(Please note: I posted Dan's comment to answer the question in general. I won't be presenting Dan's continued arguments.)
I don't know, Theistic Evolution is just that, belief that there is some "God" out there that started the whole thing and even intervened at crucial points. I mean, its obvious there's a design, even the hard-core Evolutionists can't avoid that term. But Theistic Evolution cannot include the God of the Bible. Kind of like a square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is not a square. As Christians we are theists, but not all theists are Christians. I think the term would be better titled Deistic Evolution.
It is sad to see the teachings of Scripture, those things so fundamental to our faith and practice, so flagrantly disregarded. It is a shame that people don't bother to think about the implications of what they are letting go in their pursuit of compromise. And it is that incrementalism creeping in again. Eventually, Deistic Evolution will become the norm, and people won't even know what they've lost.
The definition of Evolution (not "evolution" in a generic sense, but Darwinian Evolution):
Free Dictionary: "a developmental process in which an organ or organism becomes more and more complex by differentiation of its parts; a continuous and progressive change according to certain laws and by means of resident forces." (Notice "according to certain laws and by means of resident forces." Requires no external input.)
The demand of the current Theory of Evolution is that natural selection -- nature only -- has produced greater complexity. While Theistic Evolutionist types are glad to include science in their circle, science is not willing to include them.
(Note, by the way, a fundamental problem trying to align Theistic Evolution and Darwinian Evolution. In Darwinian Evolution you have a singular starting point where life begins and then branches out like a tree. On one branch of that tree is Man, but the point is not Man. He's just a branch on the tree. In a biblical worldview, Man is God's highest creation, made in His image (except, I suppose, you can't say that if he was evolved in His image), the point of all Creation. It is, then, an inversion from each other which is, in normal circles, not something that is congruent.)
True, Darwinian Evolution requires no outside force, and Deistic Evolution tries to add one. You say that trying to merge the 2 is not possible because of the Darwinian necessity for "no God". But, you wouldn't say that God isn't directly involved with seemingly natural events like earthquakes or hurricanes, or sunny days, or growing trees. To the Deistic Evolutionist, God is involved in Evolution just as God is involved in the natural order we experience every day (hypothetically of course, since I don't generally talk with Deistic Evolutionists). While I don't agree with Deistic Evolution, I can see where it is the synergism of Evolution and Deism. To me, it is not so far fetched...wrong for Christianity, but not so wrong for any other "religious" person that believes in a god. They certainly don't answer any of the questions about morality, sin, forgiveness, or any of the other points you've made against Deistic Evolution. Just saying its not as far fetched if viewed through the "right" lens. That lens is wrong, but not unreasonable to the unbeliever.
Actually, true, I affirm that God is intimately involved in all of nature. And theoretically "God caused and controlled Evolution" would work in that light. The problem occurs when we start to see what that does to Scripture, to God's character, and to Christianity in its entirety.
Most certainly. It is far more dangerous and insidious than it appears.
Dan wrote, “I've not seen sufficient evidence that I exist as a result of morphing life forms.”
The May 2012 Scientific American is on store shelves now, but the previous month’s issue had an article on excavating Australopithecus sediba in South Africa. It has been dated to 1,977,000 years ago. Its brain was a third the size of a modern human brain. “Not only do sediba fossils mingle old and new versions of general features, such as brain size and pelvis shape, but the pattern repeats at deeper levels… The brain, while small, possessed an expanded frontal region, indicating an advanced reorganization of gray matter; the adult female’s upper limb pairs a long arm—a primitive holdover from a tree-dwelling ancestor—with short, straight fingers adapted to making and using tools (although the muscle markings on some bones attest to powerful, apelike grasping capabilities). In some instances, the juxtaposition of old and new is so improbable that had the bones not been found joined together, researchers would have interpreted them as belong to entirely different creatures. The foot, for instance, combines a heel bone like an ancient ape’s with an anklebone like Homo’s.”
Dan, how do findings like that fit into your biblical framework? Does God reveal directly to you facts about nature, such as the age of the earth? Or whether there have been at least five mass extinctions? Do modern whales have a lineage that goes back to four-footed mammals that spent a good deal of time on land? Do you get information directly from God, such that it HAS to be absolutely true, while science on the other hand is rarely able to be certain? Could you bring yourself to pray that God will not allow any transitional-looking fossils to be unearthed in the future?
Dan doesn't, too often, read back on comments from prior posts, so he won't likely respond. You, however, have not answered his comment. "I've not seen sufficient evidence that I exist as a result of morphing life forms." So, you offer a finding of a fossil some 2 million years old and say, "Look, there it is!" You did not explain the necessary connection to Dan.
Further, the question comes not from "unbiased science" but from today's popular religion, "materialism". The religion we call "Science" (as opposed to the exercise and discovery of the same name) has become the standard by which all truth is determined. The simple fact that science itself by definition is constantly in error and constantly changing. (So, is drinking coffee good for me or bad? Is alcohol beneficial or detrimental? Is global warming real or not? Science keeps changing its mind. Piltdown man? Archaeoraptor? Ernest Haeckel's "law of biogentics?)
You start with an a priori assumption. Science is right. You assume, then, that religion is likely not right and certainly not right when it collides with Science. This isn't ... science. It's religion of its own kind, a matter of faith without a real foundation.
Note, however, that the Bible does not give the age of the earth. When people on this side of the question try to get the Bible to say things it just doesn't say, it is an equal mistake.
Post a Comment