 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Kenneth Affleck Member Joined Oct 7, 2008 33 posts Location: New Westminster, BC |
 A Plea Against Unbelief |
Posted Mar 16, 2010; 5:05 am |
|
In the article “A plea for understanding: Is there a Christian view of Darwin?” (MB Herald, March) Waldo Berg gives a synthesis of the arguments for harmonizing the Bible with science. Below is a sample to which I will respond.
| Quote: | I still believe the creation story and don’t see a contradiction between Genesis and evolution. Bible scholars tell us that giving a scientific explanation for the beginning of life was not Moses’ objective, so we cannot make Genesis into a scientific textbook. Moses’ purpose in writing the Genesis account was to demonstrate for the Hebrew people that the one true God of creation was totally different from and superior to any of the false gods of the neighbouring cultures. We need to avoid trying to impose our own modern understanding of science into the Genesis account.
Isn’t the most courageous and honest response then to attempt to integrate what science is telling us about the natural world with the truth of the Bible? Taking this approach does not come without challenges, but if nature and the Bible are both revelations of God, they cannot fundamentally contradict each other, so we are constrained to try to find harmony between them.
The matter of origins is ultimately unknowable to us, so we must always hold our beliefs in a tentative way. Let’s learn all we can, but in the end, be humbles enough to admit in this life we’ll never know completely. |
My response is a rewording of that quote:
I believe the creation story and don’t see any common ground between Genesis and evolution. Genesis is not a scientific textbook, but it still teaches science; just as the Bible is not a systematic theology textbook, and it still contains much theology. God’s purpose in inspiring the Genesis account was to give to all people of all times an account of origins that was based on His truth (as opposed to the polytheism of Moses’ time and the naturalism of today). We need to avoid imposing our own modern scientific errors onto the Genesis account.
Isn’t the most courageous and honest response then to stand up for the truth of the Bible, and use it to evaluate what science is telling us about the natural world? Nature and the Bible are both revelations of God, so they cannot fundamentally contradict each other; but science is just man’s attempt—both brilliant and flawed—to understand nature, so then science can be in error and so contradict the Bible, and we are not constrained to try to find harmony between them.
The matter of origins is knowable because God has revealed it to us; so let us not be “blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of people in their deceitful scheming.”(Ephesians 4:14) Let’s learn all we can, but in the end, be faithful enough to submit to God rather than man.
Elsewhere in the article Berg says:
| Quote: | | Many dedicated scientists have spent their lives researching and studying this topic—and by a vast majority, they agree with most of Darwin’s ideas. Who are we then, as lay people, to condemn their sincere, intelligent effort to understand our world? |
Who are we? We are sons and daughters of the Most High! We are ambassadors from the One who was there in the beginning—the Creator! It is our duty to “demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ” (2 Corinthians 10:5).
| Quote: | | Where are the wise? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. …For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength. (1 Corinthians 1:20-21, 25). |
In this passage Paul is referring to the preaching of the cross in particular, but also to all of God’s truth in general. If Genesis cannot be trusted to be a history of origins in matters of biology, geology and astronomy, then how can we trust it to be a history of origins in matters of human identity (created by God in His image), marriage, sin and judgment? The New Testament refers back to Genesis 1 to 11 as a basis for its doctrine on these subjects: Human identity (James 3:9 // Genesis 1:26-27), marriage (Matthew 19:4-6 // Genesis 2:22-24), sin (Romans 5:12-14 // Genesis 3), judgment (2 Peter 3:3-7 // Genesis 6,7,8; especially Genesis 6:5-8, 7:17-23).
Darwinian evolution is the account of origins that belongs with atheism and naturalism. In its attempt to harmonize the Bible with Darwinism, the church has undermined the integrity and authority of the foundational chapters of God’s Word. The zeal of the opponents of Darwinism is not misplaced. |
|
|
|
| Neto Member Joined Feb 2, 2005 254 posts Location: Holmes County, Ohio |
| Re: A Plea Against Unbelief |
Posted Mar 16, 2010; 6:57 am |
|
| Kenneth Affleck wrote: | In the article “A plea for understanding: Is there a Christian view of Darwin?” (MB Herald, March) Waldo Berg gives a synthesis of the arguments for harmonizing the Bible with science. Below is a sample to which I will respond.
| Quote: | I still believe the creation story and don’t see a contradiction between Genesis and evolution. Bible scholars tell us that giving a scientific explanation for the beginning of life was not Moses’ objective, so we cannot make Genesis into a scientific textbook. Moses’ purpose in writing the Genesis account was to demonstrate for the Hebrew people that the one true God of creation was totally different from and superior to any of the false gods of the neighbouring cultures. We need to avoid trying to impose our own modern understanding of science into the Genesis account.
Isn’t the most courageous and honest response then to attempt to integrate what science is telling us about the natural world with the truth of the Bible? Taking this approach does not come without challenges, but if nature and the Bible are both revelations of God, they cannot fundamentally contradict each other, so we are constrained to try to find harmony between them.
The matter of origins is ultimately unknowable to us, so we must always hold our beliefs in a tentative way. Let’s learn all we can, but in the end, be humbles enough to admit in this life we’ll never know completely. |
My response is a rewording of that quote:
I believe the creation story and don’t see any common ground between Genesis and evolution. Genesis is not a scientific textbook, but it still teaches science; just as the Bible is not a systematic theology textbook, and it still contains much theology. God’s purpose in inspiring the Genesis account was to give to all people of all times an account of origins that was based on His truth (as opposed to the polytheism of Moses’ time and the naturalism of today). We need to avoid imposing our own modern scientific errors onto the Genesis account.
Isn’t the most courageous and honest response then to stand up for the truth of the Bible, and use it to evaluate what science is telling us about the natural world? Nature and the Bible are both revelations of God, so they cannot fundamentally contradict each other; but science is just man’s attempt—both brilliant and flawed—to understand nature, so then science can be in error and so contradict the Bible, and we are not constrained to try to find harmony between them.
The matter of origins is knowable because God has revealed it to us; so let us not be “blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of people in their deceitful scheming.”(Ephesians 4:14) Let’s learn all we can, but in the end, be faithful enough to submit to God rather than man.
Elsewhere in the article Berg says:
| Quote: | | Many dedicated scientists have spent their lives researching and studying this topic—and by a vast majority, they agree with most of Darwin’s ideas. Who are we then, as lay people, to condemn their sincere, intelligent effort to understand our world? |
Who are we? We are sons and daughters of the Most High! We are ambassadors from the One who was there in the beginning—the Creator! It is our duty to “demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ” (2 Corinthians 10:5).
| Quote: | | Where are the wise? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. …For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength. (1 Corinthians 1:20-21, 25). |
In this passage Paul is referring to the preaching of the cross in particular, but also to all of God’s truth in general. If Genesis cannot be trusted to be a history of origins in matters of biology, geology and astronomy, then how can we trust it to be a history of origins in matters of human identity (created by God in His image), marriage, sin and judgment? The New Testament refers back to Genesis 1 to 11 as a basis for its doctrine on these subjects: Human identity (James 3:9 // Genesis 1:26-27), marriage (Matthew 19:4-6 // Genesis 2:22-24), sin (Romans 5:12-14 // Genesis 3), judgment (2 Peter 3:3-7 // Genesis 6,7,8; especially Genesis 6:5-8, 7:17-23).
Darwinian evolution is the account of origins that belongs with atheism and naturalism. In its attempt to harmonize the Bible with Darwinism, the church has undermined the integrity and authority of the foundational chapters of God’s Word. The zeal of the opponents of Darwinism is not misplaced. |
Kenneth,
Thanks for bringing this out. I will read it over more carefully later (in a rush right now), but I believe I am in complete agreement with your response.
I would just change one word in your re-wording of what a proper response should be to the challenge of evolution against the truth of Scripture – where you say:
| Quote: | | We need to avoid imposing our own modern scientific errors onto the Genesis account. |
I would say “We need to avoid imposing our own modern scientific understanding onto the Genesis account.”
(I see this in the same vein as Menno Simon’s view of the incarnation – he (unfortunately) based it on a then accepted scientific understanding of how conception occurs, and that understanding was later found to be false. This placed his theology into error, or one might say, heresy. This is the danger of any attempt to reconcile scriptural teaching with current scientific understanding or theory – the latter is in constant flux, but the scripture is not. It is truth both now, and forever.)
Edited once to correct a grammatical error.
Last edited by Neto on Mar 16, 2010; 10:15 am; edited 1 time in total. |
|
|
|
| Todd Moderator Joined Sep 9, 2004 1088 posts Location: Winnipeg |
| Re: A Plea Against Unbelief |
Posted Mar 16, 2010; 9:14 am |
|
| Kenneth Affleck wrote: |
I believe the creation story and don’t see any common ground between Genesis and evolution. Genesis is not a scientific textbook, but it still teaches science; just as the Bible is not a systematic theology textbook, and it still contains much theology. |
In my opinion, the Bible doesn't teach science, but it does contain a dated cosmological framework, which was consistent with what the Hebrews once believed. My understanding of Genesis 1-3 is largely allegorical, and not intended to be an historical narrative. The cosmological framework is embedded in the allegory. This framework isn't really the message, however. It is used to communicate the message.
| Quote: | | God’s purpose in inspiring the Genesis account was to give to all people of all times an account of origins that was based on His truth (as opposed to the polytheism of Moses’ time and the naturalism of today). We need to avoid imposing our own modern scientific errors onto the Genesis account. |
In my opinion, the purpose of the Genesis 1 creation account isn't an historical timeline, but the purpose is multi-faceted, nonetheless. I don’t claim to have it all figured out. The first sentence, “God created…” is likely pretty important. The next verse shows that the universe was in a state of chaos, and the days of creation come in two sets of three days. The first set of days brings structure to the Earth and the cosmos (separating light/darkness, land/water, water/air). The last three days fills the Earth and cosmos with life. There are parallels between Days 1&4, 2&5, 3&6. What’s also important is how this narrative is separated from other ancient accounts of creation. It is God who creates. Other accounts were more animistic, turning the Sun into a deity. The 7th day is a day of rest, with God setting an example for his chosen people. The days of creation bring order and functionality to the Earth and the cosmos. This is the nature of God, and is an example of how we are to be in the universe. The plagues of Pharaoh are a kind of anti-creation, turning order into chaos. I don’t have time to get into all the parallels, but the creation framework is repeated in various forms throughout the Pentateuch.
I don’t think the message here is a scientific one, but a theological one. I don’t think God brought the inspired writers up to speed. It wasn’t necessary. It’s not God’s intention to bring instant perfection (of whatever kind) into civilization.
| Quote: | | Isn’t the most courageous and honest response then to stand up for the truth of the Bible, and use it to evaluate what science is telling us about the natural world? Nature and the Bible are both revelations of God, so they cannot fundamentally contradict each other; but science is just man’s attempt—both brilliant and flawed—to understand nature, so then science can be in error and so contradict the Bible, and we are not constrained to try to find harmony between them. |
There are plenty of assumptions in your logic. Some I don’t agree with.
Take for example, the question of whether you more strongly believe that God divinely dictated the words of Scripture with an accurate cosmological framework, or whether you believe that when you drop an apple, it will fall to the ground. In my opinion, the second option is substantially more obvious than the prior. It is also my opinion that the case for evolution is also more obvious than this particular theological framework. Over the last 150 years, the evidence for biological evolution is increasingly getting stronger. (Consider Francis Collins’ argument regarding junk DNA, in his book “The Language of God”. Very, very persuasive). I don’t think we can believe with the same level of confidence that God presented an accurate cosmological framework in the Bible, as we can have confidence that God has a more reliable understanding of cosmology than we do.
| Quote: | | The matter of origins is knowable because God has revealed it to us; so let us not be “blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of people in their deceitful scheming.”(Ephesians 4:14) Let’s learn all we can, but in the end, be faithful enough to submit to God rather than man. |
That would be relevant if scientific teaching were cunning, crafty, and deceitful.
| Quote: | Elsewhere in the article Berg says:
Who are we? We are sons and daughters of the Most High! We are ambassadors from the One who was there in the beginning—the Creator! It is our duty to “demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ” (2 Corinthians 10:5). |
Okay, but that’s not really an argument against the sincerity of scientists and the effectiveness of the scientific method. We shouldn’t a priori assume they are cunning and deceitful. We need are ambassadors of God so we should be a little more thorough in our discrediting, using sound reasoning, not wishful thinking.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Where are the wise? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. …For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength. (1 Corinthians 1:20-21, 25). |
In this passage Paul is referring to the preaching of the cross in particular, but also to all of God’s truth in general. If Genesis cannot be trusted to be a history of origins in matters of biology, geology and astronomy, then how can we trust it to be a history of origins in matters of human identity (created by God in His image), marriage, sin and judgment? |
It’s a false dichotomy to suggest either all Scripture is historical, or it all isn’t.
The allegorical meaning is not displaced because of later developments in our understanding of geology and cosmology.
| Quote: | | Darwinian evolution is the account of origins that belongs with atheism and naturalism. In its attempt to harmonize the Bible with Darwinism, the church has undermined the integrity and authority of the foundational chapters of God’s Word. The zeal of the opponents of Darwinism is not misplaced. |
I won’t disagree that some people’s zeal is misplaced, but those people aren’t necessarily Darwinian. |
|
|
|
| lornewel Member Joined May 11, 2004 553 posts Location: Abbotsford |
| |
Posted Mar 16, 2010; 9:24 am |
|
I largely agree with Ken's post. I would like to go further and urge that we not only not impose current (and changeable) scientific ideas upon scripture, but that we also be careful about imposing fallible hermeneutic approaches upon it. For example, while I believe the whole bible is the true and inspired word of God, I do not believe that it necessarily follows that the whole of creation is 6,000 years old. That is not found in the text, but is a conclusion drawn but some persons because of their approach to understanding the text.
The other thing I want to say is that what I believe about God and about the scriputure is not a result of rigorous intellectual inquiry. It is a result of revelation. Apart from God revealing himself, I would be one of those gentiles referred to in 1 Cor 1:18-31 who find the whole message of Christ foolishness.
But God [thankfully] chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world [like me] to shame the strong. He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him. It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—
I also will say that God has often had occasion to remind me to walk humbly and to be careful about my assertions of what I "know" since the revelation I have received has not eliminated all mysteries, so "I know in part...and see through a glass darkly" |
|
|
|
| Marshall Member Joined Feb 7, 2002 1191 posts Location: Langley, BC |
| Different interpretations don't indicate unbelief |
Posted Mar 16, 2010; 12:41 pm |
|
I too believe that "Nature and the Bible are both revelations of God, so they cannot fundamentally contradict each other". However, the rest of that sentence in the opening post moves from a comparison of items on the same level (nature and Scripture, both revelations of God), to items on different levels (science and Scripture). A more useful comparison would have been between science and theology, both fallible human attempts to understand God's revelation. When a fair comparison is used, we recognize that when our theology and science conflict, either one or both could be the source of the error, rather than the problem always being with science.
None of us consistently use Genesis to tell us what to think about biology, geology and astronomy. When we want to breed strong animals, even those among us who reject evolution don't grab for poplar branches to imitate Genesis 30:31-43. Genesis presents a cause-and-effect relationship between Jacob's actions and his increased flock. Jacob only credits God for his increase when he's trying to appease his wives and doesn't want to mention his trickery towards their father (Genesis 31:4-16). Because we know more about genetics than either Jacob or the author of Genesis, we recognize that God (the author and sustainer of genes, as well as everything else) blessed Jacob in spite of his trickery, not because of it.
In describing (twice) the creation of the world, Genesis 1-2 provides no physical knowledge ahead of its time. If God's purpose had been to get the Hebrews up to speed on the real nature of the universe, this would seem to indicate failure. The passage doesn't reveal the immense size of the stars, or how the sun is more like the other stars than the moon. It doesn't reveal that the earth is shaped like a ball and orbits the sun. It speaks of a firmament which does not correspond to any known physical structure (though it does fit Mesopotamian cosmology). The itemization of living things doesn't deal with creatures not yet discovered, such as bacteria. It doesn't even reveal which things are living things, and the personification of sun and moon as rulers a day after the creation of vegetation could easily lead one to wrong conclusions. Genesis 1 challenges the existing Mesopotamian worldview by demoting the sun from a god to a nameless creature, but the sun is not described in literally accurate physical terms.
This appears to be God's typical approach. When God gave a dream to Nebuchadnezzar, God communicated in the flat-earth terminology Nebuchadnezzar was familiar with, giving him an image of a tree that grew so tall that it could be seen from anywhere on earth (Daniel 4). Daniel's inspired interpretation of that dream did not correct the faulty physical world-view the imagery depends on. Apparently, God doesn't have a problem with accommodating his revelation to our faulty perspectives -- if he did, we'd be left in silence! Also, God's reticence to spill the secrets of his creation allows us, the human creatures he has appointed to govern the earth, the chance to learn about our kingdom first-hand. "It is the glory of God to conceal things, but the glory of kings is to search things out" (Proverbs 25:2, NRSV).
Well before science provided reasons to question a literal interpretation of Genesis, many did so based on the text itself. Augustine thought the days of Genesis described what happened in an instant. Further back, Josephus took the seven days literally, but not the Eden account: "Moreover, Moses, after the seventh day was over begins to talk philosophically." Christian history sounds a cautionary note against being dogmatic that certain passages literally describe physical realities. Martin Luther insisted, contrary to Copernicus, that "sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth." The evidence for heliocentricity was not well established when Luther wrote, but his belief in the infallibility of his understanding of that passage was foolish no matter how speculative the science. Yes, there are dangers in interpreting something intended literally as allegory. Equally, there are dangers in interpreting something symbolic as literal, or something accommodated to our perspective as revealing God's perspective.
How can we trust Scripture even though it accommodates the physical world-view of its authors rather than revealing science ahead of its time? Through understanding that Scripture is true even when it isn't written in our favourite genre. We may not appreciate poetry or a historical allegory, but that doesn't mean God can't inspire people to speak and write in these genres to communicate truth. We may prefer a Bible that never breaks into song, never uses hyperbole, never uses symbolism, never uses the "science" of its time, but that is not the Bible God inspired, and that is not what God sounded like when he became flesh and lived among us. Jesus loved to tell stories grounded in situations familiar to the people he spoke to, he loved to wrap a teaching in symbolism, he loved a sharp exaggeration. Should it be any surprise to us that the God who inspired Genesis is the same?
Last edited by Marshall on Mar 16, 2010; 1:00 pm; edited 1 time in total. |
|
|
|
| James Toews Member Joined Mar 31, 2006 362 posts |
| |
Posted Mar 16, 2010; 1:00 pm |
|
Hi Kenneth
Interesting post and like Lorne, Neto, and Marshall I largely agree with you. I agree with Neto’s comment-
| Quote: | | I would say “We need to avoid imposing our own modern scientific understanding onto the Genesis account.” |
I also think that Lorne’s comment stands beside it well- | Quote: | | but that we also be careful about imposing fallible hermeneutic approaches upon it. |
My additional comment is- I believe that scientific knowledge and Biblical knowledge can, and often do, contradict each other and that those contradictions are important because they point to the limits of human knowledge. This is stated differently than Marshall did- but may well be in the spirit of his further comments. I resolve the contradictions differently than you do on the age of the earth and the role evolution may have played in Creation.
My point is- I don’t think it is wise or Biblical to pit one form of knowledge against another. |
|
|
|
| James Toews Member Joined Mar 31, 2006 362 posts |
| |
Posted Mar 16, 2010; 1:16 pm |
|
By the way- not to leave Todd's post out out :) I completely agree with-
| Quote: | | In my opinion, the Bible doesn't teach science, |
but am not prepared to grant-
| Quote: | | but it does contain a dated cosmological framework |
There are sides of that comment that I agree with but it could indicate that the Scriptures are philosophically dated. Here's a Chesterton quote that came to mind when I read this-
| Quote: | | An imbecile habit has arisen in modern controversy of saying that such and such a creed can be held in one age but cannot be held in another. Some dogma, we are told, was credible in the twelfth century, but is not credible in the twentieth. You might as well say that a certain philosophy can be believed on Mondays, but cannot be believed on Tuesdays. You might as well say of a view of the cosmos that it was suitable to half-past three, but not suitable to half-past four. |
Of course I am not saying Todd is an imbecile :) or even that I am properly representing him- but this quote was part of Chesterton's attempt to come up with his own sorting out of the contradictions between various fields of knowledge and specifically the matter of Darwinism. Reading his book, Orthodoxy, is IMO a great primer to getting the discussion off on the right foot. |
|
|
|
| Marshall Member Joined Feb 7, 2002 1191 posts Location: Langley, BC |
| Constant flux and Orthodoxy |
Posted Mar 16, 2010; 2:04 pm |
|
| Neto wrote: | | (I see this in the same vein as Menno Simon’s view of the incarnation – he (unfortunately) based it on a then accepted scientific understanding of how conception occurs, and that understanding was later found to be false. This placed his theology into error, or one might say, heresy. This is the danger of any attempt to reconcile scriptural teaching with current scientific understanding or theory – the latter is in constant flux, but the scripture is not. It is truth both now, and forever.) |
If science were in constant flux, then a certain scientific understanding could not be "later found to be false", because there would be no basis for preferring the present scientific conclusion over the former one.
We aren't going to wake up tomorrow and discover that scientists have gone back to thinking the earth is flat. If such a thing ever did happen, it would be because we lost the ability to do science. This is because the earth isn't really flat. Even though that's a scientific statement, and even though science is fallible, I can make that statement with certainty. If I'm wrong on it, then I'm wrong about so much of reality that my opinion of the earth's shape is irrelevant. It wasn't silly to believe the earth is flat before the evidence contradicting that idea was widely known, but it is silly in an age of space travel and intercontinental flights.
There is a danger in attempting to reconcile Scripture with a current scientific understanding. There is also a danger in attempting to reconcile nature with a current Scriptural understanding. Both our Scriptural and scientific understandings are fallible, and both need to bend when they are shown to be out of step with reality.
| James Toews wrote: | | Here's a Chesterton quote that came to mind when I read this- |
Yes, it would be absurd to believe one thing on Mondays and not on Tuesdays. It is not absurd to believe one thing as a teen and later discover something different as an adult. This appears to be the same error as saying science is in constant flux. Scientists don't accept one thing on Mondays and reject it on Tuesdays; instead, they've discovered things over time that refine what they accept to be true. Chesterton's wording may be colourful and amusing, especially for those who agree with his point, but the target he blasts to bits is quite safely removed from the actual position he claims to be critiquing. (And, if I'm not mistaken, his intended targets include protestants who reject many Catholic dogmas, not merely those who accept evolution.)
Because Chesterton loved exaggeration, loved blasting his critics, and loved tearing down caricatures of his oppenents' positions, I'm not as convinced that reading his book is the best way to get a contentious discussion off on the right foot. There were parts of Orthodoxy that I really enjoyed, but I hope I don't imitate his tone in my own writing.
Edit: Here's a section of Orthodoxy where Chesterton does critique evolution:
Evolution is either an innocent scientific description of how certain earthly things came about; or, if it is anything more than this, it is an attack upon thought itself. If evolution destroys anything, it does not destroy religion but rationalism. If evolution simply means that a positive thing called an ape turned very slowly into a positive thing called a man, then it is stingless for the most orthodox; for a personal God might just as well do things slowly as quickly, especially if, like the Christian God, he were outside time. But if it means anything more, it means that there is no such thing as an ape to change, and no such thing as a man for him to change into. It means that there is no such thing as a thing. At best, there is only one thing, and that is a flux of everything and anything. This is an attack not upon the faith, but upon the mind; you cannot think if there are no things to think about. You cannot think if you are not separate from the subject of thought. Descartes said, "I think; therefore I am." The philosophic evolutionist reverses and negatives the epigram. He says, "I am not; therefore I cannot think." For the record, when I say I accept evolution, I mean that living things share common descent. It's a "scientific description of how certain earthly things came about". I'm not quite sure why so many (including Chesterton, and including some proponents of evolution) try to make evolution into something so much more than this. |
|
|
|
| James Toews Member Joined Mar 31, 2006 362 posts |
| Chesterton and more |
Posted Mar 16, 2010; 3:12 pm |
|
Hi Marshall
It is hard to disagree with you on your characterization of Chesterton as a polemicist- but when he says things you agree with he does it so darn well :) Because he was writing exactly when the evolution/creationist debate was setting the terms of engagement [which we still live by] I think he does give us a very good background. Also, I believe, he remained on very good terms with his theological opponents. That seems a very good legacy.
On the matter of-
| Quote: | | Yes, it would be absurd to believe one thing on Mondays and not on Tuesdays. It is not absurd to believe one thing as a teen and later discover something different as an adult. |
It is the assumption that the Scriptures represent a teen understanding and we moderns have the adult understanding, that I can't accept as valid. |
|
|
|
| Marshall Member Joined Feb 7, 2002 1191 posts Location: Langley, BC |
| Re: Chesterton and more |
Posted Mar 16, 2010; 3:49 pm |
|
James, I don't make that assumption. While I did not relate the teen/adult analogy to Scripture at all, if I did it would only be to connect the teen and adult to different interpretations of Scripture, not to Scripture itself as the teen and one interpretation as the adult. That is not an equal comparison, and the irony (in the non-Socratic sense) would be heavy if I did that after entering this thread calling attention to something similar.
God doesn't believe the earth is flat, and Scripture doesn't teach that the earth is flat. However, most if not all authors of Scripture probably thought the earth was flat, they wrote in a way that was consistent with that, and God accommodated that perspective even in how he inspired visions to King Nebuchadnezzar and John. When it comes to physical realities, we do know some things that the ancients didn't. We also have collectively forgotten many things that they knew, especially since we live far more removed from the raw creation than they did. I do not think they were teens and we are adults -- we're all babies before God.
However, if the question is whether our scientific cosmology or their pre-scientific cosmology is more accurate, I have no doubt the answer is ours. We don't have all the answers, but on some major questions relating to how the universe is structured, we have more observations from which to form theories than they did, and as a result, I believe our theories correspond more closely to reality.
That should factor into how we interpret Scripture. We need to make sure that what we get from Scripture is what it is teaching, not the wrapping that accommodates a time and culture different than our own. (God still needs to accommodate to deal with us, so this is not saying we are beyond needing God's condescension, but that accommodation may look different in different ages.) Just because this is a difficult task doesn't mean it shouldn't be undertaken; the fact that we won't succeed perfectly is no excuse to not try at all.
Last edited by Marshall on Mar 16, 2010; 3:56 pm; edited 1 time in total. |
|
|
|
| Todd Moderator Joined Sep 9, 2004 1088 posts Location: Winnipeg |
| |
Posted Mar 16, 2010; 3:54 pm |
|
James,
The cosmological framework isn't important with regard to the theological message. I don't see it as a matter of "it was good for them, but not for us". It's simply not essential whether the cosmological system was good or not. We simply need to be aware that they had a different understanding of cosmology.
If God were to inspire a creation narrative today, it wouldn't be the same creation narrative he used with the Hebrews. The challenge for us in using an ancient creation narrative, is that we have to put ourselves in the shoes of the ancient Hebrews, and that's not easy to do. The Hebrews had the benefit of understanding the context better. We have other luxuries, but not that one. As one of our Adult Sunday School teachers remarked "God took the risk of being misunderstood" (in the context of clean/unclean laws, which would have made way more sense to the Israelites than they do for us, but I think that statement rings true here as well).
Anyway, regardless of whether Chesterton applies, I see my objectionable comment as evidently true.
I found the following image with a google search, which is similar to what I recall. I suppose we can debate whether this accurately portrays what the ancient Hebrews believed, or debate whether the Bible is implicit in accepting this view. I think the following portrayal of the cosmos is not consistent with reality, and I think it is pretty easy to demonstrate that. Some YECists still hold to some elements of this cosmology, including the belief that there exists a water canopy surrounding the Earth (perhaps unleashed in the Great Flood), or surrounding the universe.
James, do you think this is an accurate portrayal of Biblical cosmology?
http://ncseprojects.org/files/images/continuum-Fig-3-2-hebrew.preview.gif |
|
|
|
| Todd Moderator Joined Sep 9, 2004 1088 posts Location: Winnipeg |
| |
Posted Mar 16, 2010; 4:12 pm |
|
James,
Re-reading your post (and subsequent ones between you and Marshall), I'm wondering if I'm properly understanding your comment. For example, how many sides are there to my fragmented comment (regarding Biblical cosmology being dated)? What do you agree with and what don't you agree with?
Does it lead toward philosophical dating? I'm not clear on the transition from being scientifically dated to being philosophically dated.
I'm not clear on your understanding of Biblical cosmology, and where you might diverge in opinion with modern scientific opinion.
Todd |
|
|
|
| James Toews Member Joined Mar 31, 2006 362 posts |
| The Chart |
Posted Mar 16, 2010; 4:25 pm |
|
| A quick comment before I try to give a coherent response to you and Marshall. While that chart is labelled Hebrew cosmology it looks suspiciously Polemic. One of the big problems, as I see it is that the Greek Polemic cosmology so dominated Christian theology [and even Jewish theology during the NT period] that it is easy to mix up what is Hebrew and what is not. I don't think that the Hebrews were big on charts like that. |
|
|
|
| James Toews Member Joined Mar 31, 2006 362 posts |
| Fixing the Scriptures |
Posted Mar 16, 2010; 4:37 pm |
|
Marshall
That's a good clarification. I missed the distinction you make between the Scriptures and the various theologies we come up with.
Occasionally I come up with an idea [such as Credit Cards] which I think would make for a good parable about sin, and think that Jesus would have used that, if He had walked the earth in our time. Unfortunately, other than a mind game, that isn't an option. When I read Genesis, however, I can't think how it could possibly be improved. What would you add or take away? |
|
|
|
| Neto Member Joined Feb 2, 2005 254 posts Location: Holmes County, Ohio |
| Re: Constant flux and Orthodoxy |
Posted Mar 16, 2010; 5:03 pm |
|
| Marshall wrote: | | Neto wrote: | | (I see this in the same vein as Menno Simon’s view of the incarnation – he (unfortunately) based it on a then accepted scientific understanding of how conception occurs, and that understanding was later found to be false. This placed his theology into error, or one might say, heresy. This is the danger of any attempt to reconcile scriptural teaching with current scientific understanding or theory – the latter is in constant flux, but the scripture is not. It is truth both now, and forever.) |
If science were in constant flux, then a certain scientific understanding could not be "later found to be false", because there would be no basis for preferring the present scientific conclusion over the former one.
We aren't going to wake up tomorrow and discover that scientists have gone back to thinking the earth is flat. If such a thing ever did happen, it would be because we lost the ability to do science. This is because the earth isn't really flat. Even though that's a scientific statement, and even though science is fallible, I can make that statement with certainty. If I'm wrong on it, then I'm wrong about so much of reality that my opinion of the earth's shape is irrelevant. It wasn't silly to believe the earth is flat before the evidence contradicting that idea was widely known, but it is silly in an age of space travel and intercontinental flights. |
I was speaking from the perspective of the example I gave, which involves hundreds of years of scientific advances – changes in “scientific truth” - not days, weeks, or even one lifetime. I perhaps used a poor choice of words, perhaps I should have omitted the word “constant”, but I was making a comparison between the unchanging Scripture, and the developments in scientific understanding of conception during the period since the time of Menno Simons until now. How this compares to evolution thought in my mind is that at least to some degree, the current scientific understanding of these larger processes is not yet set – not so much as the science of conception, although I could be wrong on that, because DNA studies and the such like are yielding new insights into the current understanding of conception as well. But I did specifically say “Scripture”, not theology; I mentioned in SS class last Sunday that I think most prophecy only really makes sense when looked at in hind sight. Like Jesus said to his disciples about the events of the end: “When you see these things happen, then you will know that that day is near.” Theology may need to change, because it involves suppositions which are seen as being based on Scripture, when they may not be. (It would be well to also acknowledge that scientists, at least good ones, do not claim to have the final word on a subject – they recognize that they have built on the discoveries of those who went before them, and the probability that others will also build on what they themselves have discovered.) |
|
|
|
|
|
