Essentials

2007-12-23T16:01:00.000-06:00

It seems to me that the major problem that many fellow believers have with evolution is based on a particular interpretation of scripture and on doubts about the scientific evidence. I would like to suggest that the scientific evidence is so strong that either God purposely created it to deceive us or evolution occurred, at least in a limited way.

I came to this conclusion 25 years ago, when I was faced with the prospect of teaching college Biology at a small Baptist affiliated college. I had become familiar with creationist writings of Henry Morris and others, but I thought I should do some additional reading before deciding how to approach evolution as a Professor many of whose students were preparing to be pastors. I wish I could summarize my findings here, but there is simply not space, and many excellent books have been published on this issue. The bottom line is that some of the arguments of the creationists are seriously flawed. Others are valid, such as the low probability of life developing by chance, but they are not powerful. Improbable events happen every day; just ask a lottery winner. In addition, the evidence for evolution was excellent in 1982, and it is much stronger now. Ignoring or reinterpreting this evidence as not indicating evolution requires wholesale abandonment of natural cause-effect mechanisms, which are the only legitimate mechanisms science can be used to evaluate.

Does this mean anyone who believes in evolution must deny a supernatural role for God in the process? Not at all. There are many steps in the process that are unknown and could have been done directly by God bypassing the usual laws of nature. This is particularly the case with the initial life forms, which the Bible indicates were made from the dust of the earth (which is comparable to the naturalistic explanation). Most importantly, if the soul of man is supernatural (or at least beyond the usual understanding of nature), then it must have been given to human beings by supernatural means.

This brings us to the apparent contradiction between the Bible and a role for evolution in creation. However, because I cannot with intellectual honesty deny that the evidence supports evolution, I find myself in the interesting position of being a creationist who accepts a limited version of evolution. Does this influence my interpretation of the first few chapters of the Bible. Of course it does. However, scientific evidence influences the interpretation of scripture for all but a tiny minority of Christians today. In the Bible, we find the following, "Tremble before him, all the earth! The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved." (1 Chron. 16:30). Very similar statements are found in Psalms. The most straightforward interpretation of this is that the earth does not move through space. Thus, the church forbade Galileo from publishing his evidence for the Copernican view of the Solar system in which the earth revolves around the sun. However, virtually no one now interprets these passages this way. Why? Doing so would identify them as irrational. The evidence that Copernicus was right is overwhelming, people who don't accept it are marginalized as kooks. The evidence for evolution is not quite this strong, but it is close.

So, how do I interpret the Bible so that it at least allows the possibility of evolution? Actually it is not as difficult as many think. In fact, the first two chapters include what I believe is a purposeful indication that the accounts of creation are not intended to be a sequential scientific descriptions of creation. The clue is that the sequence of events in Chapter 1 differs from the sequence in Chapter 2. In Chapter 1, man and woman were created on the 6th day of creation after the plants and animals. In contrast, plants and trees were created after man, animals were created after man, and woman was created last in Chapter 2. There have been a variety of attempts to reconcile these differences and retain a literal interpretation of both accounts, but they simply are not credible. The clear indication in Chapter 2 is that man was created first, then animals (to provide helper for the man), then when none of the animals were found suitable woman was created. Any other reading of this account requires some assumptions and bending of meanings that are simply not in the text. This purposeful contradiction in sequence either means that the Bible contains mistakes or it means that we are not intended to take these accounts a literal, scientific, sequential accounts of creation. I do not believe the Bible contains mistakes, so I prefer the second option.

Doesn't this eliminate the foundation for the rest of the Bible. I do not believe it has any effect at all on the foundation for the rest of scripture. Death in the first two chapters refers to spiritual death, just as it clearly does in many verses in the New Testament. Evolution is permitted because physical death (of animals) could have occurred before the death of Adam and Eve. However, spiritual death can only occur in a spiritual being. There were none until God breathed His life (note: breath also refers to Spirit, pneuma, in scripture) into a man-like physical being that already had evolved from more primitive forms. The Fall is still the Fall and led to the loss of the ideal relationship of man and God and to all sorts of associated physical ills as recorded in scripture. These are consistent with health problems now known to be associated with various excessive life styles. The beginning of animals as herbivores followed by development of carnivores is noted in the Bible and is proposed in evolution as well. God created in the Bible, and science leaves this possibility open, but science cannot prove events that do not occur by natural causes.

The word "day" in chapter 1 is the Hebrew word "yom", which can mean a 24 hr day or an age of time. Near the end of the first chapter of Genesis, it is clearly used with this meaning when describing the age of creation. There is no biblical basis to insist that the days of creation were 24 hr periods. In fact, the concept of a 24-hr day makes no sense before the creation of the sun, which was not initially present. God saw that what He created was good in the sense that it was just as He planned, and He knew that whether by natural or supernatural means or both, human beings would arise from the processes He started. All was good in this same sense until the Fall, at which time human beings used their freedom to attempt to usurp God.

None of this compromises the Bible in any way, and in fact it is more respectful of the text than the convoluted, assumption filled interpretations required to reconcile chapters 1 and 2 and concomitantly retain a rigidly literal view of scripture. On the contrary, insisting that anything other than young earth, 24 hr day creation is a compromise harms and will continue to harm the cause of Christ. People who are given an objective summary of the evidence for evolution generally come to the conclusion that it is a pretty good theory. No one is required to accept it as fact, and when properly taught it is not taught that way. All science is provisional and subject to revision or replacement as new evidence or new frameworks of interpretation arise. However, when people keep hearing that Christians say you cannot believe in evolution and the Bible, we place people in an untenable position. They must either purposely embrace irrationality to accept Christ, or they must reject Christ and remain rational. This is happening. I have worked for many years in academic institutions, and I have personally seen it.

I would suggest that the interpretation of Genesis chapters 1 and 2 is anything but simple and there is ample evidence that it is not intended to be strictly literal. Are rigid literalists so certain they are right about their interpretation that they are willing to write off most of the educated people around the world? It seems to me that this represents a badly skewed set of priorities. The clear priority of Jesus was to bring salvation, but being "right" about evolution seems to be the priority of some believers.

2007-11-04T21:41:00.000-06:00

There has been a long gap in posts here for good reason. I accepted a new position as a department head at a college of veterinary medicine. The combination of moving and learning a new job has kept me too busy to find the time to blog. The move was not really something planned. I had thought that it would be a good time to try a new challenge, such as a department head position. It was becoming clear that this would not happen in the near future at my previous institution, and I received an invitation to apply for a position at a college of veterinary medicine at the university where I began my research and teaching career in 1984. I suppose it could have been chance, but I don't really think so. At each step my wife and I prayed simply for guidance to know God's plan. He answered, and it became clear that the plan was for me to go. Cynics may think that career advancement rather than the will of God was top priority. All I can say is that the move was unplanned and in some ways unwanted. We were living in the same city as our parents and my wife's sister and the city where I grew up. We assumed that is where we would stay. We really enjoyed being near family especially after only seeing them on holidays for 13 years. However, I just could not get any peace about staying. I tried!

It is interesting that one of the most appealing features of the move was an opportunity to work with a leadership team that included strong Christians who clearly believe that their faith should guide their actions and attitudes. It makes for an outstanding environment and a really fun opportunity. I feel for folks who don't see their lives as part of a plan. Where does meaning and purpose come from for them? Some try to pluck it from thin air, but it rings hollow. I am grateful that God not only gives meaning and purpose, but He designed things so that His way is the only way to come to a logical, rational basis for meaning and purpose. Next time I hope to discuss a book by E.O. Wilson that touches on this issue in an interesting way.

2007-02-04T23:12:00.000-06:00

The Bible Beats the Anthropic Principle
The posts to date summarize a case that I put together in support of the idea that the scientific version of evolution meets the criteria for a good and useful theory of science in its explanation of the formation of the physical components and functions of living organisms. It is also clear to me that excluding God from this process excludes any hope for deriving meaning or purpose. So I do not agree with “evolutionists” who believe that evolution can explain everything about the origin of human beings. In addition, I choose by faith to accept that the Bible is free from error, and whether Genesis 1 and 2 are interpreted literally or figuratively, it is clear that God created. However, I believe he created us mostly by establishing a universe in which natural processes would allow development and evolution of life forms. Obviously, the soul, which is a supernatural entity, could not have been created by natural processes, but required direct action by God.

It is striking that the universe we know, including the conditions necessary for life, could not exist if any of the physical constants for gravity, strong and weak nuclear forces, electromagnetism were even slightly different from their current values. It is so improbable that this occurred by chance alone that scholars who do not believe in God needed an alternative explanation for it. Their explanation is referred to as the anthropic principle. In its simplest form, it states what seems to be an obvious observation. Since we are here to observe and measure the universe, the universe necessarily is the way we see it. However, some proponents (e.g., Tipler) of this theory take it further and conclude that our existence not only depends on the “fine-tuning” of physical constants, it actually is necessary for the existence of the universe. The reasoning for this conclusion is not intuitively obvious but is based on quantum mechanics. If this theory seems to have much in common with intelligent design, that is because it does! It essentially provides non-believers with a scenario in which humans have purpose. This purpose is really hollow though because it is based solely on human beings, and as imperfect finite creatures, we are not a sufficient reference point to provide meaning and purpose; God is. Speaking of intelligent design, some believe that this idea reconciles evolution and the Bible. However, the person who developed the concept of intelligent design (at least in its current iteration), Michael Behe, accepts evolution to explain the diversity and relationships among species. He invokes intelligent design only for the early events in the creation of life. The evidence from the fossils to the genome, is simply too convincing to ignore, even for the inventor of intelligent design.

The alternative to accepting some version of evolution is to believe that God tricked us by creating evidence of evolution for us to find. Of course, this is not consistent with God’s integrity, which the Bible indicates is an immutable part of His character. However, to be thorough, it seems advisable to imagine what would be required scientifically for an essentially literal reading of Genesis 1 and 2 to be correct and to determine if this would explain the disconcerting evidence for evolution. A major requirement would be that the laws of nature must have changed at the Fall. If death in the account of the Fall refers to physical as well as spiritual death and if human beings would not have ever died without sin, something fundamental must have changed. Interestingly, this would be consistent with Romans 8:20-22 which indicates that due to the Fall all of creation groans and experiences decay. However, in verse 20, there is an indication that man was created in this decaying state, although the wording introduces some ambiguity. If decay was not evident before the Fall, one possible scientific explanation would be that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics was not in operation. At the molecular level, this Law states that in the course of any process (including life) the net disorder of the universe always increases. This describes decay quite well (dust is more disordered than a human being). However, nothing even remotely resembling the physical life that we now know would be even remotely possible without the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Virtually all the biochemical reactions that make life possible use or overcome the 2nd Law. However, this does not completely preclude the possibility that the original creation was altogether different and that God supernaturally caused life to develop without the 2nd Law. Even if this was the case, the evidence for evolution would still not be explained. Specifically, the ever increasing fossil and genetic evidence for early humans and Neanderthals (Science 314:1850) which are found in strata laid down long after strata containing dinosaurs would be inconsistent with a fundamental change in physical laws. Surely there would be a sharp change in the nature of the fossil evidence after the Fall if the 2nd Law suddenly took effect. However, there is no such evidence. We would still have the problem that God would seem to be deceptive. Would He have created such overwhelmingly convincing evidence for a process that did not occur? If so, how can we claim that He never deceives?

This question cannot be resolved without reconciling a limited version of evolution with the Genesis accounts of creation. As detailed in a previous post, the most reasonable first step would seem to be to try to understand the message or purpose in the apparently contradictory sequence of events in Genesis 1 and 2. The easiest and the most certain way to reconcile the conflicts is to propose that one or both chapters are intended literally, not figuratively. The writer of Genesis did not have even rudimentary scientific knowledge, and readers until very recently did not either. Therefore, a detailed scientific account would have been nonsense. It seems unreasonable then to regard Genesis 1 and 2 as a scientific account. I would suggest that it is analogous to the Apostle John’s descriptions of heaven and the end times in the book of Revelation. He was using human language and familiar objects to describe things that are beyond our understanding and imagination. Because of this, the literal and detailed prophesy for the end times has been interpreted in many different ways by many different people, and very few churches require conformity on this issue. I believe the text indicates that Genesis 1 and 2 should be regarded in a similar way. The writer was given images or words by God describing events of which the writer had no understanding. The accounts in Genesis suggest a similar process as used by John to describe his visions.

2006-11-26T14:44:00.000-06:00

Is Evolution vs. Creation a Discussion of Essentials?

It may not be clear why a blog called “Essentials” has focused exclusively thus far on the issue of evolution and the Bible. Does this mean I think this is an essential matter. Not at all. In fact, I discussed this issue because it is a good example of an matter about which Christians should be able to disagree without animosity. As already explained I think there are some very real negative consequences to the cause of Christ when we aggressively push an ultraliteralist version of creation that ignores or proposes nearly untenable reconciliation the different creation accounts in Chapter 1 and Chapter 2. Therefore, I am not neutral on this issue. However, I believe that those who disagree with me on this have a motivation that I share: the desire to be true to God’s word and hold it as the primary authority in all matters. Post-modern relativism is a real threat. However, in my opinion the Bible can legitimately be interpreted in a way that is not inconsistent with a limited version of evolution. Having decided that this is a valid interpretation based only on the biblical text itself, it is very interesting that this puts us in a position to speak to modern people, who know the evidence in favor of at least some form of evolution. These are the very people who need to be reached and confronted with the emptiness and futility of a materialist philosophy. However, I do not dislike and I would not refuse to work with individuals who disagree. In fact, my pastor invited a person from “Answers in Genesis” to speak at our church, and I did not object. I expressed that I have reservations about their views, but I agree with their motives. However, it is my impression that there is no reciprocity in this regard. The Answers in Genesis web site uses a quote from Marx to describe Christians who “compromise” by accepting some version of evolution as a reasonable scientific theory. These people are referred to as “useful idiots”. In this case, useful means useful to atheists and anti-religious people in generally. Of course, the meaning of idiot is obvious, but it is not clear to me that it is a term that one Christian should use to describe another. I would characterize it in a similar category as the word “fool”, which we are expressly forbidden from using. If they could conclusively refute my interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 and I persisted in espousing that view, perhaps the term would be justified. However, that is not the case. It is possible, with equal reverence for the Bible and an equal belief in interpreting it literally unless there are clear indications to the contrary (which there are in Genesis 1 and 2), to come to different conclusions about the meaning of Chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis.

This is representative of a larger issue, which I believe is one of the most serious threats to traditional or conservative Christianity today. It is the tendency to exclude and even ridicule persons who disagree with us about non-essential matters of faith. Taken to its logical conclusion this would cause Christians to continue to fragment and not to cooperate in that which is to be our primary concern (spreading and living the gospel of Christ). This is happening now in the Southern Baptist Convention. There are some who are voicing objections to this trend, but I fear power politics will prevail and those who are most willing to use secular political methods will prevail. This group is not likely to be the one that favors cooperation. The apostle Paul addressed a variety of doctrinal issues and behaviors in churches, but I believe the only people he advised Christians to withdraw from are those who were unrepentant sinners who would damage the reputation of the church in the community or those who were preaching or teaching overt blasphemy. On other issues Paul offered correction, but not withdrawal of fellowship or failure to cooperate. There is a tension between this New Testament principle and the real threat of doctrinal drift or dilution due to cultural influences. Different denominations and even different bodies of believers within denominations come to different conclusions on how to handle this matter. This is probably best, but I would hope that we would be as cautious to avoid unnecessary fragmentation and exclusion as we seem to be to avoid a loss of doctrinal integrity. I think we would all agree that no one is saved by virtue of their correct understanding of doctrine. The only doctrine one has to understand correctly to be saved is the gospel repentance and rebirth, accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior, publicly announcing this decision. Other things may be important, but they are not as important as this one message. Paul advised going as far as acting to make those in a different position in life comfortable in order to reach them for Christ.

2006-11-22T19:05:00.000-06:00

People who insist that the first two chapters of Genesis must be interpreted absolutely literally are motivated at least in part by concerns that are legitimate and deserve to be addressed. One concern is that interpreting these foundational passages of the Bible figuratively sets a precedent for interpreting the entire Bible figuratively, which is often used to “explain away” difficult passages and to place human wisdom above the revealed Word of God. If the primary motive for interpreting Genesis figuratively is to make it consistent with scientific accounts of creation, there is concern that we are giving science (which is by its very nature provisional and changeable) priority over the Bible. The anti-evolution organization Answers in Genesis expresses opposition to figurative interpretation of Genesis, because in their view this compromises foundational truths such as the concept of original sin, the nature of man, the Fall, and other critical concepts. They are also concerned that accepting any form of evolution places one in the camp of the materialist atheists and agnostics who are among the most reviled enemies in the culture wars.

These concerns are legitimate, but the reasoning behind them is not compelling. More importantly, these concerns are hypothetical. Many passages throughout the Bible are interpreted figuratively even by the most conservative theologians, because the text itself or the text plus common sense indicates it is not intended to be taken literally. Thus, the concern that interpreting parts of Genesis figuratively puts us on a slippery slope that will lead to devaluation of the Bible is not supported. The idea that we should refuse to interpret any of Genesis figuratively or to support any version of evolution because it would put us into the camp of the enemy is, to put it bluntly, ridiculous. This would be like saying, I will not take a life-saving medicine because the person who developed it is an atheist. I was taught that the best exegesis of the Bible requires us to approach the scriptures with as few pre-conceived notions as possible and certainly not to let our culture influence our interpretation. Many conservative Christians are quite good at not letting our culture influence our interpretations, in the sense that we do not interpret the Bible as allowing some behaviors that a majority of people in our culture support. This is as it should be, if our interpretation is objective and based only on the Bible. However, few seem to realize that interpreting the Bible purposely to oppose positions of some in our culture that we find distasteful also represents an inappropriate outside influence on our exegesis. We should not go to the Bible looking to support or refute positions held by many in our culture; we should approach the Bible objectively and let it and the Holy Spirit alone guide us. These issues are clearly illustrated by recent events in the largest conservative Christian organization, the Southern Baptist Convention. I was told by Paige Patterson (a former SBC President and architect of the “conservative resurgence”) in a letter that the inclusion of the prohibition of women pastors in the 2000 version of the Baptist Faith and Message was at least in part to counteract radical feminism. I oppose several aspects of radical feminism, but I would hope that I do not let this opposition influence my interpretation of scripture. Sadly, the history of the Southern Baptist Convention includes a lesson on this point that we should have already learned well. The SBC supported slavery and segregation, and when those bad ol’ liberals began to oppose it, this prompted the SBC to be even more vigorous in its insistence that the Bible supported these despicable practices.

It is possible to accept the Bible as literal, except where the text itself gives us cues that a literal interpretation is not intended and still regard parts of Genesis as figurative. There are cues in some parts of Genesis strongly suggesting that a literal, sequential, historical, scientific description of events is not intended. These will be discussed in detail in a moment. It is also possible to interpret Genesis in a manner that does not conflict with most scientific accounts and at the same time does not compromise the interpretation of scripture or give science priority over scripture. If one begins only with scripture and attempts to reconcile Genesis Chapter 1 and Chapter 2, one is left with enough uncertainty as to sequences and duration of events that a limited version of evolution can be accommodated. I should make it clear that I believe the Bible is entirely true and without error. The “errors” highlighted by atheist groups to “prove” the unreliability of the Bible are ironically dependent on absolutely (and often ridiculously) literal interpretations, on ignoring context, and on making big issues of inconsequential differences in genealogies or census numbers. The truth is that one must either accept by faith that the Bible is entirely true, or not. It cannot be proved to be entirely true. However, it cannot be proved to be untrue or to have errors, either. For example, genealogies of Jesus that differ in different passages could indicate that different writers selected different ancestors as important in giving their abbreviated ancestry of Jesus. The major problem, if we do not accept the Bible as true and free of error, is that we cannot know which parts are reliable or not. This eliminates the power of the Book. Who is going to make a life-changing commitment based on a Book full of errors and even untruths. What if the central claims of Christ are part of the unreliable part, as suggested by the Jesus Seminar (a group of scholars who have been spectacularly debunked in Luke Timothy Johnson’s book, “The Real Jesus”).

Having established that I believe in the truth and reliability of the Bible and that it should be interpreted literally unless the text itself indicates otherwise, how do I conclude that the Bible does not conflict with a limited version of evolution? This conclusion does not begin with or rely on science. I did not arrive at this point by first believing science and then adapting scripture to fit it. I started with scripture. There are two separate accounts of creation in Genesis 1 and 2. They are remarkably different in some ways, and they cannot be reconciled without stretching common meanings and the easily understood narrative of the stories beyond the breaking point. This is as clear a sign as we could hope to find indicating that Genesis 1 and 2 should not be interpreted entirely literally. Beginning with Genesis 2, we find a very clear narrative account of creation. God created a man (Adam). Afterwards, God created “every tree” and other plants. God saw that the man was alone and vowed to make a suitable helper for him, and He created animals and brought them to the man, who named them. However, none of them was a suitable companion for the man. Therefore God made woman. This narrative is exceedingly clear with regard to the sequence of events and God’s purpose in them. For example, it would not make sense to propose that God had already created animals and then later brought them to the man. The passage clearly states that the man was alone and that God “formed” the animals for the purpose of providing him a helper. There is just one problem. Similar reasoning applies to the sequence of creation of plants and man. The narrative in Chapter 2 indicates that there were no plants because God had not yet caused rain to fall and because there was no man to till the ground. Thus, God made man, then plants. Some have argued that God made most plants before man (as in Chapter 1), but made cultivated plants after man. However, the narrative in Chapter 2 also states clearly that God created “every tree” at the same time as the other plants, whereas Chapter 1 clearly states that trees were made before man. Obviously, the sequence of events in the narrative in Chapter 2 does not match the very clearly specified sequence in Chapter 1. Specifically, in Chapter 1 the sequence of events indicates that plants were created first, then animals, then man and woman. The sequence in chapter one is clear because each day of creation and everything created on that day is specified. Thus, Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 differ fundamentally with regard to the sequence of events. The events are not minor trivial ones, they involve the creation of human beings. I have tried, and I have read the writings of a number of other people who have tried to reconcile these accounts without fundamentally altering the narrative in Chapter 2 or ignoring the specified creation days in Chapter 1. I have encountered no satisfactory method to do so.

Either the Bible contains an error, or this apparent conflict is intended as a cue that one or both of these passages is not intended to be taken literally. As already mentioned, I do not accept the idea that the Bible contains errors or real contradictions. Because it is not clear that one account is literal and the other is not, it would seem most appropriate not to regard either passage as a scientific or historical account of creation. It is very clearly a theological account. This does not change certain aspects of the stories that can and should be taken literally. An essential truth is that God created everything and made human beings in His own image. There is no obvious indication that the man and woman were figurative. In fact, both accounts indicate specific people with specific descendents, suggesting that a literal interpretation of two people is intended. Interpreting Genesis in light of the rest of the Bible, it is clear that Satan is a literal being, who is introduced later in Chapter 2. My own opinion is that the account in Chapter 1 may actually describe an outline of literal events during creation, but as already noted, the text itself discourages us from emphasizing this by not clearly indicating which of the two conflicting accounts is to be taken figuratively.

Later in Chapter 2, there is a description of the Fall. As a result of their decision to defy God, the man and woman were told that they would surely die. This is interpreted by ultraliteralists to indicate that physical death was not part of the original creation, but only began after the Fall (a position that clearly conflicts with acceptance of any version of evolutionary theory). Interestingly, this is merely an assumption, it is not explicitly stated in the Bible, in spite of the fact that a considerable section of Chapter 3 is devoted to a list of consequences of the Fall. Also, the interpretation that physical death did not exist before the Fall ignores another perfectly valid interpretation. In the New Testament, several passages clearly use death to refer to spiritual death, not physical death. For example, “But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel” (II Timothy 1:10). Obviously, physical death has not been abolished and we are not physically immortal in this life. This passage refers to spiritual death, and the passage referring to the death of man in Genesis can reasonably be interpreted in this way also. Thus, the introduction of death for the first time affected man only after man had a soul. It is perfectly reasonable to expect that previous primates were, born, lived, and died, just as overwhelmingly demonstrated by fossil evidence. This does not contradict the Bible. In fact, the only consistent interpretation possible without distorting the obvious sequence of the narrative in Chapter 2 is to interpret both chapters as dealing with literal beings and with spiritual truths, with little concern or emphasis on the mechanism or timing of creation.

Biblical ultraliteralists insist that the days of creation must be interpreted as 24 hour days. However, Genesis itself defies this interpretation. It is obvious in Genesis 2: 4 (“These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens”) that the word day, which is the same Hebrew word used to designate the days of creation in chapter 1, indicates an age or period of time, not a 24 hour day. The anti-evolution group Answers in Genesis states that the word day used along with a number (e.g., 1st day) always means a 24 hour day. However, it is exceedingly unlikely that they have evaluated all Hebrew writings to verify this claim. There is no reason a priori to make such an assumption. Even if this is the most common usage, it does not preclude a different meaning in Genesis. Interpreting the “days” of creation as ages of time does no harm to the theological or even the literal truths of Genesis. Could God have created the earth and all living things in 6 24-hour days? Of course He could. Is it necessary to propose this is how He created? Not at all. I interpret these days as ages of time because of the obvious cue in Genesis 2:4 and because the first 3 days in Chapter 1 occurred before the creation of the sun. Therefore, these days at least cannot be 24-hour days as defined by the movement of the sun.

In addition to the disagreement between Chapters 1 and 2, when interpreted literally, there are problems with regard to common sense physical observations that would have been obvious to average people in the pre-scientific era. For example, plants were created on day 3, but the sun was created on day 4. Plants do not function well without the sun. In addition, the references to days before the creation of the sun, which has already been mentioned, would defy common sense or would indicate that literal days defined by the movement of the sun were not intended.

It is of primary importance to note that I have not mentioned science at all as a reason for interpreting the Bible as described here. I have only pointed out a few cases in which interpretations derived strictly from the text would be consistent with a limited version of evolution (limited in the sense that it cannot explain everything and is provisional like all other scientific theories). The reasons for doing so are derived entirely from the Bible itself. However, now that we have this interpretation, it would be interesting to determine if scientific accounts of creation can be harmonized with it. Interpreting the “days” of Genesis 1 to be eras of time allows sufficient time for the process of evolution to occur, and the sequential development of animals in different eras, culminating with human beings is consistent with evolutionary theory. It is often argued that the biblical indication that living things produce other living things of their own kind precludes evolution. Actually, this is an integral part of evolution. Speciation is never proposed to occur in one generation in evolutionary theory. The offspring are of the same “kind” as the parents, but when two groups of animals become isolated from each other they can respond to different environmental situations by having different mutant traits selected for survival. This eventually leads to two different “kinds” where there was originally one. However, it is not necessary to propose that there was ever a case in which animals or plants produced offspring of a different “kind”. What about the statement in Genesis that animals were herbivores first then some became carnivorous? This is the same sequence proposed in evolutionary theory. Obviously, there is no way for carnivores to survive unless there are first herbivores, which constitute their food supply.

A common objection to this harmonized scenario is that the creation of human beings by evolution would be completely natural, without the intervention of God. This is simply not the case. God could have used evolutionary mechanisms to develop human-like creatures up to the point where two of them were ready to be fully human. If we take the Bible seriously, we understand that the key difference between man and animals is not biological, it is spiritual. We have a soul. Because the soul is a spiritual entity, it cannot have been created by natural processes. At the point when the physical bodies of two human beings were ready, God endowed them with a soul. This idea does not change any of the key beliefs that persons who oppose evolution hold dear. God created by intervening in a supernatural way. One might question whether there is any scientific indication that modern humans are all descendants of two original individuals. Actually, there is such evidence. By sequencing mitochondrial DNA and back calculating from the present day situation it is possible to determine if a series of changes could lead back to a single set of mitochondrial DNA (unlike nuclear DNA, mitochondrial DNA is derived only from the mother, so it provides a way to trace the maternal lineage). In fact, a group of scientists found this to be the case, and they even refer to the original woman as Eve. This result is still the subject of controversy among scientists, but it is interesting that there is at least some scientific indication supporting the biblical concept that all human beings alive today are descendants of a single woman. Year by year new fossil evidence continues to accumulate indicating a progression from ape-like ancestors to more and more human-like offspring. These fossils have been consistently dated by a variety of techniques, which act to verify each other. One of these methods is dendrochronology, or dating by counting tree rings of live and dead trees. In a particular region, a chronology can be developed by comparing living tree ring patterns with those of older and older dead trees whose life spans all overlap. This method has been used to date human habitations approximately 10,000 years old. The method most often criticized by “creation scientists” radiocarbon yielded a very similar date. Thus, the validity of radiocarbon has been established by a completely independent method that is not liable to technical concerns that sometimes apply to other methods. Radiocarbon dating can be used to date items as old as 60,000 years; many times the duration of earth proposed by “young earth” creationists. Ignoring these findings or claiming that all scientists are incompetent or that there is a grand conspiracy among them to support evolution in spite of evidence to the contrary is simply not a credible position. Scientists do not make their reputations by following the partly line, they do so by initiating a paradigm shift. The biggest and most sought after shift would be to provide convincing evidence or reasoning that would preclude or cast serious doubt on evolution. However, the evidence only gets stronger over time, and no serious, objective scientists have been able to discredit it. As a biomedical scientist, I can assert that biomedical findings are consistent with and some have even been predicted by evolutionary theory.

Another common objection voiced by opponents of evolution is that the Bible refers to the product of each day of creation as “good”. They do not believe the characteristics of evolution, which involve competition and death, could be described as good. However, the term good may simply mean that creation proceeded as God planned and that this was good. It may have been His plan to use evolution as a creative force. What is often now referred to as the anthropic principle is really just an agnostic or atheist way to say that the precise combination of conditions on earth that were necessary for life were exceedingly unlikely but that they were in a sense inevitable or we would not be here to observe them. A much more philosophically satisfying explanation is that God created the universe from the very beginning to create and sustain life. Some people object to the idea that God created in a derivative way, using a natural process rather than ex nihilo, supernatural creation. I cannot understand how one method is any more God-like than the other. God can do things however He chooses. Choosing to invent and create nature in a way designed to specifically give rise to human beings is just as awe inspiring and amazing as creation of human beings ex nihilo.

Finally, I would like to point out that although I did not use evolution as a basis to guide my interpretation of the Bible, it is not necessarily inappropriate to do so to some extent. For example, almost all people, even adamant anti-evolutionists believe that the earth revolves around the sun. However, the Bible states more than once, in what seems to be very clear language, that the earth shall not be moved (ref). Why do those who oppose evolution not also oppose the use of scientific findings to support a non-literal interpretation of these passages? I think it might be because the evidence for the rotation of the earth around the sun is so convincing that to believe otherwise actually suggests that one is out of touch with reality. The case for evolution is not quite this strong, but it is close. I should make it clear that I am not advocating a general principle of using science to interpret the Bible. I think in most cases this would be a large mistake. Science is provisional; its conclusions are always subject to change or even elimination. Biblical principles are eternal. However, in just a few select cases, it may be appropriate to use the general conclusions of science to assist in interpreting scripture, as long as we recognize that scripture itself is eternal and true but that any of our interpretations of it that are guided by science should be regarded as provisional.

The bottom line is that the scientific case for evolution is overwhelming. If you doubt that read any of many excellent books that refute creation science. I have read both creation science and books that refute it, and I can tell you with great certainty as an experienced working scientist that that much of creation science is wrong, sloppy, and even deceptive. The books that refute it represent real science. I once taught at a large state university, and four colleagues who worked with me in the Department of Biological Sciences and I were members of the same Baptist church. All of us regarded ourselves to be conservative, traditional Christians. However, all of us agreed that the evidence for a limited version of evolution is excellent and that the objections raised and proposals offered by creation science are simply not credible. I have not done a scientific survey on the matter, but I expect the vast majority of scientists who are conservative, evangelical Christians also recognize evolution to be a reasonably good scientific theory. The only scientists I know who support creation science are those who work for creation science organizations. Very few are working scientists who submit their work to their peers for critical review, as most scientists do. I mention this not to be demeaning to scientists who support creation science, but to point out that if the only writings you have read on this subject have been written by these persons, it would be wise to consider other sources before accepting one view. Even Dr. Michael Behe who coined the term “intelligent design” accepts descent from common ancestors and most other aspects of evolution, because the evidence supports it. Clearly, he is not part of any mainstream conspiracy of scientists, but he still supports evolution.

Genesis itself demands an interpretation that does not treat Chapters 1 and 2 as rigid, historical, scientific accounts of creation. Accepting this view of Genesis reconciles Genesis and God’s necessary and sufficient role in creation with a limited version of the scientific theory of evolution. None of the theological truths of Genesis are harmed or changed in any way by this reconciliation. As I have mentioned in previous posts, insisting that evolution did not occur and stating that Christians who believe otherwise are “useful idiots (useful to those supporting evolution)” as stated on the Answers in Genesis web site, harms the cause of Christ. It sets students up for an absolutely unnecessary spiritual crisis when they learn that what they have been taught about “creation science” is demonstrably nonsensical. It alienates almost everyone who is well educated in the sciences, because it implies that they must forsake intellectual integrity to accept the Bible and, therefore, Christ. There is no need for this and it should stop. Even a writer of one pamphlet in the original Fundamentals series in the early 1900s (“Science and Christian Faith”, by James Orr) believed that evolution and the Bible could easily be reconciled. He certainly was not a person who accepted “higher criticism” as a method of biblical scholarship. However, he understood that the first two chapters of Genesis raise many questions about time sequences and the precise nature of events, indicating that God did not intend Genesis to be complete clear explanation of these issues. All of these considerations have caused me to conclude that creation science is harmful and that God and evolution can be accommodated in a limited model of evolution, which cannot explain the development of life from non-life, the origin of the soul, or several other key events, and an omnipotent view of God who could use both supernatural and natural processes to create. This view is completely compatible with the Bible.

2006-10-07T21:07:00.000-05:00

I have been reading a book called "Finding Darwin's God" by Kenneth R. Miller. The author states that he is a Christian as well as a scientist and the book is basically a description of the way he personally reconciles his Christian faith with evolution. I do not know what flavor of Christianity Dr. Miller favors, but his book offers excellent documentation for the claims I have made on this blog that evolution is a very solid and useful scientific theory and that young earth creation scientists either must be scientifically incompetent or must purposely distort scientific findings to fit their preconceived notions. I recommend the book, but it does not discuss what I regard to be an important part of the whole issue; if we do not interpret Genesis 1 and 2 as a scientific account of creation, how do we interpret it? I hope to post my take on this question soon.

In the meantime Dr. Miller points out that there are many dating methods and that they give consistent and very old ages for early forms of life and for the age of the earth. He reminded me that the evidence has become so overwhelming that even some young earth creationists have abandoned their "scientific" objections to the age of the earth and of fossils and have adopted the idea that God created earth and fossils with the "appearance of age". I agree that God could have done this if He had wanted. However, I cannot conceive how this proposal can fit into any credible Bible based theology. If the Bible tells us anything about God it is that He never lies or tempts. Yet creating the earth and fossils with an "appearance of age" would mean that He had done both of these things. God would have known that we would eventually be able to decipher the evidence he planted and that it would lead us to an untrue conclusion and that it would tempt some to reject Him and adopt a materialist philosophy. This is inconceivable. It directly violates biblical unambiguous biblical statements that God cannot lie or tempt and that He desires that no one should reject Him for materialism.

I am planning one more post on this topic, and then I would like to move on to other issues for a while. Hopefully my next post will follow quicker than this one.

2006-08-26T20:38:00.000-05:00

Part V-How do we proceed from here?

In response to this question, I find that the best answer is broader than considering evolution alone. Christians have good reason to keep informed about what their children are being taught. When anti-religious positions or overtly atheistic or humanistic positions are presented as fact, the teacher and the school system should be challenged. However, I would suggest that this is a very rare occurrence. However, to object to the teaching of evolution as a scientific theory (all of which are provisional) is not likely to be productive and I believe doing so harms the cause of Christ more than helps.

Two reasons are usually given for opposing the teaching of evolution in the public schools: 1) It is scientifically unsupportable and 2) It unavoidably undermines belief in the Bible and fosters the religion of secular humanism. As I have outlined in previous posts, #1 is simply wrong. Please understand I came to this conclusion after being a creation science supporter, strictly because I had to study carefully in preparation for teaching this material at a college. This study demonstrated conclusively to me that evolution is a useful scientific theory and that creation science is scientifically (and religiously) unsound. Perhaps I seem arrogant to you in saying such things when there are a number of well-known creation science proponents who are also scientists and who have come to the opposite conclusion. I do not know how to make this point without sounding immodest, but I think it is an important, so I will tell you a little about my career. I have been working as an experimental biologist since 1980 (when I earned my Ph.D. in immunology), and my research has been funded by competitive grants from the federal government and private companies continuously since 1987. I am on the editorial boards of 6 scientific journals, including the leading journals in immunology and toxicology. I have published over 90 peer-reviewed papers. In contrast, I do not know a single creation science proponent who works as a scientist. Several have Ph.D. degrees, but some are in marginally related fields. They do not have to worry about scientific integrity, because they are not working as scientist. However, those of us who are working as scientists are obligated by our chosen profession and by our belief in the Bible, which teaches against bearing false testimony, to speak with integrity. I cannot say that evolution is an unsupportable theory without abandoning integrity.

The second point listed in the previous paragraph is also in error. Few public schools in states where the SBC has most of its members teach evolution at the K-12 level at all. They simply do not want the controversy. When evolution is taught, teachers generally go out of their way to teach it in ways that minimize conflicts with the Bible or religion. When I taught this topic in college, I introduced it by telling the students that I would be teaching evolution, because it is a reasonably good scientific theory about the NATURAL origins of life. However, I specifically told them that this does not preclude a role for God, but science is unable to establish or even investigate this role. Other professors I knew had a similar approach.

So, how does opposing evolution hurt the cause of Christ? It prevents almost all scientists from taking the gospel seriously, because the people most likely to present it to them have classified them as enemies to be shunned and hated. Of course, this is a small number of people. However, many people are taught evolution in college, and most professors do an excellent job of presenting compelling evidence confirmed by multiple methods (including dating) for evolution. The evidence is almost as overwhelming as the evidence that the earth orbits the sun, so teaching our youth that evolution conflicts with the Bible sets them up for an absolutely unnecessary spiritual crisis. When they learn that the evidence for evolution is not as inconsequential and error ridden as they have been taught, they may begin to doubt other things that they were taught. This is unnecessary, because the first two chapters of Genesis can be taken literally (Adam and Eve were real people and God created everything) and still be consistent with the occurrence of evolution. Stating that God could not create partly by using natural mechanisms like evolution is another way of saying, I do not believe God is sovereign. He can only create ex nihilo all at once, because that is the interpretation I prefer. Of course, that is not the only interpretation that is possible from a careful and literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2. It is important to note that, as I point out in previous posts, a current SBC seminary professor (remember, there are no liberals or moderates left among our seminary professors) supports the idea that Genesis is not intended as a strict chronology and that the issue of the length of days cannot be settled with certainty from the text.

Christians would do well to partner with public schools and to help them in every way possible. Community interest and volunteerism is sorely needed in almost all schools, and Christians should (more than anyone else) have a desire to serve. In addition, this would allow access and understanding of what is being taught. Christians should run for a position on the School Board. I live in a community where this has happened and where many leaders in the public school system are committed Christians. I cannot recall my children ever being taught anything to which I objected. It seems to me that we cannot possibly act as salt and light in our culture unless we infiltrate our culture, and the public schools are the one place where we can reach almost everyone. Christians should be the strongest supporters of public schools and should be involved in them in every way both to fulfill our role as servants and to insure that inappropriate content is challenged quickly and effectively.

There seems to be considerable interest in a resolution that was made at a recent SBC annual meeting calling on parents to withdraw their children from public schools. In the interest of full disclosure I should tell you that my mother, father, wife, and sister-in-law are or were teachers in public schools. I attended public schools. For various reasons, my wife has taught and my children have attended private schools. Thus, I would not criticize anyone who preferred home schooling or private school. However, to propose that all Southern Baptists withdraw their children from public schools suggests a selfish isolationism that Baptists have always avoided. Of course, parents are responsible for protecting their children and looking to their best interests. However, I am become convinced through experience that it is in the best interest of our youth to teach them by experience to evangelize and serve, wherever life takes them. My daughter attends a public high school and she is also an intern at our church, where she serves as minister to middle school girls. She has a positive witness and has invited many of her classmates to join her at church. Do you really believe that the best approach is simply to abandon those kids? Of course, it takes extra time and effort to teach our children to avoid temptations and to resist belief systems contrary to our own to prepare them for public schools. It takes constant involvement in their lives to insure that things are not taking a wrong turn, but surely the effort is worth it if they are able to share the gospel with even one classmate. One final thought. Choosing a private school to protect our children from negative influences is by no means foolproof. Every sin that can be found in public schools can be found in private schools, and private schools tend to be a good deal more sinful in areas like pride and haughtiness. I would prefer to see us take personal responsibility for protecting and preparing our children and raise them up in the way they should go; which would include fulfilling the great commission.

2006-08-13T15:37:00.000-05:00

Part IV-Does interpreting Genesis 1 and 2 as figurative in some sense destroy the very foundation of Christianity (as expressed by Answers in Genesis and many individual believers)?

First, it should be made clear that interpreting the days of Genesis 1 as ages or eras is just as literal as interpreting them as 24 hr days. The Hebrew word (yom) can mean either an era or an age or a 24 hr day. In Genesis 2:5, it clearly means the era or age of creation, not a 24 hr day for all creation. It has been suggested by AiG that the word yom preceded by a numerical descriptor always refers to a 24 hr day. I doubt anyone has scoured all Hebrew writings from that era to determine if this is true, but it certainly is not true of other references to periods of time in the Bible. For example, the 70 weeks of Daniel, which is thought by most interpreters to refer to 70 weeks of years (1 day = 1 year) for a total of 490 years. In this case a unit of time preceded by a number is clearly symbolic and not literal. Thus, suggesting that there was enough time during the biblical creation account to accommodate the extreme age of the earth indicated by multiple lines of scientific evidence can be done without compromising a believe in biblical inerrancy and without compromising a generally literal interpretation of scripture.

The concern expressed by AiG and other is that if one begins to accept parts of the creation accounts as anything but absolutely literal, the whole foundation of the Bible falls like a house of cards. For example, Marty Duren posted a comment wondering whether I believed that Adam and Eve were literal or representative. I responded that I see no reason from scripture of otherwise to think this was not literal, so I accept it as literal. Although I do not need or even want scientific evidence for every claim of scripture, there is support for this particular literal interpretation. Analysis of mitochondrial DNA indicates that all human beings alive today are descended from a single woman (the scientists ever called her Eve). I believe the Fall was literal and spiritual. I think the biblical statement that there was no death before the Fall indicated spiritual death. Death is used in many passages in this way, and it is obvious that the basis of the Fall was disobedience to God, pride, and greed: all of these are spiritual flaws; so it would be reasonable that the punishment would be spiritual. Is the reference to all animals eating plants and not other animals literal? I do not know, and it seems to me that it doesn’t matter. However, if this is literal, it does not necessarily contradict evolutionary theory. Under that theory, herbivores developed before carnivores, otherwise the carnivores would have had nothing to eat. One can believe that Genesis is mostly intended literally and believe that every word is true and still accept a limited version of evolution. It is not a compromise to do so.

Insisting on a literal interpretation forces us to deny many many lines of evidence all of which support the validity of evolution. Even the chief proponent and inventor of Intelligent Design theory (Michael Behe) believes in a limited version of evolution. The evidence is truly overwhelming and denying it places us in the realm of irrationality or lack of integrity. Does this mean I value the authority of science over the authority of scripture? Not at all; heaven forbid. In cases where the meaning of scripture is absolutely clear and not subject to more than one reasonable interpretation, I accept scripture as true, whether or not science agrees or not. Science is always accepted on a provisional basis and is always subject to revision.

However, the Bible itself notes that nature can tell us something about God (e.g., Psalms 19:1). Almost all of us use this principle in the interpretation of passages like, “Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved” (1 Chronicles 16:30). Other passages in Psalms express the same idea. The literal interpretation would be that the earth is literally still in space and does not move. However, I do not know any biblical inerrantists who believe this. They accept what we know about science as an indication that this is not the correct interpretation of these passages. The AiG web site addresses this issue using a convoluted argument indicating that the Catholic church had adopted the previous secular scientific view of an earth centered universe and this is the reason the church objected to the writings of Galileo in support of the heliocentric theory of Copernicus. Of course, no direct documentary evidence can be provided to support this speculation. Even it is true, the most literal interpretation of this passage would still indicate that the earth does not move, and because of our understanding of nature, we do not believe this. This is analogous to the situation with evolution.

Although the evidence for evolution may not be as utterly compelling as the evidence for heliocentrism, it is very strong. The great age of the earth is indicated by multiple types of isotope dating methods, which agree quite well. Cosmology adds evidence for great age by the observation of objects in space which are billions of light years distant (as measured by many different methods). Because the speed of light is constant, light reaching earth from that distance must have been created billions of years ago. Some have argued that God created the universe with an appearance of age as a test or trial. Think for a moment about the implications of this idea. First, the Bible clearly states that no temptation comes from God. Tests and trials may be permitted or actively implemented by God, but are there any examples from the Bible that any of them involved deception on the part of God? How can we possibly think that God would provide valid evidence of great age just to fool us? This would directly contradict other passages on the integrity of God and it would be contrary to His statement that He desires that no one should perish but all should be saved. It is difficult to understand how the idea that God created the universe with an appearance of age could be taken seriously.

A positive consequence of an old earth and involvement of evolution is that the apparent discrepancies between the sequence of events in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 is reconciled by dropping the insistence that they are both literal, chronological accounts. I believe they describe real events, but they are intended to be primarily a description of the spiritual origins of man and his relationship with God. I am not ashamed at all of the involvement of supernatural intervention in the creation process. There is no reasonable scientific explanation for the origin of life from non-living molecules. I believe God did this in a supernatural manner. When God breathed a soul into Adam and Eve, this was by necessity a supernatural act, because the soul is a supernatural entity. Supernatural intervention cannot be excluded by scientific methods, and there is nothing irrational about the biblical position that God created. However, the best indication from nature and the Bible is that God used both supernatural and natural mechanisms (which He also invented) to create.

Evolution is not inherently atheistic. It, like all other scientific theories and pursuits is materialistic. Yet Christians have never rejected science, per se. They have recognized that this materialistic approach to nature is effective and serves the good of man, and in fact allows us to fulfill God’s command to subdue the earth. The materialist character of science is not the result of some grand conspiracy among atheists of the world, it is the inevitable result of the limitations of science. The methods of science are only effective in dealing with nature, not the supernatural. This does not mean that science necessitates denying the supernatural. It simply is not useful in distinguishing the will of God, for example. Many writers (including Francis Schaeffer) believed that Christianity with our belief in a rational, predictable, consistent God allowed the development of science. I agree with that idea, and even now, Christians virtually all act as though only natural events occur in day to day life. Otherwise we would not hesitate to walk in front of a speeding care while praying for God to make an exception to the laws of physics for His own glory.

It was probably inevitable that there would be animosity between proponents of evolution and believers, when the first outspoken supporter of evolution (Huxley) was also vehemently opposed to religion. However, the Bible is not inherently incompatible with this theory. For example, one of the writers of the series of pamphlets from which the term fundamentalist is derived (The Fundamentals, A testimony to the Truth), pointed out that the Bible did not exclude the possibility of evolution (Science and Christian Faith, by James Orr). I have already pointed out that a prominent Southern Baptist theologian, though not necessarily supporting evolution, believes there are ample reasons to believe that Genesis 1 and 2 are not intended as a strictly chronological, historical document. In reality, believing that Genesis 1 and 2 are entirely figurative would not necessarily change anything that the average Southern Baptist believes about God and man. There are many passages to which this applies. Does it matter whether the flood of Noah was world wide or whether the world in scripture meant the known world? I cannot see how it would matter. The message is the same. So long as we are not proposing figurative interpretations because we deny the supernatural characteristics of God or because we regard the Bible to be just another book (with errors), such interpretations generally would not change matters of faith and practice or lead to doubts about the Bible or serve as a slippery slope to a higher critical approach to scripture. None of that has happened to me, and I am not the only one. When I taught at a Southeastern Conference public university, several of my faculty colleagues and I attended the First Baptist Church in our town. All of us accepted on a provisional basis a limited version of the theory of evolution, because it is the only sound scientific interpretation proposed to date for the evidence available. We all were active and had positions of service in the church (two were deacons) and we were as firm on inerrancy as anyone. Insisting that Genesis 1 and 2 must be interpreted as a literal chronological history with 24 hr days is keeping and will keep many people from seriously considering the gospel. If we correctly understand the Bible and science, they will never conflict, because the Author of both is God. I would suggest that the apparent and obvious internal conflicts in Genesis 1 and 2 (e.g., plants growing before the sun was created and the differences in sequence in chapter 1 and 2) are there purposely to indicate that it is not intended as literal chronological history. Are the proponents of an historical, chronological, and 24 hr day creation sure enough of that interpretation to risk the souls of people who have been well trained in science and who accept a provisional (scientific) version of evolution? Or is it possible that as Christians we simply do not value or care about all those “liberals” that we continually speak and think hatefully about? Even if this is the case, it is not necessary to be liberal to accept a provisional version of evolution. There are many conservative Christians who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible who do. Most of us do not insist that everyone accept our opinion, but we would prefer that others did not purposely stir up animosity between science and believers and thereby decrease the opportunities to reach our science oriented generation for Christ.

2006-08-06T15:32:00.000-05:00

Part III-What are the consequences of the evolutionary wars?
Before beginning this section, I would like to reiterate that I believe in the inerrancy of scripture. I believe the Bible should be interpreted literally unless there are good reasons to believe that a literal interpretation is not intended. As I have explained and will explain further in this section, I believe Genesis practically screams out that it is not intended to be a chronological, literal, scientific account of creation.
Let’s begin with a broader question with regard to the potential impact of scientific creationism on believers. First accepting a rigidly literal interpretation of Genesis 1 & 2, then stating that science definitively supports this sequence of events is a fatally flawed paradigm. It mixes faith and science in a way that belittles both and obviates the advantages of both. Beginning with a fixed conclusion and seeking support is the antithesis of the scientific method. Science typically begins with a hypothesis, which is always provisional, and the purpose of the subsequent experiments or observations is to support or refute the hypothesis. If the creation scientists or intelligent design proponents are truly using the methods of science, they must be open to the possibility that findings will refute a sequence of events that they have made the foundation of their faith. In fact, if the creation scientists had been paying attention in a dispassionate, scientific way over the last 20 years, they would be unable to deny that many, many findings have been reported in peer-reviewed scientific journals that support evolution and refute some of the favorite objections of the creation scientists. For example, numerous fossils of transition forms have been identified, DNA sequencing has confirmed postulated relationships between present day organisms, an almost complete speciation event has been observed and its genetic mechanisms, and very human-like fossils have been found and dated by independent groups and methods to times as long ago as 1,000,000,000 years. Ignoring or explaining this evidence away is what prevents scientific creationists from being accepted by the scientific community. Although there are scientists with an anti-religion agenda, there are more scientists who are Christians. Their rejection of creation science and intelligent design is not fundamentally an anti-religion stand but a stand for the integrity of science. The other position expressed by some Genesis ultraliteralists is that God made the earth to appear billions of years old as a test or trial of some type. Certainly it is biblical to propose that God allows trials and temptations as a way of promoting the growth of His own. However, there is little biblical evidence that He uses trials to test those who have not yet believed. In fact, the idea that God would perpetrate a purposeful deception is so contrary to His character as described throughout the Bible that one has to wonder how this argument has ever been taken seriously by anyone. In summary, using science to bolster a particular interpretation of Genesis violates the rules of science and if it was done in a truly objective way so that it did not violate the principles of science, it would open the possibility of refuting the foundation of faith. It is a folly and it has always been a folly.
Opposition to evolution has caused some Christians to distort science, speak and write with less than complete integrity, and to subordinate faith to science. However, these are relatively minor problems compared to the most serious consequence of virulent opposition to evolution. It drives people, who would otherwise be receptive, away from Christ. Almost everyone who has been well-trained in science understands that there is a huge body of consistent evidence in support of evolution as a theory that explains some aspects of the origin of history of the development of organisms on earth. Therefore, comparing Christians who accept evolution in a limited provisional way to “useful idiots” as stated by Answers in Genesis on their web site, seems a strange way to win anyone who believes in evolution to Christ. The refer to Christians who accept evolution as a reasonable theory as “churchian compromisers”. Apparently, they haven’t noticed that in the prophecy of the 70 “weeks” in the book of Daniel, it is generally agreed that the weeks are composed of “days” that actually refer to a period of 1 year. Thus, the prophecy that God will provide mankind a way of reconciliation in 70 weeks ( = 490 years) matches perfectly with the period of time from the life of Daniel until the advent of Christ. Thus, there is a clear precedent for periods of time being used symbolically in the Bible (even when they have specific numbers associated with them, which is contrary to the assertion of AiG that periods of time associated with a specific number always refer to the literal period of time). No compromise of any kind is necessary to accept the Bible as entirely true and to accept the scientific validity of evolution in the proper sense of a scientific theory. In contrast, compromise of scientific integrity is required to support creation science. I do not think this is their intention, but AiG and their supporters have placed a narrow and demonstrably questionable interpretation of the Bible as more important than the souls that Jesus gave his life to save. They put such importance on their interpretation that they are willing to alienate non-believers who might otherwise be reached for Christ. Please try to see the perspective of a non-believer who is knowledgeable about science. These people here the vocal opposition to evolution and they know that creation scientists have either been extraordinarily incompetent as scientists or they have purposely continued to use arguments that they know to be scientifically invalid to bolster their interpretation of the Bible. Non-believers with integrity (and there are many of them) find it outrageous to consider a faith that causes people to be either irrational or purposely deceptive. I speak here not about theoretical situations that I imagine might exist. I know many people who fit this description precisely and who are no longer open to the gospel because of AiG and the message that they and similar groups spread. Even though I agree with the AiG folks that the tendency to be embarrassed about the supernatural acts described in the Bible is wrong both spiritually and intellectually, there must be better ways to fight it that will not alienate potential converts. In fact, there are better ways, as illustrated by the works of Francis Schaeffer who clearly delineated that faith is the only philosophically valid way to answer the big questions such as “how do we know we have meaning and purpose?”. Interestingly, Schaeffer had reservations about evolution, but his book on the subject is not a dogmatic critique the scientific aspects of the theory (which he apparently knew was beyond his expertise) but a discussion of regret about the way evolution has been misused by enemies of faith to promote the existence of a purely materialistic universe.
The flip side of this coin is also applicable. As dogmatic opposition to evolution by Christians can actually harm the cause of Christ, use of evolution by scientists or teachers to promote a humanist, atheist or agnostic agenda is also harmful to the cause of science. Although I disagree with believers who oppose evolution, I recognize that there are many of them (and I do not dislike them or refuse to cooperate with them in support of evangelism). Scientists should be acutely aware that the work that most of them do is funded by the public through revenue derived from their taxes. Therefore, the public has every right to express opinions about the types of research that are supported. I have never understood why some scientists seem to delight in expressing their condescending attitudes toward a large group of people who make their research possible. Many of these scientist use phrases like “certain” and “proved” and “fact” when they refer to evolution. This is both poor public relations and it is poor science. Science and the conclusions derived from it must always be provisional and subject to change when new data or new conceptual frameworks emerge. They also conclude that evolution is contrary to the Bible and that evolution thus disproves the Bible. Of course, that is not correct either. Evolution contradicts a particular ultraliteral interpretation of Genesis, but not interpretations that are more internally consistent with the Bible. It is interesting that the anti-religion scientists and the creation scientists agree precisely with regard to their interpretation of Genesis; they only differ on the validity of evolution as a theory. The most personally irritating attribute of many anti-religious scientists is their assumption, which is often stated explicitly, that people who oppose evolution are unsophisticated (or worse) and dangerous. I understand that evolution is a solid scientific theory, but I also understand that people who object to it being taught in a way that excludes any possible role for God have a legitimate concern. If religion is excluded from the classroom, then opposition to religion must also be excluded, because this in itself is a form of faith (God cannot be objectively disproved, so atheism requires faith). I know from experience that evolution can be taught in a way that is respectful to believers and leaves open a role for God in the process. It would be to the advantage of scientists and teachers to do this.
In summary, the use of science, if it is real science, to support an ultraliteral interpretation of Genesis carries with it the very real risk of forcing one to either admit that new evidence supports evolution and undermines his foundation for faith or to refuse to recognize reality. This is a mistake. It is not a harmless mistake that only has a negative impact on those who believe it. It prevents many people from coming to Christ. I wonder if virulent evolution opponents will enjoy facing those who they drove away from faith on the day of judgment and seeing their fate. Will it seem so important then to have been “right” about a disputable interpretation of Genesis?
The next section will address some of the concerns expressed by creation science supporters with regard to the supposedly negative consequences of interpreting Genesis 1 and 2 as being figurative in some sense.

2006-07-30T16:34:00.000-05:00

Part II. Why do some Christians oppose evolution? My experience suggests that both sides of the creation-evolution debate are too busy hurling ad hominim insults to really listen to the rationale of the other side. As someone who is on both side, I don't have this problem. I am a conservative (actually I prefer the term traditional) Christian and a working scientist (just do a PubMed search for Pruett, SB if you don't believe me). Therefore, I have a perspective on this issue that is not available to most people. I hope I will be able to explain to my scientific colleagues why there are real and valid concerns that drive opposition to evolution as well as some mistaken notions. I will summarize both.

Valid concerns exist about evolution and particularly about the way it is taught to students (who are compelled to be in school and in a relatively powerless position as compared to teachers). Thomas Huxley is responsible for some of them. What did scientists think would be the response when the first and most vocal champion of Darwin not only supported his science, but also waged a very public campaign to convince everyone that Darwin's theory disproved the Biblical account of creation and eliminated any need for God as an explanation of the origin of human beings? Since Huxley many prominent scientists and educators have filled this role. As far as I can determine, the idea that evolution is anti-religious did not originate with religious people, but with Huxley and his intellectual descendents. Of course, assigning the blame to someone other than religious people still does not establish that they have any valid reason for concern about evolution. Their valid concern is that many schools, not knowing precisely how to interpret various court rulings over the year, opt for an approach that would lead anyone learning only what was offered to believe in a totally materialistic (and also impersonal, cold, and uncaring) universe. We have moved from inappropriate forced exposure of students to religion to inappropriate forced exposure to a philosophical position that is at its core anti-religious. I know that evolution can be taught in a way that is sensitive to the beliefs of students and does not antagonize. However, having spent much of my life in higher education, I can assure you that science educators at all levels are not taught how to do this. Those who do it figure it out for themselves and do it because it seems right to them. Most people I know who teach evolution at the university level take particular joy in annoying religious students and express an openly condescending attitude. This is inexcusable, and scientists should be the ones who complain about it. If all scientists and educators treated people of faith with respect, I believe the wind would quickly disappear from the creation science and intelligent design sails. Of course doing this would have the additional advantage that it would reflect the objective truth that nothing in science disproves God, and that belief can be held without any logical inconsistencies or irrationality. Scientists who doubt this should simply spend a little more time reading and trying to understand the other side.

What then is the fault of which the religious side, particularly the conservative religious side, is guilty? To be concise, it is not just a literal interpretation of the first two chapters of Genesis, but a very particular and disputable literal interpretation. By way of disclosure, I believe in the authority and accuracy of the Bible. I believe it is all true. Web sites that trumpet all the "inconsistencies" that disprove the Bible are not worthy of serious consideration, because the Bible must be interpreted more literally than the most fundamental fundamentalist to derive these "contradictions". There are a few real contadictions, which most traditional Christians believe are due to transcription errors. However, there is objective evidence that such errors are very rare. The oldest manuscripts of the Bible from a variety of sources are remarkable in their essential consistency. Traditional Christians like myself have problems with the idea that the Bible is just another book, that whole sections are not true, or if true are not to be taken literally. The embarrassment about literal interpretation that is common among liberal theologians stems, I believe, mostly from embarrassment about accounts of supernatural events in the Bible. I believe their embarrassment is misplaced. The supernatural forms the basis of the only philosophical construct in which religion has any advantage over materialism. If nature is all that exists, then human beings can be nothing more than complex machines with no meaning, purpose, or hope of any existence beyond death. In spite of trying for over 3000 years, some of the most brilliant people who ever lived have not been able to derive from scratch a rational basis for meaning and purpose. A God who is beyond nature and controls nature (is not simply controlled by it) is the only rational reference point sufficient to provide meaning. As creator and sustainer of the universe, if He says human beings have value, that is sufficient to give them intrinsic value. Otherwise, we are just a complex bag of molecules. Therefore, the supernatural character of God is necessary, if He is to provide meaning and function as anything more than a robot controlled by nature. Of course, supernatural events must be exceedingly rare, or science would not work. Since it does work well (although not always, as any experimental biologist will tell you), supernatural events must be rare. But science cannot prove that they do not occur. If we select which parts of the Bible we will believe based primarily on whether we find them scientifically or historically supported, we would have to ignore most of it. This does not mean it is factually in error, but there is very little archeological evidence that directly applies, and it (as all scientific endeavors) remains in flux. The Jesus Seminar uses marbles to vote on which passages in the New Testament represent the real words or teachings or actions of Jesus. Their "scholarship" has been well and truly debunked by Luke Timothy Johnson in "The Real Jesus". Traditional and Conservative Christians believe that picking and choosing which parts of the Bible are reliable or believable takes away the power of all of it. Jesus asked people to commit their lives to Him. If we cannot be sure which of his statements in the Bible are correct, then we are unlikely to make any type of committment to Him. Thus, traditional Christians tend to have a take it all or leave it all attitude about the Bible.

Unfortunately, this adherence to the Bible and a preference for interpreting it literally seems to somehow lead to the idea that it is possible and even necessary to fully and precisely understand every passage. At least I see this as a major fault in conservative Christianity in America today. The Bible itself and the Apostle who wrote most of the New Testament (Paul) clearly indicate that none of us will ever understand all spiritual things. Another Apostle (Peter) pointed out that the writings of Paul were hard to understand (II Peter 3:15-16). The Bible cautions against disputes about matters of lesser importance, such as geneologies, which are often abbreviated in different ways in different parts of the Old Testament and thus are open to various interpretations. Different views of the relative importance of the sovereignty of God and the free will of man in salvation have been disputed vigorously for hundreds of year by some of the best minds in the world, and no consensus has emerged. I would contend that this does not just suggest, but conclusively demonstrates that the Bible itself does not provide sufficient information to definitively demonstrate which view is correct. This is one of many examples of issues about which reasonable people who believe the Bible is entirely true and is authoritative can disagree. However, recognizing such issues and refusing to allow them to cause divisions seems to be exceedingly difficult. The temptation to take a firm position and then to exclude or belittle those who disagree seems overpowering. The web site of the organization "Answers in Genesis" provides some of the clearest examples. This organization insists that the first 2 chapters of Genesis are to be taken absolutely literally and that the days in Chapter one can only be 24 hour days. When asked why the same word used for day in Chapter 1 (yom in Hebrew) is used to mean an era or age in Chapter 2, they say it always means 24 hours when a number is associated with it. Personally I doubt they have scoured ancient Hebrew texts to determine if this is true. Even if it is true that this is usually or even almost always the case, it remains possible that Genesis 1 is an exception. Nothing in the recognized meaning and usage of the word itself precludes it from being an age. However, they have some rather interesting things to say about people who do not choose to agree with them about the 24 hour days: "This is one more example of the duplicity of atheistic anti-creationists—using the churchian compromisers much as Lenin used ‘useful idiots’ in the West to unwittingly undermine their own foundations." So we "churchian compromisers" who do not accept every nuance of the rigid interpretation of Genesis offered by the leaders of this organization are useful idiots in the hands of atheistic anti-creationists.

Of course, these same leaders have done exactly the same thing in their interpretations of several passages such as, " 30 Tremble before Him, all the earth. Yea, the earth is established, it shall not be moved " (II Chronicles 16:30). They, like virtually everyone else do not insist on a literal interpretion this verse and several other like it, because it would be blatantly irrational to do so in light of the overwhelming objective evidence for the physical movement of the earth. Thus, they find it agreeable to regard "it shall not be moved" as a figurative or metaphorical statement. The evidence that earth is exceedingly old that its development into its present form was a long slow process is similarly overwhelming. Several different independent methods from cosmology (which demonstrates that light from objects billions of light-years away has arrived here demonstrating that the universe is at least billions of years old) to ratios of radioactive isotopes (which decay at a constant and known rate, thus allowing time to be estimated based on ratios mesaured in objects), to dendrochronology. The last method is simply counting tree rings both from live and dead trees obtained as part of ancient structures. Dendochronology agrees very nicely with radiocarbon dating and in particular locations it can be used to date objects back to 10,000 years before present. This is considerably more than the total age of the earth favored by Answers in Genesis (AiG) of 6,000 years. This method does not suffer any of the objections raised by AiG about radioisotope methods (which are themselves easily refuted and simply in error). The use of evidence from the creation to learn about God and by extension to properly understand how to interpret scripture is not precluded and is in fact supported in the Bible ("The heavens declare the glory of God; and the expanse proclaims His handiwork", Psalms 19:1). It is not a compromise of any kind to do so.

Chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis in and of themselves, without any reference to scientific evidence for an old earth, suggest that they are not intended to be taken completely literally and that they certainly were not intended as a scientific or sequential historical account. The sequence of events in Chapters 1 and 2 are not entirely consistent if they are interpreted literally and in the most direct and straighforwards way. The AiG web site offers an attempt at rconciling this difference, but it is not compelling. In addition, Genesis describes plants growing without sunlight and days (which AiG insists are always 24 hr) that occurred before the creation of the sun. I believe the events described in Genesis correspond in some way to real events. However, we just do not know enough to understand exactly what is intended. The differing sequence of events in Chapters 1 and 2 can be resolved to my satisfaction only by assuming that these are not both (and perhaps not either) intended as a literal, sequential account of creation. With regard to their spiritual implications, interpreting these passages as figurative i some way or simply deciding that they were not intended to relate to us a scientific or literal historical description of creation changes nothing. The fact that God created is not changed. All of the principles about the nature of God and man are intact. The AiG web site has articles indicating that evolution could not have been used for creation because God declared during creation that each of the groups of animals or plants was good as created. However, evolution is essentially a trial and error process. On the contrary, it is certainly feasible that God's reference to the goodness of creation was that it would fulfill his plans and lead to human beings and an ecological system that could support them. I am not a theologian, and I have been concerned that maybe my ignorance of the Hebrew language and culture has caused me to be unable to interpret the Old Testament properly. However, an interview last year by an Associated Press reporter with Kenneth A. Mathews, professor of Old Testament at Alabama's Beeson Divinity School and Kentucky's Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, a real theologian expressed his interpretation that the first Chapter of Genesis was not intended as a chronological history. Southern Baptists are known for their strict adherence to the inerrancy of scripture. Therefore, this interpretation cannot be reasonably regarded as "liberal" or "compromising".

Coming next-Consequences of the Evolutionary Wars for Believers and for Scientists

2006-07-09T21:05:00.000-05:00

Why should conservative Bible-believing Christians be more circumspect in their opposition of evolution?

Part 1-Why do most scientists who are conservative Christians still support at least a limited version of evolution?
The premise of this title probably takes some Christians by surprise, and some may doubt that the scientists of whom I speak are really conservative Christians. This title comes from my experience as a scientist who worked for many years at a major university. Many of the faculty of the Department of Biological Sciences there were also members of the local First Baptist Church. All of them believed in the inerrancy of scripture AND the utility of a limited version of evolution as a scientific theory. Groups such as “Answers in Genesis” have been very effective in labeling anyone who accepts a limited (scientific) version of evolution as a reasonable scientific theory as an evil compromiser. It is my contention that this is absolutely incorrect.
Scientists working as scientists can only consider natural explanations for natural phenomena. To consider supernatural explanations, including God, would be to leave the realm of science and to enter the realm of theology or philosophy. Therefore, when scientists do not include supernatural explanations as a formal possibility in their investigations of nature, this does not necessarily reflect anti-religious bias, a hidden agenda, or anything but the careful time-tested practice of science. I am a conservative traditional Christian, but when I work as a scientist I do not consider supernatural events as possible explanations for my experimental results.
My world view tells me that God could have intervened to counteract the normal laws of nature and cause my experimental results. However, my training and experience tell me that as a scientist, it is not useful to consider this option. Christian writers and thinkers (for example, Charles Colson in “How Should We Now Live?”) may condemn scientists for excluding supernatural explanations in their work, but every believer, no matter how conservative, does the same thing. Even though we believe that God could suspend the laws of nature to save us if we stepped in front of a speeding car, we never make the assumption that He will. We always assume that the normal laws of nature will apply, and we behave accordingly. How can we then legitimately condemn scientists for doing this in the course of their work? Many scientists believe that God exists that the He can control nature. However, the tools of science can tell us nothing about how He does this or when or why He may choose to do it. These questions can only be approached in the realm of theology. Therefore, when scientists are working as scientists, they do not and should not seek supernatural explanations for natural occurrences.
Therefore, scientists who study origins and adaptations of living organisms are limited to the use of scientific assumptions and methods. What would be the consequences of doing otherwise? What if a scientist made the following hypothesis and put if forward to allow other scientists to confirm or refute it by the usual methods of science? “No one has yet been able to devise a credible natural mechanism to explain the formation of the first life form from non-living components. Therefore, this must have occurred by a supernatural mechanism.” This may be true, but it is not a scientific conclusion or hypothesis. If God used a supernatural mechanism, then we cannot ever, even in principle, by studying nature, hope to understand it. Thus, it is not testable and does not fit the commonly accepted definition of a scientific hypothesis. It may be true, and many scientists would acknowledge this. However, they also recognize that the methods of science are absolutely powerless in the discernment of such things that they can only effectively apply the methods of science to understanding NATURAL mechanisms.
I believe that God did intervene supernaturally to create the first life forms from non-living molecules. The origin of the molecules necessary for life is not my area of research expertise or interest. However, if it was, I would study it scientifically under the assumption that the mechanisms involved were all natural mechanisms. This is the only way I could maintain scientific and intellectual integrity and use the powerful and effective methods of science. However, at the same time I could hold the belief that God intervened in a supernatural way to accomplish the formation of molecules or combinations of them necessary for life. This belief would not interfere with my scientific practice at all. I would exhaust all possibilities to determine if a natural mechanism existed that could explain the phenomenon in question. If not, as a scientist, I would either abandon this question or investigate different natural mechanisms. As a Christian, I would assume that the lack of a scientific explanation could suggest a supernatural mechanism. However, I would never base my faith on this conclusion, and I would never recommend that anyone else do so. Science is always provisional. If new evidence is found indicating a natural explanation for the origin of life from non-living components, as a scientist I must at least provisionally accept this conclusion. Therefore, as a Christian, I do not want my faith to depend on any “fact” of nature, because all these facts are subject to re-evaluation and change as new evidence or new theoretical frameworks develop. Thus, the interdependence of faith and science that forms the basis of “creation science” is fundamentally unsound scientifically (because it begins with pre-suppositions that cannot be disproved scientifically) and theologically (because it places faith in the subordinate position of depending on natural evidence).

2006-05-28T20:23:00.000-05:00

What are the essentials?

With a blog name like "Essentials", it seems reasonable to let you know what I think are the essentials of the Christian faith. The five Solas of the Reformation seem a good place to start. Sola scriptura (a latin phrase meaning only scripture), sola fide (faith alone), sola gratia (grace alone), sola Christos (Christ alone), and Sola Deo Gloria (Glory to God alone). We can only be reconciled to a Holy God and saved by means of faith alone in Christ alone by grace alone as revealed by the bible alone. Although I believe the glory is due to God alone, I am not comfortable with the usual Reformed (Calvinist) interpretation of this phrase. I believe that the credit and glory for our redemption are God's alone, but I believe that He has granted us autonomy and free will to the extent that we must actively decide to accept His redemption.

The latter is a relatively minor distinction and does not prevent me from being able to cooperate or fellowship with Reformed Christians. Thus, the essentials are few. I cannot find clear evidence in the Bible that anything beyond these essentials are required for us to be reconciled with God.

It is not quite this simple, however. There probably are individuals or groups who would express a belief in one or more of these solas but whose interpretation would be so different from mine that I would not be comfortable expressing my willingness to cooperate with them in the ministry of the gospel. For example, a number of denominations support sola scriptura, but their view of scripture is that it contains fables and errors as well as truth. I would have difficulty cooperating with such a denomination. For example, I would hesitate to refer a new believer to them for discipling. If one is not sure that the Bible is entirely reliable, what can be the basis for determining which parts are true and which are not? Luke Timothy Johnson (The Real Jesus) has exposed the so-called scholarship of the Jesus Seminar with their colored marble votes on the degree of reliability of various passages of scripture. Such a view of the Bible eliminates its claims of truth, its validity, and any sense of rationality in ordering one's life on the basis of its claims. In short, denying that the Bible is truth in its entirety eliminates its power.

Perhaps there are other issues on which interpretations on the Solas would be different enough to indicate it would be best for those on different sides to work with those with whom they agree more closely rather than compromosing their own sense of doctrinal integrity.

However, there is much room for cooperation among believers where little now exists. Many more believers can agree on these essentials than are now cooperating for the important work of spreading the good news. Hopefully that can change. Hopefully, we can respect and find a place for dialogue also with those who disagree with us on the essentials.

2006-05-14T19:15:00.000-05:00

2006-05-14T17:31:00.000-05:00

First Post on My Own Blog

I have been skulking around on several blogs and dropping comments here and there, but I have decided it is time to step up and activate my own. The name, Essentials, comes from issues that are currently being debated within the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC). A funny (odd not ha ha) thing happened recently. Wade Burleson, who I would characterize as a member of the SBC "establishment" found himself in disagreement with the majority position of the Board of Trustees of the International Mission Board. He began to blog about his disagreement. He fastidiously avoided personal attacks and focused solely on the issues and his carefully reasoned and biblically based opposition to two new policies. He was rewarded for his care and concern by a motion to dismiss him from the board for "resistance to accountability and loss of trust". This was all shared in his blog and it ignited a group in whom concerns over the direction of the SBC for some time.

The new policies are just the latest example of a trend that troubles many of us. The SBC has been progressively adding more specific doctrinal criteria that can exlude persons for service as SBC employees. Similarly, cooperation with other great commission churches is being progressively limited by narrower and narrower criteria for cooperation. Narrowing the parameters for SBC employees and for cooperation with other groups (like the Baptist World Alliance, which the SBC withdrew from recently) will hurt the SBC, and I would like to add my voice to those who oppose this narrowing of the parameters for cooperation.

I will post about essentials of the faith and about cooperating and allowing freedom on non-essentials. I believe this is the only way in the long term to both effecitively serve God and to avoid fruitless arguments about non-essentials. In addition, I believe that by focusing on essentials as well as a few Baptist distinctives that may not be essentials but are regarded by Baptists to be uniquely important, we can actually more carefully and successfully maintain doctrinal integrity.

In addition, I am interested in the relationships between science and the Bible and the church (in my day job, I work as a biomedical research scientist). I am also interested in the apologetics and the relationship between philosophy and Christian