On Fri, 20 Dec 1996 18:07:06 -0800 (PST), David Lee Nidever wrote:
DN>Hi, My name is David Nidever and I just joined this internet
>discussion. I'm very pleased by the level of discussion. I'm
>personally very interested in evolution and science in general.
Welcome David.
>DN>My views are very similar to Dr. Hugh Ross' and you've all
>probably heard at least a little bit of what he thinks. He accepts
>all the modern dating methods by modern scientists, the big bang,
>basically all scientifically accepted theory, except for the theory
>of evolution.
That is true for most old-Earth creationists. And even they would
accept aspects of "the theory of evolution", eg. microevolution, but
not macroevolution. I accept common ancestry, but I am not convinced
that undirected natural processes are adequate to explain the living
world. I call my position Mediate Creation, which I would place on
the Creation - Evolution spectrum as follows:
YEC---PC---MC---EC---TE---NE
Key:
YEC = Young-Earth Creation
PC = Progressive Creation
MC = Mediate Creation
EC = Evolutionary Creation
TE = Theistic Evolution
NE = Naturalistic Evolution
DN>That's the only big area in which I disagree with him. He does
>accept the fossil record and the dates, but he has a weird way of
>interpreting it all. He says that God created all life forms and
>that when they went extinct he would re-create them just a little
>bit differently, and that's why we have the patterns in the fossil
>record that we have. To me that sounds the God of the gaps.
No, the "God of the gaps" is explaining the gaps in our knowledge
with God's supernatural activity.
Hugh Ross' position is simply classical Progressive Creationism,
where God created new species:
"The Bible declares that God has currently ceased from His work of
creating new life forms. But in the fossil record era (God's six
days of creation), God was active in creating millions of species of
life, introducing new species and replacing and upgrading all those
going extinct by natural processes." (Ross H., "The Creator and the
Cosmos", 1993 p103).
Ross actually calls his position "progressive creationism" and defines
it as follows:
"...progressive creationism (including the belief that God instantly
performs miracles of creation on many different occasions over long
time periods).." (Ross H., "Creation and Time", 1994, p83).
I disagree that this is "weird", although it may seem that way in
this naturalistic age. But this was once the prevailing *scientific*
theory, held by a scientific giant like Agassiz:
"...Agassiz even argued that species are God's individual thoughts,
made incarnate so that we might perceive both His majesty and His
message. Species, Agassiz wrote, are `instituted by the Divine
Intelligence as the categories of his mode of thinking.' " (Gould
S.J., "The Panda's Thumb", 1980, p170)
DN>I know that there are problems with evolution at biochemical and
>genetic level, but I do see a lot of evidence for evolution as well.
>So I don't find his arguments pertaining to this area very
>confincing.
The problem is the multiple levels of meaning in the word
"evolution":
"Evolution is a flexible word. It can be used by one person to mean
something as simple as change over time, or by another person to
mean the descent of all life forms from a common ancestor leaving
the mechanism of change unspecified. In its full- throated
biological sense, however, evolution means a process whereby life
arose from nonliving matter and subsequently developed entirely by
natural means. That is the sense that Darwin gave to the word, and
the meaning that it holds in the scientific community." (Behe M.J.,
"Darwin's Black Box, 1996, ppx-xi)
If evolution simply means "change over time" everybody can agree with
it. If it means "a process whereby life arose from nonliving matter
and subsequently developed entirely by natural means" (ie. with no
supernatural input), then few Christians (if any) would believe it.
>DN>I do respect his work and am working on becoming a volunteer for
>his non-profit organization "Reasons To Believe".
OK. I presume Hugh knows your dissent from his views?
>DN>I really have problems with young-earth creationists. I don't
>have any problem with the creationists part, I'm one myself, but I
>don't like at all their approach to science. I used to really
>believe everything they said when I was in high school, but I was
>very ignorant back then. When I got to college and learned more
>about what they were talking about I started seeing big flaws in
>their teachings.
This is what Glenn warns about. I imagine it is a real problem
with YEC because they do not face up to all the evidence. It
works OK on the average layman who hasn't the time to read for
himself what the evolutionists say, but it could leave their
children unprepared when they study science at university level.
But the danger is to assume that because young-earth creationism is
wrong, then the opposite, naturalistic evolution, is right. It is
logically possible that *both* young-earth creationism and
naturalistic evolution are wrong, and that the truth, as is often
the case, lies somewhere in between.
>DN>My major objections to them (I mean ICR most of the time) is that
>they aren't a part of the scientific community. Just because you
>have a PhD doesn't mean very much. You could be some wacko,
>motivated by who-knows-what.
No doubt some YECs are "wacko", eg. Dr Carl Baugh. But others strike
me as sincere, although wrong. For example, I went to a talk by Dr
Gary Parker, when he visited Western Australia in 1995. My distinct
impression is that he is an honest man, who cannot see his way out of
the straightjacket of his own literal interpretation of Genesis 1. I
distinctly remember Parker claiming that Tyrannosaurus Rex was a
herbivore! A high school student (presumably from a
fundamentalistic Christian home and a Christian school), quizzed Dr
Parker that did he mean that a crocodile was meant to eat vegetables
and Parker, with a bit of a pause said `yes'. The student was
clearly dissatisfied with this answer, and so was I. Indeed, I had
the distinct impression that Parker was dissatisfied with it too! A
fool or a crook would not have a problem, so I don't think that
Parker is either.
>DN>This is clearly evident by the scientists that work for the Flat
>Earth Society. We all know that the earth isn't flat, but this
>society has scientists with their PhDs using modern physics to try
>and prove that the earth is flat.
I keep hearing about this mysterious "Flat Earth Society". Does it
really exist and who are its members?
>DN>So PhDs are not enough. What scientists have to do is submit
>their work to peer review and put it under the scrutiny of other
>scientists. If this didn't happen we would have severe problems,
>especially because of scientists that alterior motives for the
>science they are pushing. I don't see ICR submiting or responding
>to other scientists, even christian ones. I have heard many
>complaints from people that said that they tried talking to ICR
>people, but they wouldn't listen or budge an inch. This is my major
>problem with ICR and young-earth creationists.
I think this might be a bit naive. Scientific naturalists reject not
only the "ICR" brand of creationist explanation, but all other
creationist explanations as well. If the "peers" are all scientific
naturalists who in principle rule out the supernatural activity of
God as an acceptable scientific hypothesis, then there is no chance
at present that any "work" offereing any sort of "creationist"
explanation would ever pass any "peer review".
This is why Arthur Shapiro, in his review of J.P. Moreland's "The
Creation Hypothesis", in Creation/Evolution, said:
"I can see Science in the year 2000 running a major feature article
on the spread of theistic science as a parallel scientific culture.
I can see interviews with the leading figures in history and
philosophy of science about how and why this happened. For the
moment, the authors of The Creation Hypothesis are realistically
defensive. They know their way of looking at the world will not be
generally accepted and that they will be restricted for a while to
their own journals. They also know that they will be under intense
pressure to demonstrate respectability by weeding out crackpots,
kooks and purveyors of young-earth snake oil. If they are
successful, the day will come when the editorial board of Science
will convene in emergency session to decide what to do about a paper
which is of the highest quality and utterly unexceptionable, of great
and broad interest, and which proceeds from the prior assumption of
intelligent design. For a preview of that crisis, you should read
this book. Of course, if you are smug enough to think "theistic
science" is an oxymoron, you won't." (Johnson P.E., "Reason in the
Balance", 1995, p239).
>DN>My other problem with them is that they are pushing a certain
>twist on science. They start with the belief that the Bible is
>true, and everything builds on it from there.
It is not so much that "They start with the belief that the Bible is
true" but that they start with a preconceived idea that "true" means
"literal".
DN>What they end up getting is some obscure theories of science
>which don't have much factual basis. Also much of their theories
>are based on flood geology. There is so little evidence for a
>universal flood that geologists gave up that view at the turn of the
>century. It's really rediculous to believe it and that's a major
>downfall for young-earth creationists.
Agreed. It is not difficult to understand the Bible as indicating a
geographically local (but perhaps anthropologically universal),
Flood. Read Bernard Ramm's "The Christian View of Science and
Scripture", Paternoster or Eerdmans, 1955, pp162-169.
>DN>Also they use the christian masses to propogate their ideas by
>telling them have truths. They keep on bashing secular scientists
>and theories with very arguments, but the average christian can't
>tell. It's really sad for me to see so many christians taking it
>all in.
This seems to be more a problem in the USA. I have been regularly
attending fairly conservative evangelical churches in Australia for
nearly 30 years and I cannot remeber ever hearing a sermon on
creationism or a global flood.
DN>Now that I've given my bit about what I believe I think I'd like
>to jump right into the dicussions at hand. Oliver Beck in his
>last letter wrote about the interpretation of the Bible. He talked
>about the "clear" interpretation. He said that many objections to
>interpretations are because of our sinfulness, that we don't want to
>accept what God is saying. He also said that if we understand a
>passage we shouldn't say "there might be another interpretation" and
>not accept what we've come to understand.
The Bible itself says that some things in it are "hard to
understand":
"Paul...His letters contain some things that are hard to understand,
which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other
Scriptures..." (2Pet 3:16).
>DN>One thing that is certain is that biblical interpretation or any
>interpretation is hard. Language is often seen as being very plain
>and simple, but it really isn't. Meanings change and especially
>with ancient languages it is hard to figure out what certain sayings
>meant. Of course our knowledge of what life was like back then is
>very important in this issue.
Agreed. When you think about it, the Bible is a series of 66 books,
written between 2,000 and 5000 (plus) years ago in three languages,
by a variety of different writers in a variety of ancient, eastern
agrarian cultures. It is presumptuous bordering on arrogance for
Westerners living today to think they can open up at Genesis 1 in and
English translation and infallibly determine what it must mean from
a superficial reading.
>DN>I remember a few times when my mother was telling me how a certain
>passage really affected her and my dad would cut in and say "that's
>not what the passage was saying". This is an example of how
>different people's understanding of the Bible can be. Does Oliver's
>principle still apply? How can it if different people get different
>understandings of the same passage? Does the passage have a
>specific meaning or is something different from everyone? It's not
>understanding that we must have, but scholarly understanding. A
>baby can think it understands when it probably really doesn't. We
>have to look at many different things to come to a scholarly
>understanding of a passage and that's very hard. There is much
>disagreement on passage, but on the major issues there is much
>agreement.
Agreed. I wouldn't rule out your mother's approach, since much of
the Bible is written to be taken personally, but in some areas it
takes hard study, some knowledge of the original languages, a fair
bit of historical awareness, help from godly commentators, and above
all the Holy Spirit, to begin to grasp what the passage is saying.
My own personal testimony is that nearly 30 years ago, I was
converted with no prior Christian background in a moderately
fundamentalist church. Previously I has a strong interest in science
so after a few months I became aware of tensions between my view of
the Earth being millions of years old and what some of my
Christian friends were saying. I sat down with an interlinear OT, and
an exercise book and wrote my own word-by-word commentary of
Genesis 1. I satisfied myself that Genesis 1 was not necessarily
teaching that the days of creation were 24-hours. Later I read Ramm's
book mentioned above which was a tremendous help to me in integrating
the books of Scripture and nature into one comprehensive world-view.
>DN>I definitely don't understand how Oliver can say that the paradigm
>of evolution does not work in the interpretation of the Bible. We
>must see that the Bible is not the only truth. There is scientific
>truth, historic truth and other truths can are just as true as
>biblical truth and we must use these to try and understand the Bible
>better. That's a major problem that I see with ICR. They only see
>biblical truth as being true, or above other kinds of truth.
Actually I agree here with Oliver. The "paradigm of evolution" and
the paradigm of creation are fundamentally antithetical. `Evolution'
means "unrolling", ie. unfolding from the inside, whereas `creation'
means development from the outside:
"The fundamental contrast between the Hebrew-Christian doctrine of
creation and the Greek-modern doctrine of evolution is therefore
crystal-clear. The Genesis creation account depicts a personal
supernatural agent calling into existence graded levels of life by
transcendent power. The Greek-modern theory depicts a simple
primitive reality temporally differentiated by immanent activity into
increasingly complex entities that retain this capacity for future
development. In the evolutionary approach the principle of becoming
is metaphysically determinative. Time is not merely the actualizer
of new forms, but it originates them. Reality is intrinsically
developmental." (Henry C.F.H., "Contemporary Evangelical Thought:
A Survey", 1968, p252)
Neither the word of even the concept of "evolution" appears in the
Bible, but the concept and words for "creation", "making" , "forming"
are right through the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation. Christians
are not to be conformed to the pattern of this world, but to be
transformed by the renewing of their minds (Rom 12:2). They are to
"take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ" (2Cor
10:5). It is possible for Christians to be taken "captive through
[a] hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human
tradition and the basic principles of this world" (Col 2:8). That is
why I prefer to use the term `Mediate Creation' to describe my
position.
>DN>In the past many theologians have had their own ideas about nature
>and they were accepted. The theory of evolution isn't any
>different. It is our understanding of nature in the biological
>realm and should add to our understanding of the Bible. What is so
>wrong or uncomprehensibly bad about God using evolution for his own
>purposes, if He made it? I don't see any big problem with the
>theory of evolution and many other scientific theories in how they
>relate to the Bible.
Unfortunately it is not this simple. Words have their meanings and
their own power to channel and eventually control the mind. The
word "evolution" was coined by the secular world and has been
invested with secular meaning:
"The terminology of debate today is largely fixed not by the
theological endeavor but by the scientific enterprise, especially by
the secular philosophy of science which today holds the ideologicaI
initiative. The employment of conventional phrases with a contrary
intention therefore runs needless apologetic hazards. What does
"evolution" signify today to the man of science, and especially to
the current philosophy of science, to which our overtures for
reconciliation are extended?" (Henry, 1968, p252)
God could of course use "evolution for his own purposes", but then it
would be *creation* not "evolution".
>DN>About what the Bible says about science. I think it's very hard
>to interpret what the Bible has to say about nature and science. Is
>it literal or symbolic?
Depending on the context and the word used, it could be either.
DN>I think we first of all have to see that the Bible was not meant
>to be a science book and therefore we shouldn't expect it to talk
>about science very much or in any depth.
Yes. It is generally accepted that the Biblical writers used a
popular language of appearance in describing the world:
"... the references of the writers of the Bible to natural things
are popular, non-postulational, and in terms of the culture in which
the writers wrote. This principle applies directly to Biblical
cosmology. The language of the Bible with reference to cosmological
matters is in terms of the prevailing culture. Biblical cosmology is
in the language of antiquity and not of modern science, nor is it
filled with anticipations which the future microscope and telescope
will reveal. We do not agree with over-zealous expositors who try
to find Einsteinian and modern astro-physical concepts buried in
Hebrew words and expressions. We also disagree with the religious
liberals who object to Biblical cosmology because it is not
scientific. We object to the over zealous because it was not the
intention of inspiration to anticipate modern science, and we object
to the modernist because he sees too much in what is to us a truism.
We concur with Calvin, who taught that Gen. 1 is a record of the
creation of the world in the language of the common man and from the
viewpoint of common sense." (Ramm, 1955, p65)
DN>But I think if the Bible does say anything about natural history
>and science it needs to be true on some sense of the word if the the
>Bible is true. It's hard for us to interpret what exactly the
>author was saying by certain words, especially in Genesis 1. I don't
>think there is any conflict between Genesis 1 and science.
Of course, if the Author of the `books' of Scripture and nature is
one and the same, then "Genesis 1" and "science" (to the extent it is
based on nature and not on "hollow and deceptive philosophy" -- Col
2:8), cannot be in "conflict".
DN>I think that if you get a really good understanding of the
>landscape back then, and the language, and the way people lived you
>won't find problems with what was said in Genesis and natural
>history. That's been my perception of it so far. Some good books
>about this subject are: "Creation and Time" by Hugh Ross; "The
>Biblical Flood" by Davis A. Young; and "Encyclopedia of Bible
>Difficulties" by Gleason Archer.
Agreed.
>DN>Oliver also said that he put evolution in a different category of
>science than say physics, and that is the study of the history of
>nature. That's kind of true, but not really. ICR also uses this
>agrument against evolution. It's not very good.
Disagree. Evolution is a historical science. Unlike empirical
science, its major events are not repeatable:
"...scientists-creationists and noncreationists alike-have made a
distinction between "empirical" and "historical" science...Roughly,
empirical science is a nonhistorical, empirical approach to the
world that focuses on repeatable, regularly recurring events or
patterns in nature (e.g, the relationship between pressure,
temperature and volume in a gas). By contrast, historical science
is historical in nature and focuses on past singularities that are
not repeatable (including the origin of the universe, first life,
various kinds of life)" (Moreland J.P., "The Creation Hypothesis",
1994, p60)
DN>In science there are theories that are achronic, not constrained
>to any particular time. This is true in physics, geology and
>evolution. The theory of evolution is a theory about how life
>changes over time and it's applies just as much for today and the
>future as it has in the past.
Agreed. So why has it stopped, as far as the production of higher
taxa:
"Lewin then asked the all important question: `Why, in subsequent
periods of great evolutionary activity when countless species,
genera, and families arose, have there been no new animal body plans
produced, no new phyla?' (Lewin R., Science, vol. 241, 15 July
1988, p291)...Lewin's question leads us to an even more important
question. What mechanisms have prevented major evolutionary change
from occurring over the past 500 million years? Why did the origin
of the phyla appear to have stopped first, followed by classes and
then orders?" (Battson A.L., "On The Origin of Stasis by Means of
Natural Processes", Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith,
December 1994, p236)
DN>Now, it's true that the fossil record is very important for the
>theory of evolution, but it is only one part of the study of biology
>and evolution. There is comparative anatomy, genetic studies,
>bacterial studies, population studies and more. The most striking
>evidence for me is the fact that we have seen microevolution in
>bacteria.
Yes. *microevolution*! :-)
DN>It's right there, present, in front of us. How can we
>say that evolution is a theory of the past when it is being used
>today to look and life and do experiments.
No one denies that *microevolution* is "right there, present, in
front of us." Even creation-scientists accept that:
"The creationist position (and it can be found in creationist
writings from the 1940s to the present) is that microevolution is
undeniable." (Ratzsch D.L., "The Battle of Beginnings", 1996, p87)
Indeed, it is the *evolutionists* (like Neo-Darwinism's co-founder
Dobzhansky) who say that *macroevolution* is "a theory of the past":
"These evolutionary happenings are unique, unrepeatable, and
irreversible. It is as impossible to turn a land vertebrate into a
fish as it is to effect the reverse transformation. The
applicability of the experimental method to the study of such unique
historical processes is severely restricted before all else by the
time intervals involved, which far exceed the lifetime of any human
experimenter." (Dobzhansky T., American Scientist, vol. 45,
December 1957, p388)
DN>Also, when people look at the fossil record it's not just
>looking at the past, but we also apply what we know about things in
>general, from studies conducted in the present, to the past, so we
>can get a better understanding of what was going. We can look at
>present animals and how we can know things about them from their
>bones. We then use this to intepret fossils. So we are using many
>universal laws and theories about nature to study fossils. So
>evolution is not just about studying the past, but about a
>universal theory that applies to all times.
Who would argue with this? It goes without saying. But that does not
change the fact that evolution is a historical science.
DN>Oliver also said that the dating methods weren't being addressed.
>Well, I think that even if the dating methods were left out and we
>went back to the time when these methods hadn't been discovered yet
>we would find big problems for flood geology. This is because
>geologists understand rocks and how geology works. This isn't just
>about the dating, it's about the rocks and processes. Flood geology
>just isn't a viable theory of how geology works, and you'll discover
>that when you look at rocks.
Agreed. The science of geology was over 150 years old when Libby
discovered radioactive dating in 1995. Indeed, it was
*creationists* who pioneered geology:
"Recent-creationists are convinced that geologists are guilty of
circular reasoning in building up the geologic column. They make
this accusation in nearly every book they publish...But these
accusations do not fit the facts, which are quite simple. William
Smith, the 'father of English geology', pioneered the technique and
built up the first geologic column in 1799. Evolution did not enter
into the matter. Darwin then was still unborn, and Smith remained a
creationist all his life." (Hayward A., "Creation and Evolution",
1995, pp117-118)
>DN>By the way, there are many, many, many different dating methods
>that are used by anthropologists, geologists and astronomers. Many
>of them methods are very different but come up with the same dates.
>This kind of corroboration from different sources shows that these
>dates are probably very good, and 10,000 years for the age of the
>earth and universe doesn't fit in there anywhere. As a physicist
>you should know quite a bit about nuclear decay and things like
>that. I haven't done much study of it myself, but I would like to
>in the future. I recommend we all do a little research in the
>particulars of these dating methods if we want to discuss it
>further.
Agreed. But the problem for evolution is that though they have
plenty of time, `evolution' didn't use it:
"Ironically, we have come full circle from Darwin's day. When
Darwin first proposed his theory a big difficulty was the
estimated age of the earth. Nineteenth-century physicists thought
the earth was only about a hundred million years old, yet Darwin
thought natural selection would require much more time to
produce life. At first he was proven right; the earth is now known
to be much older. With the discovery of the biological Big Bang,
however, the window of time for life to go from simple to
complex has shrunk to much less than nineteenth-century
estimates of the earth's age." (Behe, 1996, p28)
[...]
God bless.
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 9 448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------