Being a human

Unfortunately, it seems that Glenn may have done just what he said he would do, namely unsubscribe from the list for a bit. Hopefully he'll soon be back. Meanwhile, the slower pace of postings has given me a chance to reflect more on the implications of the dialogue over the last month or two. I believe Glenn has made some very important observations that we at ASA must seriously consider. I'll try to summarize three of those areas here.

1) Our interpretation of the Bible must be based on something more than "this is a possible interpretation that fits the scientific data." If we could arbitrarily re-interpret any passage that appears to contradict scientific claims in such a way that it does fit, then we have simply declared harmony by presupposition, made the Bible non-testable empirically, and diminished our basis for questioning other religions that would similarly re-interpret their revelations. We must be very careful, whether we claim concordism, or non-historical theological teachings in selected passages, or reset the chronology and timing of reported events, or anything else, to seek an independent and objective basis for such an interpretation. I would suggest that ASA must continue to encourage research into a better understanding of the language and culture in which the text was written to provide a better basis for interpretation. Kline, Walton, Fisher, Hill, and others have gone in this direction, but there is still much work to be done.

2) We need to be as diligent in providing a critique of local flood hypotheses as we have been of global flood accounts. It seems that many people, like me, in a journey from YEC to OEC have focused on the scientific and bibilical case against a global flood but have spent little time investigating the scientific case for a local flood. We've generally assumed that archeological evidence of local small-scale flooding of the Mesopotamian rivers was sufficient to justify thinking that a "whopper of a flood" occurred at some point that could correlate with the Genesis account. If, as Glenn points out, there is not only "...no evidence of a local flood [extensive enough to correlate with Genesis]" but "...evidence of no local flood..." then we must make some significant modification of the vast majority of the OEC books on the flood. At the very least, we must be as scrupulous about our analysis of scientific and bibilical accounts for a local flood interpretation as we insist there should be for a global flood perspective. Again, much careful work needs to be done.

3) Glenn also rightly chides us for being too silent on the issue of what it means to be human and our understanding of the Bible on that topic. While we are quick to point out how the YEC's reinterpret scientific data to achieve concordance with their view of the Bible's teaching of a young age of the earth, we must also be mindful of the mote in our own eye, the tendency to deny or refute data on the intermingling of human and hominid genetics in order to preserve our own understanding of the Bible's teaching. In this case, it's not just an "age of the earth" or "natural history in the Bible" issue, but a deeper theological issue that directly addresses the Fall and the nature of original sin, specifically the NT perspectives.
    I think this issue is epitomized by the chapter that Dean Arnold, Professor of Anthropology at Wheaton College, wrote in "Not Just Science", the recently published book edited by Dot Chappell and Dave Clark. His chapter was titled "How Do Scientific Views on Human Origins Relate to the Bible?" On one hand he attempts to minimize the problem by pulling in the date of the signs of first human civilization as much as possible. "... modern human cognition, language, and religion began no later than 35,000BC" (p.134). Glenn has pointed to data that indicate it's more than an order of magnitude older. On the other hand, Arnold strains to push back as far as possible the agricultural description of Adam's sons. While noting that "The earliest evidence of agriculture occurs about 8000BC" (p.130), he suggests that an early "date for the creation of the first truly human couple seems scientifically possible, since they probably were not all agriculturalists." (p.136). What he doesn't address in his chapter is the issue of genetic diversity which, as Glenn pointed out, does not appear to be consistent with a human population constriction to two or even a handful of people at any time in the past ~100,000 years no matter whether you believe in an Out-of-Africa theory or a Multi-Regional hypothesis. He rejects the notion of Adam as a federal head of the human race and states that "Because all humans are descended biologically and spiritually from an ancestor who made that choice, all humans bear consequences of that choice just as the historical couple did."(p.132)
    Nevertheless, Arnold concludes with the following paragraph. "Relating a scientific view of human origins with a view that takes the Bible seriously is fraught with difficulties. There are no ultimate answers without raising issues of integration to a level that places authority in our minds rather than faith in the God who created humans in His image. There are no final answers to be advanced with greater certainty about exactly what the Scriptures or science say that seems merited under the circumstances. It would seem better to speak tentatively and then live in faith in the resulting tension. Having said that, however, Christian faith and scientific knowledge of human origins are not incompatible." (p.136)
    Which I translate as saying "I have no answers but I know the Answer" or, more generally, "there's a lot more research to be done."

ASA's commitment to integrity in science means that we must work to ensure that all scientific information in these fields is carefully considered, and is not selectively ignored or dismissed without study or thorough research. Let this note be an encouragement to any of you who can, to (continue to) carry out research in these areas and publish the work in our journal.

Randy
Received on Mon Mar 20 21:03:28 2006