Post Calendar
-
Podcast Feeds
Sep
4
Creationism v. Evolution: the danger of misplaced dogmatism
September 4, 2007 |
Posted by vancemac · Filed Under Problems in the Church, Current Issues in Theology, Theological Questions, Creation/Evolution
It seems this is turning into a bit of a series on the topic of creation v. evolution, with my earlier posts on intelligent design and how to read Genesis, and that is fine because I think it is an important issue facing the Church today. But, really, these discussions are about something much deeper and more basic, and that is the very real dangers of taking a dogmatic position when none is called for. While the phrase “The Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it!” makes for a catchy bumper sticker, it is ultimately question-begging. What if you are wrong about what the Bible is saying? What if your interpretation of Scripture is where the problem lies? Might you be placing an unnecessary stumbling-block to the true Christian message?
I am dedicated to standing strongly for Scripture in those areas that are essentials of the faith, regardless of what the “world” says. I can join Luther and say “here I stand”. But when we are talking about areas that are not essential, which are not “salvation issues”, and upon which sincere and dedicated Christians differ, dogmatism can be dangerous. And, I think one of the most serious examples of this danger today comes when Christians take a dogmatic position regarding their view of origins.
The reason why I engage in these discussions is very simple: I want to remove the stumbling block to the Gospel message that is being created by a dogmatic presentation of Creationism. Not the belief in a young earth and creation without evolution per se, but the “either/or” teaching that comes with it. I am not here to argue for an old earth or evolution, necessarily, but against the false dichotomy that so often comes along with Creationism. More and more people are being taught that an old earth/evolution and Christianity are wholly inconsistent and that if you believe one, you can not really believe the other. Such a blanket statement puts two very distinct groups in crisis and I am convinced that souls are being lost to the Kingdom as a result. This may sound a bit over-dramatic, but I have seen too many people distracted from the Gospel message by this issue. Here are the two groups I think are in danger:
First, there are Christians, especially young people, who have been raised in a dogmatic Creationist households or attend such a church, and have been taught that evolution, or even an old earth, are evil and absolutely contrary to Scripture. That if you believe Scripture, you can not also believe in these “lies”. They are taught that those who do believe both are deluded or compromising Christians, probably not even worthy of the name of Christian. They are taught these as absolute truths, rather than one interpretation among the many that sincere Christians hold. These young people are ingrained with this teaching and accept it fully. Then they come into contact with the scientific evidence and begin to suspect that evolution or an old earth might actually be supported by the evidence. This creates a severe crisis of faith. They have been taught that if evolution or an old earth were true, then the atheists are right and the Bible can not be trusted and God did not create everything after all. I have seen this crisis in action. I have discussed this matter with those who either had abandoned Christianity or were about to because of this dogmatic teaching, and did my best to explain to them that the conflict was not inherent and that they could, indeed, believe in both. Most did not even know that there were Christians who accepted evolution, which shows how sheltered their lives had been.
The other group are non-Christians who come to associate Christianity with Young Earth Creationism. Those who do not know much about evolution and the age of the earth might be able to set aside any such beliefs and adopt a YEC belief and go on just fine. But most of those who really understand what the evidence says simply will not accept YEC teaching. So, if they are told that Christians, by definition, do not believe in evolution or an old earth and, instead, believe that the earth is less than 10,000 years old and that all the diversity of life was developed after a flood 4,000 years ago, this will be a major stumbling block to their acceptance of any Christian message. Thus Creationism becomes a barrier to the Cross for these non-Christians. More importantly, it becomes an unnecessary stumbling-block, since it is not an essential issue for Christian belief.
Here is Dr. Hugh Ross, a Christian Creationist (anti-evolution, but “old earth”), discussing this issue, it It is actually an introduction to a book called “A New Look at an Old Earth” by Don Stoner. I don’t agree with everything Hugh Ross believes, or everything included in the book, but what Ross writes here is very good. I added a couple of small notes in brackets which I think clarifies what he is saying:
“James, the brother of Jesus, in addressing the council at Jerusalem declared, “It is my judgement, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God (Acts 15:19).” The apostle Paul in his letter to the Romans said, “Make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother’s way (Romans 14:13).” Don Stoner challenges us in the following pages to remove a great impediment to the furtherance of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Instead of focusing on the now overwhelming evidence for the God of the Bible and on the complete accuracy of His Word [Ross believes that the scientific evidence of an old universe actually provides strong support for God’s Creation], many within Christendom would have us discount this potent new evidence, all for the sake of clinging to the rather peripheral (to the Gospel) dogma of a recently-created universe.
This digression [into YEC’ism] has effectively inoculated a large segment of secular society against taking seriously the call to faith in Christ. It also has divided the Christian community into hostile camps that focus more energy on attacking each other than on reaching nonbelievers. . . .
As Mr. Stoner emphasizes, science is man’s attempt to interpret the facts of nature, while theology is man’s attempt to interpret the words of the Bible. God created the universe and also is responsible for the words of the Bible. Since He is incapable of lying or deceit, there can be no contradiction between the words of the Bible and the facts of nature. Any conflict between science and theology must be attributable to human misinterpretation. Such conflicts should be welcomed, not feared or battled, for they point the way to further research and study that could resolve the apparent discrepancies.
Historically such resolutions have not only born the fruit of bringing warring parties to peace and fellowship but also provided new tools for winning souls for Christ. It is in this spirit that this book is written, and it is in this spirit that I hope this book will be read.”
I agree with the sentiments here entirely. Next week, I want to present an approach that I think works best in these areas. One that affirms each persons’ position on this issue, while putting it back into its proper non-essential place, and in a way that does not present a stumbling-block to the Gospel.
My motto tends to be “remember geocentrism”.
Comments
36 Comments so far
-
-
Theologica
Check it out here.
-
Parchment and Pen Blog - Internet Monk
- Faith and Theology
- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
-
Warning: Attempt to assign property of non-object in /home/reclaimi/public_html/blogs/wp-includes/rss.php on line 428
Powered by FireStats
Vancemac,
Another good post. I think you hit the nail on the head as to the two key dangers of a dogmatic interpretation of scripture ie. 1) Causing those raised in Christian homes to lose faith and 2) keeping those who do not know Christ from accepting God’s message of love and redemption.
I would like to add at least a 3rd danger, probably less critical than the 2 you highlighted, but still important. I believe a dogmatic “literalist” interpretation of Genesis is preventing our youth from exploring science more deeply. I know this from personal experience. When I was in school I explicitly avoided biology and ancient history courses because I was afraid they would damage my faith. When Christian avoid higher learning in certain academic disciplines, Christians become under represented in those disciplines. It’s no wonder then that certain disciplines seem “atheistic” when the vast majority of those representing the disciplines are inclined to interpret the scientific data from an non-Christian philosophical position. I posted on this (and the dangers you listed above) on my blog at: http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2007/06/evangelicalism-and-evolution-why.html
Question for you: How do you think we should balance the dangers of dogmatism vs. the necessity of spreading the essentials of the gospel? For example, if we are in a church that is preaching the gospel but is also shackling that gospel with a dogmatic interpretation of the bible, and it is clear that the dogmatic interpretation is causing real damage, at what point do we stand up and address the situation? In general, I think keeping quiet is a good policy in many Christian settings since unity of the prime objective (ie. spreading the gospel) is important. However, I’m not sure I’ve figured out where to draw the line between keeping quiet and speaking out.
I like that additional point very much. It harkens back to when conservative Christians abandoned academia to the liberals, then wondered what happened to our colleges!
As for your question, it is very difficult. I attend a fundamentalist pentecostal church and I am wrestling with this myself. On the one hand, I CHOOSE to go there (for many family reasons) knowing what their position is, so it seems a bit perverse of me then to make a fuss about it. On the other hand, I see these kids being sent off to college with this dangerous false dichotomy in their heads and I worry.
I am still on the fence about this. I have said enough to friends and family that I think many in the church know where I stand, but it has become a “don’t ask, don’t tell” and, oddly, the pastor has not preached on it in many, many months.
If you have any great insights, I would love to hear them. In the meantime, I get the message out in the best way I can. Not the “you should accept an old earth and evolution!” message, but the “let’s not allow this to be a stumbling block” message.
I’m tempted to put my caps lock on, but I’ll refrain. Very well said! This absolutely hits the nail on the head.
I send my kids to a KJV-only, YEC-or-death Baptist school because I won’t send them to the public schools in our area. My youngest (he’s 11) told me not too long ago that he doesn’t believe in dinosaurs. I get the impression that he’s run into that Christianity vs. science dichotomy and can’t resolve it. I may have mentioned before that we were asked to leave our Fundamentalist Christian church because our OEC views were ‘incompatible with christianity.’ What the heck are we doing?
Within my family, I’m obviously more concerned with your first point (the argument causing those raised in Christian homes to lose faith), but the second point is equally valid. I have to think think that this kind of turmoil is Satan’s joy.
Steve, your point is well taken. This nonsense definitely makes Christian kids afraid of science. All truth is God’s truth, as Ross and Stoner both say, and any objective scientific evidence must affirm creation, though not necessarily our interpretation of it. As I look at this issue, I’m coming to understand that it’s not science vs Scripture, but science vs interpretation of Scripture.
Steve, that is exactly right.
One thing I have often said is that if there seems to be a contradiction between science and the Bible, it is either the result of a misunderstanding of science or a misunderstanding of Scripture, or both.
What too many have tended to do is to assume that the misunderstanding MUST be by science, without even considering that it could just as easily be their own reading (or even the Church’s traditional reading) that is where the fault lies.
We have fallible humans reading nature, and we have fallible humans reading Scripture. Both are likely to make mistakes. So, we have to be more humble about it all around and look at all the evidence and all the factors involved before coming to a conclusion. And, in most cases like this one, those conclusions should remain tentative until we get to heaven!
[…] Absence of Dialogue in the Age of Earth Debate Vancemac at Euangelion has an excellent post (with great comments, as well) on the dangers of dogmatism in the […]
There is no “creation/evolution” debate. They do not oppose each other. The opposing views are “evolution” and “the Observations of Moses”.
The correct explanation of Genesis chapter one is the book “Moses Didn’t Write About Creation!”.
It is now in print.
Herman Cummings
Ephraim7@aol.com
Here is a bit I added over at Steve’s blog on this issue (just click his name!), where we started getting into the issue of what was actually meant:
I will often not be as nuanced on the issue of “literal” as I should, and fall back on general usage. Even I could use the term “literal” to describe my view of early Genesis, in the sense that I think the writer (inspired by God) was telling us about LITERAL events, regardless of the literary genre. The texts tell us about real events in real history, God DID create the entire universe, He DID create it in an orderly fashion, He DID create Mankind in His image, etc. These are not meant as analogies for some other events or no events at all, and just making theological points. I think they WERE meant to describe literal events, but doing so in very figurative, symbolic, poetic and typological language (as was the norm in ANE cultures).
So, in that sense, I do see the texts as “literal history”, just not using the literary genre of strict literal historical narrative. No matter how much WE like this way of writing about our past (it gives our Modern minds a nice firm feeling), it would be an entirely inappropriate (not to mention BORING) way to describe such momentous events to someone from an ANE culture. The creation of the entire universe would DEMAND the highest forms of language we could give it, rather than mere recitations of events.
Does that make a bit more sense?
BTW, I have done some analysis of how the ancient Israelites would have read these texts, based on their ANE culture, if anyone is interested.
[…] at the Euangelion blog, but he does bring up some very good points. In a blog well entitled “Creation v. Evolution: the danger of misplaced dogmatism,” Vance challenges readers to consider the debate from a more philosophical perspective. He […]
Hi Vancemac,
This is a little off topic. I’m interested in understanding how different Evangelical groups have responded to the evolution controversy. You mentioned you are part of a Pentecostal church and I was wondering if you have some input on the Pentecostal reaction to evolution.
My take (based on my limited exposure to the Pentecostal tradition) is that the vast majority of Pentecostals (like most Evangelicals) oppose evolution, BUT that they are less likely to be aggressively YEC. Is this your take? Do you have any pointers to resources on this? BTW, I believe Denis Lamoureux, who has a nice article on evolutionary creation at http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/3EvoCr.htm, is a Pentecostal. If you prefer, we can take this offblog – you can send me an email - you can get it from my website. (Actually, I would have done that but I couldn’t find yours on this website).
No, here is fine, but I will also track down your email and send you mine. As for Pentecostals, I have only seen YEC teaching, with varying degrees of dogmatism. My cousin, who is a youth pastor, is very dogmatic, but our pastor is less so (while still being thoroughly YEC, he won’t preach on it directly). In my myriad discussions with Christians and non-Christians on the internet (literally hundreds directly, and probably thousands reading along), I do not always know the exact denomination, so it is hard to say.
I really like Lamoureux’s site, though, and have linked MANY people to it!
I just finished Hugh Ross’s Creation as Science book. It is a great apolgetic to scientists. I wish anyone holding to the YEC would just look at arguments like his and see how powerful an apolegetic it is too see General Revelation and Special Revelation both pointing to the same God. As Paul said in Romans, science (observing how the Universe works, not naturalism which presumes God is not possible) should tell us about God. I hold to an OEC, non evolution stance myself.
If all the good science points to a biblical God and OEC, I think holding dogmatically to an interpretation (with a flimsy hermenuetic at that) that denies that is very dangerous.
[…] Creation Vs Evolution and the Danger of Misplaced Dogmatism. (HT to Michael Patton) Posted by: Michael Spencer @ 2:15 pm | Trackback | Permalink […]
Vancemac,
Using your thinking in this post, we should quit arguing about the role of men and women, the morality of homosexuality and cohabitation, and perhaps the ethics of stem cell research. These are also divisive issues that may keep people from the gospel, splitting Christian groups into “hostile camps” as Ross puts it.
No way around it, the Bible is divisive. The issue is never, “Will this teaching create tension in the Church or culture?” It is, “What does the Bible say.” I agree with your thoughts on interpretation–that as humans we’re sometimes wrong in our understanding. But with the Bible at least Christians have the help of the Holy Spirit. In science we don’t even have that. As regards the Genesis narrative, you’ll find that a grammatical analysis of the Hebrew text proves it to be just that–narrative. As opposed to other allegorical genres such as poetry.
Our efforts should be to carefully study and understand God’s Word to us through the text. As long as we believe the Bible is inspired, it should easily take precedence over the historical views of some outspoken scientists.
As far as geocentrism goes, the Church supported it because it was the dogma of science in its day. If we stand behind evolution and old-age thinking today, we may doing the same thing Galileo’s enemies did.
Daniel, it really is not about avoiding controversy, or even dodging issues which may be stumbling-blocks, since standing loud and clear on the resurrection itself is a scandal to the non-believer.
All of the issues you raise should be discussed, but the level of the discussion must fit the seriousness. Homosexuality is a sin which, if there is no repentance, can lead to an eternity without God, whereas a person’s belief in an old earth or even evolution is not going to effect their salvation. There are many, many issues within the Church and society that are worth discussing and some are worth taking a “here I stand” position on. A particular reading of Genesis and the various beliefs about how God created and how long it took, are not among them in my opinion.
As for proper interpretation, I wish it was true that the presence of the Holy Spirit brought unity of interpretation, but we have seen that this simply does not happen. In fact, it seems that the Holy Spirit is willing to allow even incorrect readings to dominate for hundreds of years. With geocentrism, the controversy was not at all because it was the accepted science of the day (although this is true). The controversy was because the Church, both Catholic and Protestant, said very clearly that the Bible taught that the sun, moon and stars revolved around a central and fixed earth. They pointed to Scripture and theology, very much as Creationists do today. It was not a science debate, it was a challenge to traditional readings of Scripture, which just happened to be wrong.
I have a degree in ancient history and have studied the ANE cultures extensively and there is very little doubt in my mind that the ancient Israelites would not have read the text as strict historical narrative. And, you are right, not as mere allegory either. They would have read it as accounts of real, literal events in the past, but told in the way they preferred such accounts: using symbolic, figurative and typological language. Language worthy of such momentous events.
Here is something to consider. We know that God is spirit, and that he does not have a corporeal body (although God is God and He could take such a form whenever He likes, I suppose). But here in the early Genesis text, we have a phrase that God “breathed” into Adam. Now, I don’t know of anyone who thinks that God took human form so that He would have human lungs to create human “breath” to perform this action. Yet, we all agree that SOMETHING happened. Something real, some true event. Something that is DESCRIBED using the powerful and evocative language of “breathing”. This language is figurative for something, maybe something our limited human understanding would not really be able to comprehend. Or maybe something that we can just more easily get the “feel” of with this type of language. That is what I mean by using figurative language to describe a real event.
Also, you might want to consider this article by a Christian expert in this area:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Bible-Science/6-02Watts.html
But yes, of course, a proper reading of Scripture will take precedence over inconclusive science. But when there seems to be a conflict between science and Scripture, it can either be a mistake in reading Nature or a mistake in reading science, and I don’t think we should be so confident that it is always a problem on the science end.
I think this is the first time I’ve read your blog and I have to say that you take a very balanced and informed approach to this issue and your line of thinking really resonates with me. In the past few years I’ve experienced a reawakening of my faith in Christ and am taking a fresh look at the origins of the universe. Based on what I read in Genesis now the only definitive conclusion I can make (quote) is that “God created the heavens and the earth”. There is not much more about the age of the earth or *exactly* how He did it.
I tend to think that us Christians engage in the wrong battles (e.g. AAHHHH they’re teaching evolution in schools!!!!!). The real question for all of us to eventually answer - and we will all answer it - is “Who is Jesus Christ”. I really like your point about emphasizing the essentials and backing off on the dogmatics. I’m convinced that, by God’s grace, I will be enjoying the pleasures of heaven with YECs, OECs, and theistic evolutionists.
ps: I heard a podcast by William Lane Craig where he states that even if evolution were true it would take God to “turn the dials” of the universe just right to support life. I infer from this and other statements that he is probably an old earth guy. But don’t quote me.
Hi Vance,
Hey, I didn’t know you were an ANE guy! That explains a lot (Just kidding
) – actually, we do need more Christian reflection on ANE history etc. A professor of ancient Semitic languages at my church was telling me that the fields of OT biblical studies and ANE archaeology have diverged to the point where there is little interaction anymore. This is sad, IMO. (note: The field used to be called “biblical archeology”, but no more). The ASA site you pointed to above has lots of good stuff on ANE studies in a Christian context. (Actually, I haven’t read the one you pointed to – I will now - thanks for the tip). Coincidently, Gordon Glover just posted an article on “Interpreting the Genesis Creation Accounts in the Light of ANE History” at http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2007/09/interpreting-genesis-creation-accounts.html. It’s a good 5-minute read for someone looking for an introduction to the context.
Eric, that is wonderful that you can step back and look at things afresh! I think it is something we must all do in order to make sure we are not sliding off into one extreme or the other (as we humans are wont to do!).
Steve, I very often wish I had pursued my doctorate in ancient history and taught rather than go to law school, it was a close call. Now, it is my “area of study” along with Scripture itself, and the early Church. I have gotten really into many of the Teaching Company lecture series which can be very enlightening, as long as you keep your “secular filter” on!
I will definitely check out Gordon’s article, and he mentioned on the Parchment and Pen blog some movie clips he has put together as well. I am so glad you have put that site together, and will likely be linking people over from the other places I discuss these issues.
Vancemac:
You raise a good point with the “breathing” example; there’s no reason to doubt that God would use figurative language to explain something that would be incomprehensible to us. But the problem is taking it too far, or substituting a scientific explanation that doesn’t fit into the narrative or theological “plot,” if you will, of the text. I would contend that evolution primarily, and old ages secondarily, present that kind of problem to Genesis.
Take your example of God breathing life into Adam, for instance. In the view of someone who accepts evolution, God was breathing a soul into a hominid at some stage of the evolutionary ascent of man. Or make that two hominids, since an evolutionist can’t take literally the bit about Eve being made from Adam’s side. The glories of sexual dimorphism must have been created in some more primitive form. Eve’s name doesn’t make sense in this context either: “Life-Giver”? Wasn’t there plenty of hominid life before then? And I wonder if Adam and Eve’s hominid parents were married, or were just shacking up? The absurdity parade could go on. . .
The theological problem, though–and here’s why evolution doesn’t qualify as an unimportant issue to the Church–comes when we realize that the Fall didn’t produce physical death. If evolution were in process for millions of years before Adam was ever around, then he should have expected to die, fruit or no fruit. In this view, mankind was never in a state of immortality, and physical death was not a punishment for sin.
Suddenly a lot of what Paul says about the sin, the atonement, and the resurrection of the dead doesn’t make a lot of sense. If Jesus, as a human, was going to die anyway, why did his physical death accomplish anything for us? Why did Paul, in speaking of the physical resurrection of the dead, call sin the sting of death? Why does death and suffering need to be defeated anyway, if it’s all part of an original good creation and isn’t related to sin?
So when people say, “It doesn’t matter whether you believe in evolution or not, as long as you believe in Jesus,” it sort of boggles my mind–and leads me to conclude they just haven’t thought very deeply about the issue.
Your thoughts?
Hi Daniel,
The question you ask (sin - death relationship) is the key question, IMO. But, I don’t believe this is an issue for EC alone, it’s also an issue of OEC. So, I can understand how many cannot accept anything but YEC - ie. all death is the result of Adam’s sin. So I wouldn’t say its secondaryly a problem for OEC - its the same challenge for all of us that accept an old earth, whether life developed through evolutionary creation or through many acts of special creation.
.
And I can assure you that we (at least I and many others I know) do think very deeply on this issue. We have to; its the toughest one of all. There are a lot of different solutions to this. I’ll give one that you might find interesting (from your website I think you are an ID supporter, is this correct?). Anyways, Dembinski (an OEC) has written a very thought provoking essay entitled “Christian Theodicy in Light of Genesis and Modern Science” at http://www.designinference.com/documents/2006.05.christian_theodicy.pdf. In fact, he states that the framework could still be valid even with evolution.
.
I don’t agree with this particular solution above, but I have to admire that Dembinski has put together a pretty thorough (although speculative) answer to the problem. Personally, my own solution is a little fuzzy yet for me so I’m not able to articulate it fully. (I like the writings of John Polinghorne very much so if you read “Science and Providence” you’ll get a flavour for where I’m at.) But I’ll say this: I believe I can explain the relationship between sin - death - theodicy in an evolutionary framework much better than I can explain the trinity. And I have not one iota of doubt on the trinity, even if I can’t articulate it that well.
Daniel,
As an progressive (OEC) creationist, I see the creation events leading up to the point at which all of the earth was ready for man. At that point God created Adam, and subsequently Eve. To answer your specific point, the Fall resulted in death - for man. Animals lived and died for millions/billions of years before Adam was created. Nothing that Paul (or Christ) speaks of in this context relates to animal life. Sin is just not an issue for otters. Christ didn’t die for otters, but for men, as a result of the need brought about by Adam’s rebellion and fall.
Steve,
This can refer to nothing other that the Curse, which came after the Fall. Remember God told the serpent it was cursed above all livestock and beasts, implying other animals were cursed too. So yes, sin did become an issue for otters–man’s sin.
Paul does talk about creation (ktisis–a comprehensive word encompassing the entire universe) being “subjected to futility,” in the “bondage of decay.” (Romans
Although Christ didn’t die for animals, Romans 8 says creation will be released from its bondage of decay when the children of God are revealed in glory. So the power of God will one day restore creation to perfection.
Sorry about the smiley face; –Romans 8
Daniel, I always find it dangerous to use terms like “this can refer to nothing other than . . .”
I do believe that it is most likely referring to the fact that the creation as a whole is not in the perfected state that God intended for it, and that the Fall somehow derailed the process that God had intended (but, of course, foreknowing it would happen). But I don’t see any NECESSARY correlation between that concept and the idea that God had already accomplished his final goal for Creation prior to that. We have to be careful not to read too much into Scripture, even if we can see some logical progressions of thought. Some of the best errors in Christian history had just such sensible progressions behind it!
We need to hold all that is not absolute loosely, and tentatively, and with an open mind as we all discover more about how things probably happened in the past. The last thing we want to do is be the next generation of geocentrists (which I already think we are, unfortunately).
BTW, here is the post I just made over at Parchment and Pen, since it is a parallel discussion:
BTW, here is an article on the “death before the Fall” issue from Glenn Morton, who used to be a leading YEC scientist, but has since moved away from that (with much hostility from the YEC camp following him). I have corresponded with him in the past and we butt heads a bit since he still insists on a very literal reading of the text. Anyway, it is a fun read:
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/death.htm
Here is another article on the subject from the Creationist site “Reason to Believe”, run by OEC scientist Hugh Ross:
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/other_papers/animal_death_before_the_fall.shtml
I just don’t really see any reason to hold to a “no death before the fall” doctrine, and I don’t really see any Biblical support for the “restorationist” approach that the new heaven and new earth were going to be a restoration of the way the earth was before the Fall. Maybe I am missing that, but I am not seeing that laid out anywhere.
BTW, here is an article on the “death before the Fall” issue from Glenn Morton, who used to be a leading YEC scientist, but has since moved away from that (with much hostility from the YEC camp following him). I have corresponded with him in the past and we butt heads a bit since he still insists on a very literal reading of the text. Anyway, it is a fun read:
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/death.htm
Here is another article on the subject from the Creationist site “Reason to Believe”, run by OEC scientist Hugh Ross:
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/other_papers/animal_death_before_the_fall.shtml
I just don’t really see any reason to hold to a “no death before the fall” doctrine, and I don’t really see any Biblical support for the “restorationist” approach that the new heaven and new earth were going to be a restoration of the way the earth was before the Fall. Maybe I am missing that, but I am not seeing that laid out anywhere.
Nicely said!
Thanks, Jason!
BTW, I wanted to point out that I do not agree with everything Morton has to say in the link I provided above, and as a scientist, theology is not his strong suit and I think he works way too hard to maintain a literal reading. But, he brings out the point I always find compelling about “no death before the fall” and that is regarding plant life. There is not doubt that there WAS death before the Fall, since plants had to die. Also, if there was no possibility of death for the animals, in other words if all animals were immortal, then why bother having them eat or reproduce? Just some oddities that arise out of the “no death before the fall” approach.
Leaving a manual trackback to my post yesterday at http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2007/09/dialogue-debate-silence-or.html since Vance’s post here on euangelion was really the catalyst to start my thinking on the topic.
Tech question to anyone that knows: How do a leave a wordpress trackback from blogspot?
Came here from talk.origins. I’m not qualified to participate in the debate since I’m not a believer (I know the topics fairly well, having been raised Christian and still fascinated by some aspects of religious thought), but I just thought I’d add my kudos to you grappling with a tough issue.
I’d like to add, if I may, a “personal testimony” to support your thesis. My father was raised Salvation Army, the son of a minister. He said, years later, that his parents’ fatal mistake, regarding his faith, was to give him a library card. It wasn’t science and evolution alone, but that was a significant part of it.
He turned his back on religion for the rest of his life because he was, in his view, asked to believe things that were demonstrably not true. (I know many of your readers would disagree with that assessment. I can’t, of course, raise his shade to defend himself here, nor do I think he’d care to, having done more than enough of that to his own parents throughout his life.)
Again, kudos. You’re on the side of the angels here (if you’ll pardon the expression).
Eyeless,
Well said. I think the issue is not getting a library card and hence being exposed to the wonders of science and the world, but doing so against the dogmatic view that THIS IS THE ONLY WAY THINGS CAN BE. That has to create a cognitive dissonance which will continue to resonate for years afterward.
The trick is ‘training up children in the way they should go’ in such a way that they aren’t frightened by views which conflict with their own.
[…] links that have some great thoughts on the evolution/creation topic. Check out this post called Creationism v. Evolution: the danger of misplaced dogmatism from the blog The Submerging […]
Hi,to whomever is out there reading this.
I’ve never “used” a blog before…and probably don’t understand what it is, anyway, since I’m closing in on 70 years old. That being said, here’s a thought or two.
I wasn’t raised in any particular faith, but was steeped in the sciences. Then God showed up in a rather abrupt way and started teaching me lots of fun things. Bottom line, I got to like Him, and heard the truth in His teachings; so…I figured I’d better take a closer look at the Bible. You might say, that at this point I had 2 biases: pro God and pro science. I did not have any knowledge of the book of Genesis, so no pros or cons on the subject of creation. That was 30 years ago.
I am, and always have been, a scientist; and through nothing but unbiased research, I now believe that there are several timelines in the book of Genesis, only one of which deals with evolution. (I’ve already found 8.)Chapter 1 of Genesis seems to be an overview of the entire 6 day process, while chapters 2-50 describe the 6th day of creation. Now, I’m skipping over a lot of research, here, but…
If you believe that God gave Moses this writing and that Moses also wrote Psalm 90, then you can use the formula in Psalm 90 to convert the God-Time in Chapters 2-50 to Human-Time. Depending on when the 6th day ends (this is becase of a descrepancy in the begats), this gives a range of between 769 million and 843 million years in ONE of the 6 days of creation. If, in fact, our solar sytem was created 6 of these very-big-days ago, (i.e., when God said “Let there be light”,) then…
According to the Bible, our solar system was created between 4.6 billion and 5.0 billion years ago…which is exactly on target with the scientific community. There is, of course, much much more (like a comparison of the creation and evolution timelines after they’ve both been put on the same “time-base,”) but may I suggest the following:
1. An all seeing God would give Moses a book which contains what each and every one of us needs in order to find the truth (i.e., in order to find God)
2. and, therefore, that each and every one of us is correct in our interpretations of that truth (because He doesn’t want any of us left behind)
3. and that God will lead us from where we are to where He wants us to be (because He’s a really good Teacher)
4. and, therefore, we might do better in our understanding of the truth by working together, rather than arguing over who is or is not right (because God is Peace).
Thanks for putting up with an old lady’s point of view.
I hope you have a good day.
Lyn Jensen
Lyn, thank you very much for you comments. While I am not sure about the various details about the timelines, I do indeed think that there is much more going on their historically than has been considered traditionally in the modern era. And, I like your thoughts at the end very much. God is, indeed, intending to communicate something to us about Himself and our relationship to Him and that what is given is what is necessary to salvation. I may quibble over whether all of our interpretations are “correct” in some historical or scientific sense, but I agree entirely that all of our various differences do not seem to have any impact on our getting the “salvation” points correct, which is a testament to God as the great communicator. And, of course, I agree entirely that because of this important “salvation issue” agreement, we should avoid letting this topic be divisive and a stumbling block.
Thanks again for adding your interesting thoughts to this discussion.
Dear Vancemac,
I can see how my statement that “each and every one of us is correct in our interpretations” that might seem a bit strange. However, if you look at any interpretation as a starting point in an individual’s search for the truth and, from that point, a journey in which God moves the individual from where he or she is to where God wants that person to be…then any starting point (or, initial interpretation) is correct because of where it leads.
Also, I’m sorry if I implied that the book of Genesis was limited to timelines (in the “historical or scientific sense”). In fact, if you look up the word derivations of place-names in that book, you will also find a description of a spiritual journey…which, of course, can occur at any time in one’s life.
Lyn
P.S. As far as the timelines are concerned, if you’d like to see them and the way in which they came about—with the understanding, of course, that even after 30 years, they are still “works in progress”—please send me your email and I’ll be happy to send them to you as an attachment. I’ve incorporated them into an unpublished book called “A House Without Walls.” (Unfortunately, I do not have a website for this book, since I do not understand how to do that, yet.)
I am currently reading “The Age of Everything” by Hedman. I’ve long ago accepted an old earth, but I’m being challenged by some of the history of man. One key point - the Native Americans, whom I still assume are descendants of Adam and Eve - could have been on the American continents 13,000 years ago. Are they descendants of Adam but not of Noah? Is there no Adam, and God put His Spirit (or a spirit) in a whole group of people at once? Could the Great Flood have been 20,000 years ago?
Even using the annual rings in trees, scientists can go back at least 10,000 years in some places. This is an easy science to understand, yet some people still claim the earth is only 6,000 years old.
I am very much against the “either/or” with either evolution or creation, and also with either young earth or false Bible. Michael Behe wrote The Edge of Evolution, and many Christians miss that he is pointing out the proof for evolution and how factual it is, when we look at a particular one or two definitions of the word.
This is the proof that many scientists stand on, and I think we would do the Gospel a service by constantly pointing out how we believe in this kind of scientific evidence as proof of evolution, celebrate Darwin’s theory, etc. Whether or not you want to go into common descent from a single ancestor is another story, but common descent from multiple ancestors is a given.
Look at how well evolution explains the diversity among 7 billion human beings who all come from 2, if we believe in Adam and Eve. That is Darwinism in action. Look at how well it explains Noah’s taking every kind of animal on the ark, when today we have millions of different animal species.
Another fallacy is when people pit Intelligent Design against evolution and against atheism. For more insight into this subject see the book Getting Past the Culture Wars: Regarding Intelligent Design.
Rape.
Rape.