A number of professing believers regard youth-earth creationism as the least defensible option. Of those, a large number of evangelicals prefer old-earth creationism. It has the advantage, in their view, of doing greater justice to Scripture than theistic evolution, but greater justice to science than YEC. (Catholics are more open to theistic evolution.)
For them, YEC imposes an excessive apologetic burden on the Christian. It has too much to defend. Too much to explain away. It has to wage war on too many different fronts.
The only reason anyone would subscribe to YEC is for exegetical reasons alone–so they say.
Incidentally, even if that were the case, there’s nothing inherently wrong with that position. We might well have better reason to believe the Bible rather than some scientific theory du jour.
But one question we need to ask is whether OEC represents a stable mediating position. This is not simply an issue of accepting the same basic sequence as YEC, but spacing it out or extending the timeline.
If you concede the evidence for the antiquity of the earth (assuming there is such evidence), then this evidence is bound up with a certain sequence of events. On this view, the earth developed in certain stages. And evidence for the antiquity of the earth dovetails with evidence for the emergence and diversification of life.
It’s difficult to isolate evidence for the antiquity of the earth from evidence for the origin of life and emergence of species. The chronology and biology tend to move in tandem.
And, indeed, OEC generally concedes the evolutionary sequence of events. But, in that case, it’s hard to separate the evidence for an evolutionary sequence from the evidence for an evolutionary process. Once you buy into the initial assumptions, it’s difficult to see how OEC can maintain a buffer between its own position and theistic evolution.
Or course, OEC can try to distinguish between microevolution and macroevolution. However, that move also available to YEC.
There are also some professing believers who subscribe to theistic evolution. Is that a more defensible position?
One problem with theistic evolution is that if you concede the evidence for macroevolution (assuming there is any), then there’s a random quality to the fossil record that doesn’t look like it’s guided by a wise and benevolent deity. The “kill curve” seems to be pretty indifferent to which species survive and which go extinct. As one writer put it, “Such a model of fractal continuity in extinction, triggered by sudden impact at all scales and levels, might be conceptualized as a ‘field of bullets’ (Raup, 1991a)–with agents of destruction raining from the sky and death as a random consequence of residence in the wrong place at the wrong time,” S. Gould, The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, 1324.
In addition, agreement with macroevolution is only to your apologetic advantage if, in fact, there is compelling evidence for macroevolution, with no serious evidence to the contrary. If, on the other hand, macroevolution is deeply problematic, then the theistic evolutionist is in danger of being swamped by the dead weight of macroevolution. In that case, his position is more vulnerable rather than less so.
The fact is that every option along the continuum, from YEC through OEC and theistic evolution to naturalistic evolution has some unique challenges. I don’t see that any one position is more prima facie defensible than another.
That being the case, it’s logical for the Christian to choose the option with the most Scriptural support, and defend it on whatever other grounds are available.
"One problem with theistic evolution is that if you concede the evidence for macroevolution (assuming there is any), then there’s a random quality to the fossil record that doesn’t look like it’s guided by a wise and benevolent deity. The “kill curve” seems to be pretty indifferent to which species survive and which go extinct."
ReplyDeleteAre we in the habit of judging the providential work of God on grounds like, "We don't see why God's providence would work that way here"?
"I don’t see that any one position is more prima facie defensible than another.
That being the case, it’s logical for the Christian to choose the option with the most Scriptural support, and defend it on whatever other grounds are available."
That depends on what exactly you mean by "prima facie defensible"--and whether you're correct about the relative defensibility of the different positions.
If we think that the biblical case leans one direction (but in a non-conclusive way), but you also think that the physical evidence leans very strongly in the other (in a strongly conclusive way), should we go with the slightly-more-defensible exegesis?
How would you apply that to something like this: Suppose that there was a passage talking about the moon. On purely exegetical grounds, you decide that it leans in the direction of saying the moon isn't solid. But the physical evidence is conclusive that it's solid rock--we've been there. Would you say that we should go with "the option with the most Scriptural support"? (I may be misapplying your "prima facie defensibility"--I'm not clear on that.)
JUGULUM SAID:
ReplyDelete"Are we in the habit of judging the providential work of God on grounds like, 'We don't see why God's providence would work that way here'?"
i) That move is equally available to YEC and OEC.
ii) More to the point, that appeal is irrelevant to the scientific evidence, upon which theistic evolution is allegedly based. So that appeal would be in spite of the apparent evidence to the contrary.
Nothing inherently wrong with that, but it weakens the case for theistic evolution.
"i) That move is equally available to YEC and OEC."
ReplyDeleteWhat kind of situation do you have in mind? I mean, what criticism would a YEC or OEC be replying to? In what context would they be making that move?
"ii) More to the point, that appeal is irrelevant to the scientific evidence, upon which theistic evolution is allegedly based. So that appeal would be in spite of the apparent evidence to the contrary."
I'm not following. Are you saying that the "doesn’t look like it’s guided by a wise and benevolent deity" argument was a scientific argument?
I would call it a theological commentary on scientific evidence. But it's a theological commentary that assumes we should judge the reasonability of "God worked this way" based on "To me, that was doesn't look wise & benevolent."
In other words: TEs argue on physical evidential grounds that evolution occurred. You reply with your "One problem with theistic evolution" paragraph, which raises a theological problem with the TE story. But it would only be a problem for TEs if they accept certain theological assumptions. Assumptions that you deny, and that I deny, too. TEs could reply to your paragraph with, "We're Calvinists, we don't believe in judging God's actions that way."
The only way I can make sense of your argument is if you're saying that TE presuppositions require them to affirm, 'We can judge the wisdom & benevolence of God's actions'. And I don't see how their dependence on physical evidences to figure out what God has done requires anything about how they judge the wisdom & benevolence of those actions.
P.S. I'm not a TE, myself.
Thanks for this post Steve. At the moment I'm taking the creationist position, but not yet choosing among the various creationist positions. I'm just firmly against neo-Darwinian evolution and theistic evolution.
ReplyDeleteIIRC, RC Sproul has recently adopted a YEC position.
And, indeed, OEC generally concedes the evolutionary sequence of events. But, in that case, it’s hard to separate the evidence for an evolutionary sequence from the evidence for an evolutionary process. Once you buy into the initial assumptions, it’s difficult to see how OEC can maintain a buffer between its own position and theistic evolution.
ReplyDeleteThis statement suggests that generally speaking, the evolutionary sequence and the Biblical sequence (of Gen. 1) are in conflict and cannot be reconciled.
However, Hugh Ross (being the most well known OEC advocate) claims (rightly or wrongly) in his books that the sequences of the appearance of life forms in the geologic column perfectly match the sequence as recorded in Genesis 1. That is, if the Hebrew is translated properly.
As an example (from memory), we often interpret the KJV's translation of things that "creep [creeping/creepeth]" as insects, when (if I recall) Ross claims that the Hebrew word refers to animals that are related to humans either by agriculture usefulness or because of our ability to domesticate them. Something like that.
My point is that, there may not be a contradiction between the sequence in Genesis 1 and the sequence as claimed by evolutionists. In which case, the biblical sequence (as in terpreted by Ross) might be evidence of divine authorship. As Ross points out, if the human biblical author(s) of Genesis were not divinely inspired, it would be HIGHLY unlikely that they would have gotten the sequence right. Yet they did. Or so Ross claims. He goes on to say that this is unlike all other ancient creation myths. All others get it wrong when it comes to the sequence.
If that's true, then that's strong evidence that his version of OEC (as opposed to The Gap theory et al.) is true. Since, YEC wouldn't be able to account for the appearance in the rocks because of the temporal requirement of ages rather than days. That's why YECs often reject the reliability of dating fossils based on their location in the geologic strata.
Btw, I strongly lean toward OEC. Though, not dogmatic. Scripture is my standard not the passing fads of "Science".
I said, "He goes on to say that this is unlike all other ancient creation myths. All others get it wrong when it comes to the sequence." I should have also said, "To say the least."
ReplyDeleteThe Biblical description doesn't have things being creaed from the body parts and fluids of the gods as other creation myths have it. There are no crocodile gods or ducks (Native American), or Bears (Korean) et cetera involved in the creation process.
If Ross' claims about the correlation of the Biblical and evolutionary sequence is correct, then that would be a greater suggestion of Divine Inspiration than the recent suggestion by Steve that there's a passage in Daniel that might possibly presuppose the curvature (and hence spherical shape) of the earth.
The only part of this I have any read quibble with is when Steve says:
ReplyDelete---
And, indeed, OEC generally concedes the evolutionary sequence of events. But, in that case, it’s hard to separate the evidence for an evolutionary sequence from the evidence for an evolutionary process.
---
On the one hand, this is perfectly correct from a psychological standpoint, because it becomes easier to "give in" to the secular peer pressure at that point. However, this "giving in" would not be because of the evidence there, but instead only because of such peer pressure.
Again, my own position is one of ignorance and apathy about the age of the Earth (I don't know and I don't care). The result is that I've been both YEC and OEC throughout my life and hold no real strong aligience to either.
That said, my own examination of the evidence of the age of the Earth leads me to believe the YEC position is far more credible than most secularists think. And that's because I can see ways in which the "evolutionary sequence of events" fit even within the YEC framework, let alone the OEC framework, without holding to evolutionary processes.
A good start on reconciling the two, ironically, begins with Steve's previous posts about the nature of time and how the world is not a clock. When we try to read physical processes as if they are a clock, we run into inaccuracies. They may function as clocks now, but if God created them already as works in progress, then the "age" they state would be "false." (This is not God lying, as atheists claim, because it's not the physical processes that give false data but rather the scientist's assumptions about those processes that give us the false data.)
In any case, when I imagine what must be the case for the world to function when God created it, I see that there are many things that must be already in effect before the manifestation of the world. For instance, when God created the world, the solar system had to have a certain number of objects in it circling the sun; these all work in tandem to ensure Earth stays within the parameters the support life. Furthermore, the world had to have a certain atmosphere--one with oxygen in it--and various other things. And to get that, you need such things as plants that will convert carbon dioxide into oxygen, etc. And to get those plants, you need certain nutrients in the soils, you need water, etc.
In other words, the world is a very complex "machine" with billions of interconnected parts. And those parts have certain requirements in order for them to work.
So in order for us to get to a point where the Earth functions as a system, it must have a ton of groundwork already in place--groundwork that would look remarkably like the "evolutionary sequence" of events, yet which could have been made in place by God instantly.
The difference between the evolutionist's concept of the sequence and the creationist's concept of the sequence is that the evolutionist is required to have huge periods of time in those events, whereas the creationist doesn't require that. God could plant trillions of bacteria on Earth and have them instantly do their job of creating the environment needed for him to then introduce the next level of life needed to keep the planet functioning. All that could take place instantly, yet it would look like an "evolutionary sequence." Again, the "lie" would not be on God's part, but rather on man's faulty assumptions here. God is not misleading anyone about the nature of the fossil record, for He gave us His Bible so we'd know He created the universe; it is man who makes assumptions about what the fossil record must mean through time that creates the lie.
So to sum up, you could say "God logically created A, then B, then C, then D...etc" while an evolutionist would say, "A evolved first, then B, then C, then D...etc." The sequence is the same, but it is not sufficient for the creationist (whether OEC or YEC) to convert to Darwinism on that basis alone.
(Catholics are more open to theistic evolution.)
ReplyDeleteYa think?
Vatican buries the hatchet with Charles Darwin:
"The Vatican has admitted that Charles Darwin was on the right track when he claimed that Man descended from apes.
A leading official declared yesterday that Darwin’s theory of evolution was compatible with Christian faith, and could even be traced to St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas. “In fact, what we mean by evolution is the world as created by God,” said Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture. The Vatican also dealt the final blow to speculation that Pope Benedict XVI might be prepared to endorse the theory of Intelligent Design, whose advocates credit a “higher power” for the complexities of life."
Peter,
ReplyDeleteI absolutely agree on that aspect of "appearance of age". Soil is a great example of "functional appearance".
It's helpful to distinguish between that kind of appearance of age, and others. For instance, the vast majority of people would agree that fossils in the rocks could not be reasonably attributed to appearance of age. Fossils seem more firmly to demonstrate things that happened. The more difficult cases are things like starlight--especially starlight that obviously displays events: Supernovas, pulsars, etc. (A functional appearance of age argument would say that it's reasonable to suppose that God would create light en route from distant stars--but when that light turns out to be a video recording of events that never actually happened, it seems more sketchy.)
I think that's why you end up with YECs often still arguing for an old universe (a la Humphrey's white hole cosmology).
JUGULUM SAID:
ReplyDelete“What kind of situation do you have in mind? I mean, what criticism would a YEC or OEC be replying to? In what context would they be making that move?”
Mass catastrophic extinctions.
“I'm not following. Are you saying that the "doesn’t look like it’s guided by a wise and benevolent deity" argument was a scientific argument?__I would call it a theological commentary on scientific evidence. But it's a theological commentary that assumes we should judge the reasonability of "God worked this way" based on "To me, that was doesn't look wise & benevolent."__In other words: TEs argue on physical evidential grounds that evolution occurred. You reply with your "One problem with theistic evolution" paragraph, which raises a theological problem with the TE story. But it would only be a problem for TEs if they accept certain theological assumptions. Assumptions that you deny, and that I deny, too. TEs could reply to your paragraph with, "We're Calvinists, we don't believe in judging God's actions that way."
i) YEC takes Scripture as its frame of reference whereas TE takes science as its frame of reference. As such, it’s rather ad hoc for TE to explain away the appearance of the fossil record by appeal to God’s inscrutable providence. The theological explanation is extraneous to the evidence.
ii) Apropos (i), it’s not as if the evolutionary reading of the evidence is theologically neutral, such that it’s equally open to a secular or theological interpretation. The evolutionary reading is already tilted in an atheistic direction. Random variables determine which species happen to evolve and survive, never evolve, or evolve, but perish.
ii) TE also has more to explain away. Most species evolve and perish. So they seem to be evolutionary dead-ends. They don’t seem to be a means to an endl. They’re not a trajectory to man. Their presence or absence doesn’t contribute to human wellbeing. Hominids also go extinct. Freak accidents destroy entire species.
YEC doesn’t even agree with the macroevolutionary narrative, so it doesn’t have as much apparent happenstance to reconcile with divine purpose.
Jugulum said...
ReplyDelete“I absolutely agree on that aspect of ‘appearance of age’. Soil is a great example of ‘functional appearance’.__It's helpful to distinguish between that kind of appearance of age, and others. For instance, the vast majority of people would agree that fossils in the rocks could not be reasonably attributed to appearance of age. Fossils seem more firmly to demonstrate things that happened.“
Agreed.
“The more difficult cases are things like starlight--especially starlight that obviously displays events: Supernovas, pulsars, etc. (A functional appearance of age argument would say that it's reasonable to suppose that God would create light en route from distant stars--but when that light turns out to be a video recording of events that never actually happened, it seems more sketchy.)”
I don’t see how that conclusion follows from YEC assumptions. Why couldn’t those be real supernova?
The objection seems to interpolate a non-YEC assumption into the argument to derive that conclusion. It seems to be arguing that on YEC assumptions a supernova couldn’t actually occur since there would be insufficient time for the stellar lifecycle to reach that point. But why would a YEC timeframe have to accept the ordinary rates of stellar development in the first place–especially with respect to the origin of the universe?
Annoyed Pinoy said...
ReplyDelete“This statement suggests that generally speaking, the evolutionary sequence and the Biblical sequence (of Gen. 1) are in conflict and cannot be reconciled. __However, Hugh Ross (being the most well known OEC advocate) claims (rightly or wrongly) in his books that the sequences of the appearance of life forms in the geologic column perfectly match the sequence as recorded in Genesis 1. That is, if the Hebrew is translated properly.”
i) I don’t think the creation of birds, on day 5, followed by the creation of land animals, on day 6, parallels an evolutionary sequence.
ii) In addition, I had more specific sequences in mind, such as the evolutionary sequence (posited) for man, viz.
australopithecus anamesis>afarensis>africanus>homo habilis>erectus>neaderthalensis>sapiens
Steve -
ReplyDeleteWhat do you (or anyone out there) think of the position of John Sailhamer, author of Genesis Unbound and the Commentary on Genesis in the Expositor's Bible Commentary ? (Volume 2)
If I understand him right, Basically, he says that Genesis 1:1 is "God created the universe: (all matter and energy and space; and He did it ex nihilo, from nothing; but that after that, most of the time, the "land" does not mean the entire earth, (don't know if he would make exceptions to that in Genesis 6-11, but the "land" (of Israel) and that the six days are arranging and preparing the matter that He already created in verse 1; so the focus is on the preparation for the land of Israel, not the whole world.
So, I think, he calls the 6 days, days of preparing and arranging the matter that He already created in verse 1.
If anyone knows about this view, I would appreciate explanation and correction if I understand him wrong. I found it hard to understand; maybe I am not too smart.
Peter Pike's comments was very good and thoughtful. Thanks!
ReplyDeleteKen,
ReplyDeleteI read his book years ago. I've have to dust off my copy to remind myself of what I disagreed with and why.
"The objection seems to interpolate a non-YEC assumption into the argument to derive that conclusion. It seems to be arguing that on YEC assumptions a supernova couldn’t actually occur since there would be insufficient time for the stellar lifecycle to reach that point. But why would a YEC timeframe have to accept the ordinary rates of stellar development in the first place–especially with respect to the origin of the universe?"
ReplyDeleteActually, I wasn't coming from there. I wasn't making the "they wouldn't be advanced enough to supernova" assumption, for pretty much the reason you stated. (It's not obvious precisely how that would be a "functional appearance of age", but we're talking about initial creation, like you said. That's where it's the silliest to say, "God shouldn't make the initial conditions like that.")
Rather, I was talking about starlight that both (A) records events, and (B) is more distant than ~6,000 light years, like Supernova 1987A. (The measurement is 167,000 light years. That starlight ostensibly recorded events that were much older than ~6,000 years.)
The major YEC suggestions for distant starlight (off the top of my head) are:
1.) Maybe the light was created en route.
2.) Maybe the distance measurements are way overinflated--maybe the supernova was closer than 6,000 lightyears.
3.) Maybe the speed of light changed. It's really that far, but the light travelled faster.
4.) Maybe the universe is old, but the earth is young. (Either because (A) the earth was created in an old universe, or (B) time was slowed down on Earth during the first days of creation, perhaps because it was at the center of a white hole--so the earth aged really slow.)
My main point was about number 1--the idea that God created starlight en route. If the starlight shows video of events happening, then it turns out to be like suggesting that God made rocks with the fossils inside.
P.S. Actually, number 2 also turns out not to be a remotely viable solution, because we know the distance through simple trigonometry--and the distance measurement would be unaffected by a changing speed of light.
P.P.S. Answers in Genesis has a couple more suggestions, other than the ones I listed. One involving conventions of time measurement. Another involving a "maybe God brought the light to earth through supernatural means during Creation week" idea. (Though I think the author was confused--unless he intended to suggest that SN1987A happened during the creation week.)
Steve said...
ReplyDeleteii) TE also has more to explain away. Most species evolve and perish. So they seem to be evolutionary dead-ends. They don’t seem to be a means to an endl. They’re not a trajectory to man. Their presence or absence doesn’t contribute to human wellbeing. Hominids also go extinct. Freak accidents destroy entire species.
OEC (have) and TE (have?) can argue that the billions of animal deaths that occured for long ages prior to the appearance of man do have teleological ends. For example, providing future crude oil for mankind.
Steve said...
i) I don’t think the creation of birds, on day 5, followed by the creation of land animals, on day 6, parallels an evolutionary sequence.
I recall Ross addressing this in (at least) one of his books (I believe "The Genesis Question: Scientific Advances and the Accuracy of Genesis"). I can't recall his comments on that particular problem; and I can't look it up at the moment because the copy I read was from the library ;-)
Steve said...
ii) In addition, I had more specific sequences in mind, such as the evolutionary sequence (posited) for man, viz.
australopithecus anamesis>afarensis>africanus>homo habilis>erectus>neaderthalensis>sapiens
TEs might argue for that, but "Rossian" (heh) OEC affirms the "recent" special creation of present Homo sapiens sapiens. While also affirming the earlier creation and possible micro-evolution of bi-pedal primates for the preparation of the land for the future creation and habitation of man.
Jugulum said...
Rather, I was talking about starlight that both (A) records events, and (B) is more distant than ~6,000 light years, like Supernova 1987A. (The measurement is 167,000 light years. That starlight ostensibly recorded events that were much older than ~6,000 years.)
This brings up one of the major reasons I strongly lean toward OEC. Scripture clearly teaches that General Revelation testifies to the glory, power, wisdom, providential care and existence of God. From that I infer (rightly or wrongly) that therefore a proper interpretation of the created order would lead to a greater understanding of God's providential dealings in the world. That, all things being equal, creation doesn't lie or deceive. And therefore, the appearance of vast age in the universe both terrestrial and extraterrestrial is real.
YEC however will point out that when Adam and Eve were created they were fully adults. Thus showing that the appearance of age can be deceiving if not interpreted in light of the verbal/propositional revelation of God. They may even have had belly buttons even though neither of them were born and so attached to their mother via an umbilical cord. Yes, it's also true (and I agree) that the deceived/misled and the deceiver/misleader belong to God (Job 12:16). That God can even bring delusion on the wicked (1 Kings 22; 2 Thess. 2:11).
However, it seems to me that part of the point of General Revelation is to render all men without excuse. Whether:
1. unfallen man with access to propositional revelation;
2. fallen unregenerate man *without* propositional revelation;
3. fallen unregenerate man *with* propositional revelation;
4. regenerate man with access propositional revelation.
While it's true that men were never *meant* to interpret General Revelation apart from Special Revelation, AND that fallen man interprets creation with a sinful bias; is it not also true that General Revelation (as Van Til said) is necessary, authoritative, **sufficient** and **perspicuous** for it's limited purpose? In which case, it seems that whether fallen man or regenerate man interprets the created order, there should be some agreement.
In other words, how are people (including and especially regenerate people) to interpret the seemingly clear signs of vast ages in the universe? If there is light arriving to earth from what appears to be a supernova whose distance is such that we can calculate (assuming the general uniformity of nature) occured prior to the date in which YEC believe the universe and/or earth was created, what are we to make of it? There are many such indications that the earth and/or the universe is/are billions of years old.
Yes, we ought to have the attitude of Rom. 3:4 and say, "Let God be true, and every man be [proved] a liar". Including every fallible interpretation of man that contradicts the infallible Scriptures. However, since God is true, and God speaks truthfully in General Revelation too, shouldn't we presuppose that apart from explicit Special Revelation saying otherwise, that General Revelation is reliable and giving truthful indications of vast ages?
Especially since, IMO, the arguments OECs make using generally accepted scientific measurements and theories support Biblical claims without the need to present ad hoc arguments that YEC seem to make dismiss or sweep away contrary evidence?
ANNOYED PINOY SAID:
ReplyDelete“OEC (have) and TE (have?) can argue that the billions of animal deaths that occured for long ages prior to the appearance of man do have teleological ends. For example, providing future crude oil for mankind.”
That’s a very creative argument. Have OEC/TE writers also argued that butterflies exist for butterfly collectors, coal deposits exist so that Liz Taylor can wear diamond rings, mosquitoes exist to profit insecticide factories, deer have heads for trophy hunters, rabbits exist to employ cartoon animators (i.e. Bugs Bunny), God made mink so that Zsa Zsa Gabor can wear fur coats, God made horses so that gamblers can bet on Secretariat, and he also created wolves so that dog breeders can husband poodles to keep pet groomers in business?
“TEs might argue for that, but "Rossian" (heh) OEC affirms the "recent" special creation of present Homo sapiens sapiens. While also affirming the earlier creation and possible micro-evolution of bi-pedal primates for the preparation of the land for the future creation and habitation of man..”
His belief in (prehuman) hominids is another instance in which OEC shades into TE.
“This brings up one of the major reasons I strongly lean toward OEC. Scripture clearly teaches that General Revelation testifies to the glory, power, wisdom, providential care and existence of God. From that I infer (rightly or wrongly) that therefore a proper interpretation of the created order would lead to a greater understanding of God's providential dealings in the world. That, all things being equal, creation doesn't lie or deceive. And therefore, the appearance of vast age in the universe both terrestrial and extraterrestrial is real.”
i) I’ve addressed the general objection to divine deception on several occasions. Indeed, Peter Pike does a nice job of summarizing one of my counterarguments.
ii) I also addressed the specific objection concerning supernovae, &c. You need to explain why, on YEC grounds, God could not create a supernova. Is your objection that there wouldn’t be enough time? Enough time for what? God can make a supernova without having to run through all of the preliminary stages that normally figure in the production of a supernova. That involves the basic distinction between creation ex nihilo and ordinary providence. God simply instantiates his abstract idea of a supernova.
“In other words, how are people (including and especially regenerate people) to interpret the seemingly clear signs of vast ages in the universe? If there is light arriving to earth from what appears to be a supernova whose distance is such that we can calculate (assuming the general uniformity of nature) occured prior to the date in which YEC believe the universe and/or earth was created, what are we to make of it? There are many such indications that the earth and/or the universe is/are billions of years old.”
i) To originate a natural cycle for the first time, you have to start at some point in the cycle. Otherwise, the process could never be instantiated in the first place.
ii) You’re also ignoring the debate between temporal objectivism and temporal conventionalism.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteWhen you talk about temporal objectivism and temporal conventionalism, are you referring to something along these lines? Or something else. (I haven't got a good grasp on this line of response to SN1987A, and I'd like to.) (P.S. Whoops, I see that Peter Pike referred to an earlier post of yours on this topic. I must have missed it before...or forgot it.)
Incidentally, I'm curious if you're familiar with the Lake Suigetsu line of argument for an old earth.
JUGULUM SAID:
ReplyDelete"When you talk about temporal objectivism and temporal conventionalism, are you referring to something along these lines? Or something else."
For an intro to the subject, cf.
http://fds.oup.com/www.oup.co.uk/pdf/0-19-875254-7.pdf
"Incidentally, I'm curious if you're familiar with the Lake Suigetsu line of argument for an old earth."
ReplyDeletei) Young-earth creationists have responded to that example.
ii) I avoid getting into technical debates. I think we need to leave that to people with the requisite training in the relevant fields of specialization. The best a layman can do is to listen to experts debate such issues, and form an amateur opinion of which side had the better of the argument.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteGoing back to the earlier comment:
"Mass catastrophic extinctions."
Ah. Yes. I agree.
"i) YEC takes Scripture as its frame of reference whereas TE takes science as its frame of reference. As such, it’s rather ad hoc for TE to explain away the appearance of the fossil record by appeal to God’s inscrutable providence. The theological explanation is extraneous to the evidence."
"TE takes science as its frame of reference"? How is that inherently the case, any more than with OECs?
Perhaps that's an accurate description of some TEs' argumentation. But others I've talked to say, "Do our best to understand the truth by examining the Book of special revelation together with the Book of general revelation. We think that the physical evidence is clear on this, and that it fits with the Bible." They may actually be letting scientific best-guesses override Scripture, but that's not part of the presuppositions of their argumentation. And OECs are liable to the same criticism--using science as their frame of reference rather than Scripture.
"ii) Apropos (i), it’s not as if the evolutionary reading of the evidence is theologically neutral, such that it’s equally open to a secular or theological interpretation. The evolutionary reading is already tilted in an atheistic direction. Random variables determine which species happen to evolve and survive, never evolve, or evolve, but perish."
What is the fundamental difference between that argument, and this: "Naturalistic embryology is already tilted in an atheistic direction. Mechanistic processes determine what grows and how, rather than the direct work of God."
Do you argue that it is less theologically neutral to talk about God working through processes that seem (by physical analysis) to be random, as opposed to working through processes that are physically mechanistic?
"ii) TE also has more to explain away. Most species evolve and perish. So they seem to be evolutionary dead-ends. They don’t seem to be a means to an endl. They’re not a trajectory to man. Their presence or absence doesn’t contribute to human wellbeing. Hominids also go extinct. Freak accidents destroy entire species.
YEC doesn’t even agree with the macroevolutionary narrative, so it doesn’t have as much apparent happenstance to reconcile with divine purpose."
I agree that YEC has fewer apparent issues to reconcile with divine purpose.
So you are saying that it is appropriate to judge between alternative views based on how well we can manage to reconcile the events with divine purpose?
I suppose I can understand factoring that in, all else being equal--if we truly cannot decide between two views based on the direct Biblical and physical evidence. But it would always be an extremely tentative conclusion, for me--too much guessing at the mind & plan of God.
“’TE takes science as its frame of reference’? How is that inherently the case, any more than with OECs?”
ReplyDeleteThere’s a continuum of possible positions:
Young-earth creationism>old-earth creationism>theistic evolution>deistic evolution>process theology>naturalistic evolution
And, as you know, there are variations of OEC. As such, it could well be that OEC is vulnerable to similar criticisms. Since, however, I’m not defending OEC, that’s not my problem.
“Perhaps that's an accurate description of some TEs' argumentation. But others I've talked to say, ‘Do our best to understand the truth by examining the Book of special revelation together with the Book of general revelation. We think that the physical evidence is clear on this, and that it fits with the Bible.’ They may actually be letting scientific best-guesses override Scripture, but that's not part of the presuppositions of their argumentation.”
i) I have in mind the leading representatives of theistic evolution, viz. Behe, Collins, Denton, McGrath, Conway Morris, Don Page (?), Polkinghorne, Rahner, Sheldrake, Howard Van Till, Warfield, &c. From what I can tell, they arrived at their belief in evolution on purely scientific grounds, independent of Scripture.
A number of them are too liberal to even bother with concordism, and for those who care about harmonizing Scripture with science, that’s an ex post facto exercise.
ii) I’ve also discussed the fallacious analogy between the “book” of nature and the book of Scripture.
Scripture is verbal, propositional revelation. Nature is nonverbal and nonpropositional. Hence, there’s nothing bookish about nature. So the analogy breaks down at the crucial point of comparison.
“And OECs are liable to the same criticism--using science as their frame of reference rather than Scripture.”
Since I’m not making a case for OEC, I could grant the parallel without prejudice to my own position.
“What is the fundamental difference between that argument, and this: ‘Naturalistic embryology is already tilted in an atheistic direction. Mechanistic processes determine what grows and how, rather than the direct work of God’."
That’s fatally equivocal. There’s a fundamental difference between a *natural* explanation and a *naturalistic* explanation. Naturalism, by definition, is atheistic–whereas appeal to natural (i.e. second) causes is not inherently atheistic.
“Do you argue that it is less theologically neutral to talk about God working through processes that seem (by physical analysis) to be random, as opposed to working through processes that are physically mechanistic?”
You’re conflating two distinct issues: a random outcome and a mechanistic process are hardly interchangeable concepts.
“So you are saying that it is appropriate to judge between alternative views based on how well we can manage to reconcile the events with divine purpose?”
I’m simply comparing the two positions.
“I suppose I can understand factoring that in, all else being equal--if we truly cannot decide between two views based on the direct Biblical and physical evidence. But it would always be an extremely tentative conclusion, for me--too much guessing at the mind & plan of God.”
As I’ve said before, I don’t object to invoking the inscrutability of God’s will where appropriate. What I’ve said, rather, is that such an appeal is more ad hoc in the case of theistic evolution.
I'm generally YEC because I see plenty of evidence that the earth is young and the Biblical text seems to agree. Given that the passage of time isn't uniform contingent on mass and relative movement, the YEC "white hole" creation cosmology may seem far out, but no more than any secular cosmology and account for an earth that's far younger than a universe that was created after it. So the debate is often a bit less than well refined.
ReplyDeleteWhat is interesting is that even creation cosmologies require adherence to the currently detectable properties of the physical universe. However, miraculous creation is decidedly NOT contingent on mere physics, but rather metaphysics. So, while we may converse scientifically with naturalists, we must be prepared to discuss the fact that physical existence is not self-supporting, but rather contingent on spiritual truth. And where that spiritual truth causes the physical world to behave beyond it's observable bounds, it will.