Monday, April 12, 2010

Why Waltke subscribes to theistic evolution

Having familiarized myself with reconciliations of religion and science by: Institute of Creation Research (Henry Morris, young earth, no evolution), Reason to Believe (Hugh Ross, old earth, no evolution), Intelligent Design (Philip Johnson, no view on age of earth, but no evolution), BioLogos (intelligent design [lower case] and evolution) and Framework hypothesis (non-committal to any of these views), I consider that of BioLogos the best.

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2010/04/12/updates-from-waltke-and-from-rts/

This suggests that his familiarity with the various positions is terribly superficial.

57 comments:

  1. "Why Waltke subscribes to theistic evolution"

    Let's assume a potential scenario and explore what effects or outcomes might occur as a result of this scenario happening.

    Scenario: Theistic evolution becomes more widely accepted by Protestants as a result of Francis Collins' support and Waltke's support.

    In addition, folks claim that theistic evolution is not a first-order doctrinal position (doesn't impinge on one's salvation) and therefore, doctrinal latitude and liberty is allowed for multiple views on the doctrine of Origins.

    Furthermore, these supporters argue (ala Waltke and Warfield) that affirming theistic evolution still allows them to claim the mantle of being biblical inerrantists.

    As for my own views, for the little that they're worth, I think this would simply be a growing negative development of leaven in the Protestant churches.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Or, it could be a sign that the Protestant bus is starting to free itself from the anti-scientific cul-de-sac in which it is stuck.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Kaffinator: "Or, it could be a sign that the Protestant bus is starting to free itself from the anti-scientific cul-de-sac in which it is stuck."

    What you're saying is that rejecting evolution makes a Christian anti-scientific. That's not so.

    If folks can say that they affirm theistic evolution and still be a Christian, then I can say that Christians can reject evolution and still remain scientific.

    ReplyDelete
  4. TUaD: When the RCC rejected heliocentrism over its traditional and more biblically-supportable geocentrist view, was it being anti-scientific?

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'm not RCC. Ask Francis Beckwith or one of the Called to Communion guys.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "When the RCC rejected heliocentrism over its traditional and more biblically-supportable geocentrist view, was it being anti-scientific?"

    Fallacy of Analogy

    ReplyDelete
  7. TUaD: I didn't ask you to defend the RCC; I invited you assess its approach to the most famous clash between science and faith in the history of western thought. I'm sorry you feel unequipped for the task.

    S&S: How exactly is the analogy fallacious?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Kaffinator: "I'm sorry you feel unequipped for the task.

    Yes, you are a sorry fellow.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "How exactly is the analogy fallacious?"

    Oh, I don't know. Maybe because the evidence for the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis is nil.

    The biggest argument that Waltke has is the appeal to the scientific majority. But this is the exact opposite of Galileo.

    ID has been appealing to the evidence for the past 2 decades whereas the opposition simply appeals to a) the majority (i.e. argumentum ad populum) or b) Methodological Naturalism which basically necessitates Darwinism as the conclusion of the scientific process BY DEFINITION.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Dear Steve,

    If Dr. Waltke was giving a comprehensive list of his sources, you'd be at least partly correct. For recent creationism, what resources besides ICR would you recommend for someone who wanted to be thoroughly familiar with the best science available?

    ReplyDelete
  11. "ID has been appealing to the evidence for the past 2 decades whereas the opposition simply appeals to a) the majority (i.e. argumentum ad populum) or b) Methodological Naturalism which basically necessitates Darwinism as the conclusion of the scientific process BY DEFINITION."

    a.) Only as a convenient shortcut. Have you ever read the detailed refutations of Behe's arguments against the evolution of the flagellum, for example? No "argumentum ad populum" there.

    b.) Methodological naturalism necessitates Darwinism? Oh my, so Lamarck was a closet supernaturalist? Sorry, I couldn't resist that one :) Seriously, with what would you replace methodological naturalism, and how would it work in a research program?

    ReplyDelete
  12. To my charge of a Protestant anti-scientific bias, TUaD offers evasion and cheap ad-hominem. And S&S simply denies the existence of a vast and widely acknowledged body of scientific evidence inconvenient to his position.

    You have my thanks, gentlemen, for demonstrating my thesis far better than I ever could have defended it!

    ReplyDelete
  13. As I noted elsewhere, I don't see how someone who takes the method of argument that Peter Enns (and others at Biologos) take without also denying a historical Jesus and a historical resurrection (cf. Richard Carrier's arguments).

    I really would be interested to hear how Enns or Walton would reply to a Richard Carrier, since his arguments against the historicity of Jesus resurrection look very similar to their arguments for a non-literal reading of Genesis.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "As I noted elsewhere, I don't see how someone who takes the method of argument that Peter Enns (and others at Biologos) take without also denying a historical Jesus and a historical resurrection (cf. Richard Carrier's arguments)."

    Jonathan, not clear to me what you mean by "similarity of argument." The issues are largely unrelated, even if the methods used to settle them are the same. Are you just using shorthand for, "the evidence in favor of creationism is no better than the evidence in favor of Jesus's existence or resurrection?" Or are you using shorthand for "scientific reasoning of the sort used by Enns and Biologos is so corrosive that it will inevitably lead you to the views of Richard Carrier?"

    ReplyDelete
  15. Kaffinator,

    You have yet to demonstrate that the Roman Catholic denomination's approach to astronomy in centuries past has any bearing on how we, as Protestants, approach the question of evolution.

    Indeed, you have yet to offer any arguments at all for consideration. That you have received replies equal to the effort you've put forth is your fault, and yours alone.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Matthew: I would think the comparison more than obvious to anyone with a passing familiarity with the cases at hand. But if you need it spelled out for you, I'm happy to oblige.

    In both cases, an entrenched and theologically-driven framework for interpretation of available physical data finds itself challenged by a competing framework with more explanatory power.

    In both cases, churchmen challenge the new framework. Their objections and counterarguments are theological rather than scientific. In other words, they fail to demonstrate a superior framework and are forced to argue against the data.

    The cause of Christ is harmed when His witnesses seem to take a head-in-the-sand approach to science. I would that we would take a different approach.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Dean Dough said:
    "Jonathan, not clear to me what you mean by "similarity of argument." The issues are largely unrelated, even if the methods used to settle them are the same."

    Me:
    If one applies the standard of methodological naturalism in the same manner to the Resurrection of Christ as one does to creation, then a naturalistic explanation for the Resurrection of Jesus is inevitable.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Kaffinator,

    Speaking of cheap ad hominem, just because I deny the connection doesn't mean I am unfamiliar with the cases in question. You are just begging the question.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Matthew: So, now that I have detailed the connection (as I see it at least), you are now dodging the issue?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Kaffinator said:
    "The cause of Christ is harmed"

    Me:
    The cause of Christ is ENDED when those who call themselves His followers take a philosophical position (i.e. methodological naturalism) which would necessarily cause them to deny the Resurrection.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Or, more accurately, the Roman Catholic Church listened to the scientists of the day and interpreted Scriptures in that light. Christians didn't invent geocentrism. It was Aristotle who popularized that, and it was largely the influence of Greek philosophy on the church that led theologians to say, "This must mean geocentrism because why would the learned Greek have been mistaken?"

    ReplyDelete
  22. Kaffinator,

    Dodging the issue? What is there to dodge? You claim, via bald assertion, that the scenarios are analogous. You then proceed to supply your bald assertion with more detail. But a more thoroughly explained bald assertion is still a bald assertion.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Peter: That, in addition to passages such as Joshua 10:13 which a) suggest geocentrism and b) predate Aristotle.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Matthew: So sorry not to have met your exacting criteria for fruitful discussion. Perhaps another time, then.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Kaffinator,

    Joshua 10:13 is merely descriptive. It assumes no position on helio- and geocentrism because it merely describes events from a particular frame of reference.

    Incidentally, you seem to forget Einstein who pointed out that when you're on a moving train it's just as valid to say that you are standing still and everything is moving toward you as it is to say you are moving and the rest of the world is standing still. After all, the laws of physics work the same regardless of who is moving, and indeed it is the relative motion between objects that matters.

    Thus, it is just as proper for an Earth-bound observer to maintain the Earth isn't moving as it is to maintain that the sun isn't moving, so long as the frame of reference is given. Thus, 300 years after Galileo, Einstein showed that as far as the laws of physics are concerned geo- and heliocentrism are identical. There is no special "objective" frame of reference.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Peter: Pre-Einstein, or even pre-Copernicus, your point would have been far from obvious. We benefit from a more enlightened scientific perspective, and adjust our reading of Joshua 10 accordingly. (And we may do so without casting any doubt on the historicity of the resurrection.)

    ReplyDelete
  27. KAFFINATOR SAID:

    "Peter: Pre-Einstein, or even pre-Copernicus, your point would have been far from obvious. We benefit from a more enlightened scientific perspective, and adjust our reading of Joshua 10 accordingly."

    What about pre-Ptolemaic? It's quite anachronistic to filter Josh 10 through Ptolemaic astronomy.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Kaffinator,

    Except that the reading hasn't been adjusted at all. In point of fact, we've come to realize that describing events from the perspective of an Earth-bound observer is perfectly fine to do. We are now more closely aligned with how the original reader would have viewed the text than anyone from the Middle Ages because, as I've already pointed out, they were bound by Aristotelian concepts of space (and as Steve also rightly pointed out, those culminated in Ptolemy's astronomy too). The original reader wouldn't have read Joshua as telling us that the Earth is the center of the universe. But an Aristotelian-influenced scientist would have read it that way.

    Scientists made a claim about the truth; theologians said, "We agree and will use these verses to go along with the scientific claim." Scientists then changed their mind and blamed the theologians for promulgating error. The same thing will happen in 100 years with Darwinism. After it's been thoroughly debunked on scientific grounds (the reason I disregard it), secular scientists will say "Those darn theistic evolutionists taught error and refused to accept what science really is." And the myth spreads.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Steve: *snort* ... of course you are right to point that out. In fact, I suppose I should confess that I am a Ptolemaicist myself; I'm simply arguing that neither geo- nor heliocentrism should be held as a first-order doctrinal position.

    Peter: We are now more closely aligned with how the original reader would have viewed the text

    That contention would have some force if you could suggest a pre-Copernican commentator that said anything about frames of reference or limited the reading of the text to the perspectives of Earth-bound observers. Can you? If not, is it simply a coincidence that we find such explanations after the scientific advance, and not before?

    You're more than welcome to your opinion that neo-Darwinism has been "thoroughly debunked"; I think this rather overstates your case. For example, I've yet to see a compelling non-Darwinist explanation for the near-perfect nesting of unique characteristics in the phylogenetic tree, including the very strong correspondence between pre-genetic morphological classifications and the genetic relationships discovered later. What, besides Darwinism, explains this clear and scientific observation of nature?

    ReplyDelete
  30. Saint and Sinner:

    "If one applies the standard of methodological naturalism in the same manner to the Resurrection of Christ as one does to creation, then a naturalistic explanation for the Resurrection of Jesus is inevitable."

    Not inevitable, unless you simply mean that apart from "the Bible tells me so", the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is so inadequate that we shouldn't believe it happened. Let me repeat my earlier question. What will you replace methodological naturalism with, and how would you implement a research program based on your replacement?

    ReplyDelete
  31. Peter Pike:

    'Thus, it is just as proper for an Earth-bound observer to maintain the Earth isn't moving as it is to maintain that the sun isn't moving, so long as the frame of reference is given. Thus, 300 years after Galileo, Einstein showed that as far as the laws of physics are concerned geo- and heliocentrism are identical. There is no special "objective" frame of reference.'

    You're mauling Einstein. Post 6 observers at different points outside our solar system and ask them which is moving relative to the other, earth or sun. They will all give you the same answer, and it won't be Ptolemy's.

    ReplyDelete
  32. DEAN DOUGH SAID:

    "Not inevitable, unless you simply mean that apart from "the Bible tells me so", the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is so inadequate that we shouldn't believe it happened."

    Wrong. Given the gratuitous assumption of naturalistic evolution, nothing would ever count as evidence for a miracle–be it biblical evidence or extrabiblical evidence.

    "Let me repeat my earlier question. What will you replace methodological naturalism with, and how would you implement a research program based on your replacement?"

    Methodological naturalism is a filter. It was put in place to screen out inconvenient evidence for the supernatural. All we're doing is to remove the artificial filter.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Dear Steve,

    Sorry, methodological naturalism is not a gratuitous assumption. It is not a filter either, except in the very limited sense that evidence used to support theory has to be measurable in a way we can generally agree is valid.

    I'll repeat my question to Saint and Sinner: With what will you replace methodological naturalism, and how would you implement a research program based on your replacement?

    ReplyDelete
  34. Dean said:
    ---
    You're mauling Einstein. Post 6 observers at different points outside our solar system and ask them which is moving relative to the other, earth or sun. They will all give you the same answer, and it won't be Ptolemy's.
    ---

    And you're mauling what I said, which is that there is no objective observation point, and that as long as your reference point is known there is no difference. Obviously, *IF* someone in Scripture were to have said: "From the point of view of Pluto, the Sun moves around the Earth" that would be bunk. But since no writer of the Bible ever wrote about space from a non-Earth-bound vantage point, they never made that error.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Kaffinator said:
    ---
    That contention would have some force if you could suggest a pre-Copernican commentator that said anything about frames of reference or limited the reading of the text to the perspectives of Earth-bound observers.
    ---

    This is simply an absurd thing to ask for. Why would anyone assume that any writer of Scripture wrote from any point of view OTHER than from the perspective of Earth? ALL of the texts are limited to an Earth-bound observer, save those observations of Heaven--which is a spiritual vision. I daresay that if you cannot find a passage of Scripture where someone said "I looked down from X vantage point and saw that the Earth was the center of the universe" then you have no case that the Bible teaches it.

    As to Darwinism proper, I'm not going to get sidetracked into that with you right now. We at Triablogue have written a great deal about it already.

    ReplyDelete
  36. DEAN DOUGH SAID:

    "Sorry, methodological naturalism is not a gratuitous assumption."

    Apart from metaphysical naturalism, methodological naturalism is a gratuitous assumption? Why assume a naturalistic methodology unless you already assume that natural causes are the only causes?

    "It is not a filter either, except in the very limited sense that evidence used to support theory has to be measurable in a way we can generally agree is valid."

    Except for the little fact that there is no general agreement on what is valid. That's the bone of contention.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Dean Dough said:
    "What will you replace methodological naturalism with...?"

    Me:
    I believe that starting by asking the question, "Natural or Supernatural?" is the wrong place to start.

    Instead, we should ask, "Designed or Not Designed?"

    If we come to the conclusion of a design inference where no naturalistic cause or a cause by a physical sentient is possible, then a further conclusion that the act was supernatural is warranted.

    This way, we wouldn't be biased at the outset by eliminating possibilities.

    Furthermore, a limited methodological naturalism (as opposed to a dogmatic one) is possible.

    Take, for instance, the narrative from 1 Samuel where the Philistines have taken the Ark of the Covenant and plagues begin occurring in their cities. They then proceed to eliminate all the possible naturalistic explanations before concluding that the plagues were the wrath of YHWH, the God of Israel. They move the Ark from a port city to a landlocked city in order to eliminate the possibility that the plague was imported by rats from a ship that came from a foreign land. They even provide one last test at the end by placing the Ark on a cart pulled by cows that had recently given birth (and would not by their own will leave their young). The cows begin to move on a road away from their calves and toward Israel and begin to cry out because they are being moved away from their young. At that point there could be no doubt that it was the hand of YHWH at work. [This also proves that ancient people weren't stupid.]

    ReplyDelete
  38. Peter said: This is simply an absurd thing to ask for.

    Then you have a problem. You said that "The original reader wouldn't have read Joshua as telling us that the Earth is the center of the universe," but you're unable to produce any reason why we should believe this is so.

    Let me lower the bar a bit for you. Can you refer me to any reputable ANE historian who ascribes a non-geocentric cosmology to the ancient hebrews?

    ReplyDelete
  39. Kaffinator,

    How about I show you that quote when you show me the ANE view on Marxism as opposed to the free market? I mean, as long as you want anachronisms and all...

    ReplyDelete
  40. Peter: You asserted that someone in the middle ages would have been hobbled by the geocentrism of Aristotle et al. This plays into your narrative that bad geocentric science messed up the church's reading of Joshua (and other passages that appear to presume geocentrism).

    But can you show any evidence whatsoever that the writer or readers of Joshua (up to the time of Copernicus) would have had some other cosmology in mind? Or was your assertion completely devoid of supporting data?

    ReplyDelete
  41. Isaiah 40:2 provides a possible example of a view of Earth as globe. So does Job 26:7. It's not really a focus of the Scriptures. Creation ... yes. Describing the geography of Earth, not so much.

    ReplyDelete
  42. T-fan: The shape of the earth is irrelevant to geocentrism. In a geocentric system, the earth is immovable (see Psalm 104:5) and celestial objects are ordered around it (see Gen 1:17).

    ReplyDelete
  43. Kaffinator said:
    ---
    This plays into your narrative that bad geocentric science messed up the church's reading of Joshua (and other passages that appear to presume geocentrism).
    ---

    No, you're missing the entire point. These passages DO NOT APPEAR to presume geocentrism any more than my statement "I got up before the sun rose this morning" does. They simply state the observations of an Earth-bound observer. End of story. There's no assumption about geo- or heliocentrism either way.

    The reason I said we read the text more like the original audience than the Middle Age Church did is precisely because neither we nor the original audience are concerned with the question of geocentrism. The Church of the Middle Ages is the one that needed to find theological support for the current scientific theory. The problem was they dogmatically re-interpreted the Scripture to harmonize it with the prevailing view of science, and then that became "The Theological Position" before science changed its mind and then accused the church of spreading the falsity of geocentrism through bad theology.

    So, do you deny that the prevailing position of science before Galileo was geocentrism?

    ReplyDelete
  44. Peter said: they dogmatically re-interpreted the Scripture to harmonize it with the prevailing view of science [...] So, do you deny that the prevailing position of science before Galileo was geocentrism?

    Of course it was the prevailing position of science. And at the time, geocentrism comported well with certain texts of scripture. Middle-age theologians did not have to "re-interpret" Scripture at all to do this. That's why I asked you to supply evidence for a non-geocentric interpretation of any kind: there never was one. The passages were always understood (and even authored) within a geocentric model of the cosmos.

    When a serious challenge to geocentrism arose, it was natural for theologians to retreat to those familiar texts which support the traditional view. Which they did. But in the end, they were wrong, and they had to modify their hermeneutic. Why? Because at the end of the day, science supplied a more mathematically fulfilling explanation of the phenomena than could be derived from scripture alone.

    This is not a case of science corrupting the interpretation of Scripture. It's a case of science forcing a necessary correction to our hermeneutic.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Saint and Sinner,

    Alright! Philistines giving a science lesson. Yes, the cows pulling the cart test is a good example. Obviously they were not in a situation to conduct a thorough investigation, too busy trying to save their own hides.

    Need a lot more detail, but this is much better than taking rhetorical pot-shots at each other :)

    ReplyDelete
  46. Kaffinator said:
    ---
    This is not a case of science corrupting the interpretation of Scripture. It's a case of science forcing a necessary correction to our hermeneutic.
    ---

    It is the case of science "correcting" a hermenutical error originally caused by science in the first place.

    Had no scientist ever said "I think the Earth is the center of the universe" no one would have ever used any passage of Scripture as evidence of geocentrism.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Peter said: Had no scientist ever said "I think the Earth is the center of the universe" no one would have ever used any passage of Scripture as evidence of geocentrism.

    On the one hand we have an OT packed with references to the "pillars" or "foundations" of the an "immovable" earth, the heavens hanging over the earth like a "curtain" or "tent", heavenly bodies placed "above" the earth but "below" God, etc.

    Against all of this, we have your retroactive prophecy about what people would or wouldn't have thought if those pesky scientists would have just kept their mouths shut.

    If that's your best case, I think we are done here.

    ReplyDelete
  48. KAFFINATOR SAID:

    "On the one hand we have an OT packed with references to the 'pillars' or 'foundations' of the an 'immovable' earth, the heavens hanging over the earth like a 'curtain' or 'tent', heavenly bodies placed 'above' the earth but 'below' God, etc."

    i) The Bible uses temple/tabernacle metaphors to depict the universe.

    ii) Mobility/Immobility have reference, not to a stationary earth, but tectonic activity.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Kaffinator said...

    "T-fan: The shape of the earth is irrelevant to geocentrism. In a geocentric system, the earth is immovable (see Psalm 104:5) and celestial objects are ordered around it (see Gen 1:17)."

    Scripture doesn't have a "geocentric system." You're retrojecting Greek mathematics and Greek astronomy back into ANE texts. There's no evidence that the Hebrews even shared the same interest in astronomy that the Babylonians did.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Kaffinator said:
    ---
    Against all of this, we have your retroactive prophecy about what people would or wouldn't have thought if those pesky scientists would have just kept their mouths shut.
    ---

    It might behoove you to actually read some ancient Greek texts to see what a society that actually did concern itself with geocentrism wrote about the subject, and then look at the Bible and go "Biblical descriptions have nothing in common with those of the geocentrists." Indeed, at no point do you have anyone in the Hebrew texts saying "The Earth is the center of the universe" or any such thing. It wasn't on their radar. They couldn't have cared less.

    On the other hand, the Greeks DID care, and they developed great and intricate theories about the "spheres" surrounding the cosmos, and the geometry of it all, etc. They developed complex figures of epicycles to depict the movement of stars.

    So on the one hand, you have a bunch of descriptions of events as they occured from the perspective of an Earth-bound observer. On the other hand, you have actual geocentrists who wrote long-winded treatsies on the what it meant for the Earth to be the center of reality, etc. Simply comparing the two shows the Bible is in no way a geocentric textbook. To treat it as if it was is to brutalize the text of Scripture.

    You said:
    ---
    If that's your best case, I think we are done here.
    ---

    Do you actually believe the Bible does teach geocentrism? If not, then I don't see what your fuss is all about.

    ReplyDelete
  51. T-fan said: You're retrojecting Greek mathematics and Greek astronomy back into ANE texts.

    I'm not saying the OT dictates geocentrism. I'm just saying (contra Peter) it seems to employ geocentric language.

    While Ptolemy may have had an influence on medieval theologians, Ptolemy wasn't their ultimate problem. It was the hermeneutic that allowed them to press the text of scripture into molds for which it was not intended.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Kaffinator said:
    ---
    I'm not saying the OT dictates geocentrism. I'm just saying (contra Peter) it seems to employ geocentric language.
    ---

    I guess everytime you mention the word "sunrise" or "sunset" I must accuse you of using geocentric langauge then?

    As I've stated repeatedly, the Bible uses language of an Earth-bound observer. That's all the Bible does. It doesn't state any position whatsoever on geocentrism. It couldn't care less about that.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Kaffinator wrote: "T-fan: The shape of the earth is irrelevant to geocentrism. In a geocentric system, the earth is immovable (see Psalm 104:5) and celestial objects are ordered around it (see Gen 1:17)."

    Treating the earth as one's reference point isn't especially objectionable - nor is it even contrary to heliocentrism.

    A stable orbit is consistent with Psalm 104:5, especially since even earthquakes are consistent with Psalm 104:5.

    But the shape of the earth and its suspension over nothing are important to heliocentrism.

    - TurretinFan

    ReplyDelete
  54. T-fan wrote: A stable orbit is consistent with Psalm 104:5, especially since even earthquakes are consistent with Psalm 104:5.

    Sounds like you need to take that up with Peter. Peter says "the Bible couldn't care less" about geocentrism vs heliocentrism, so arguing about whether its consistent with one or the other would be pointless.

    ReplyDelete
  55. I am utterly amazed at how obtuse you can be, Kaffinator.

    ReplyDelete
  56. "Sounds like you need to take that up with Peter. Peter says "the Bible couldn't care less" about geocentrism vs heliocentrism, so arguing about whether its consistent with one or the other would be pointless."

    That is a very odd attempted rebuttal. I don't see how it in any way revitalizes the previous position taken.

    ReplyDelete
  57. T-Fan and Peter: If I've been obtuse then let me try to spell out what I'm saying.

    I fail to see, at a purely literal reading, how you can think setting the earth on its foundations, or calling it immovable, can be squared with heliocentrism. Steve, and now you, T-Fan, have claimed that the earth's immobility is in reference to earthquakes, which involve motion. How are earthquakes immobile?

    I think early Biblical authors and readers would have been most comfortable thinking of mobile heavenly bodies moving over a fixed earth. This is reflected in other ANE mythologies. When inspired Biblical authors or God Himself uses terms that also reflect this (as I think they do), I'm quite comfortable seeing these as cases of divine accomodation. After all, God is not teaching cosmology, but is teaching about Himself.

    As a result I have no particular need to reconcile heliocentrism with Psalm 104. Its teaching lies at a deeper level. Why would it be important to harmonize them?

    ReplyDelete