Tuesday, March 29, 2011

Nature red in tooth and claw


I’ve reposting some comments I left on an earlier thread:

STEVE SAID:

The adverb also occurs nearby in 3:6, where it indicates a novel action.

STEVE SAID:
Steve Drake said...

“…but I'm a bit puzzled if as you say that Adam was created mortal, does this mean the animals were created mortal as well and needed to eat from the tree of life to keep living? How was that possible? Or is it your opinion that the animate sub-human created order was never intended to live forever?”

Individual animals were never intended to live forever. Various kinds of animals survive (through reproduction) from one generation to the next, but not individuals.

“Raises some interesting questions about whether there was death in the animal kingdom before Adam sinned, doesn't it?”

I think that’s answered here:





  STEVE SAID:
STEVE DRAKE SAID:

“I see that you are not a proponent of 'no death' in the entire created order until Adam sinned.”

True.

“That's not my view, or the view of the Creation ministries like AIG, ICR, and CMI that you site on your blog. I'm not sure you site each of these three, but I think I've seen CMI sited there.”

i) YEC is a package, of which some elements are better grounded than others.

ii) The best YEC writers are generally scientists by training rather than Bible scholars. As such, they sometimes make exegetical judgments that I don’t make. I don’t look to them for exegesis.

“I think it is very difficult exegetically to explain away the use of 'good' 6 times in Gen. 1 and 'very good' in Gen. 1:31, along with God's giving of plants and fruit as food to both Adam and Eve and the animals in Gen. 1:29-30, and taking the position that death reigned in the animal kingdom, or that individual animals were never intended to live forever, before Adam's sin, which resulted in the Curse of death for the whole created order.”

i) Well, that depends on what the divine benediction means. To say animal death is “bad” is not something you can infer from the word “good.” Rather, you seem to be bringing a preconception of goodness to the occurrence of the Hebrew word. But, of course, whether or not animal death is bad is the very question at issue.

That depends, among other things, on the intended purpose of animals, and what distinguishes animals from humans.

ii) In Gen 1, I take “good” to be God’s self-performance evaluation. God approves of his own handiwork.

There’s a command/fulfillment pattern in Gen 1: God commands something to be, and what he commands to be comes to be.

I take the benediction to be the acknowledgement that his successful intentions. Everything he intended to achieve he succeeded in realizing. A perfect match between divine conception and divine effection.

“In other words, his old earth geology is driving his theology.”

That may well be true, but his exegesis must be evaluated on the merits.

“…but I can see that your old earth assumption is driving your tree of life theology and what it confers or doesn't confer.”

No, that’s not something you can see, because it isn’t there. My position on the tree of life is not contingent on the debate over chronology.


  STEVE SAID:
STEVE DRAKE SAID:

“Conjecture. Many excellent pastors and OT and NT scholars are YEC in their positions.”

Are you going out of your way to avoid the point? Most pastors aren’t writers. Most NT scholars never write about YEC, and even OT scholars don’t normally write about YEC unless they’re doing a commentary on Genesis, where that issue naturally arises.

I’m alluding to YEC writers like John Byl, Marcus Ross, Jonathan Sarfati, Andrew Snelling, and Kurt Wise.

“We need to address the issue of God's character here brother, when we say that animal death before Adam sinned is 'good'.”

No, we need to exegete the rhetorical function of the benediction in Gen 1.

“You seem to be arguing that animals red in tooth and claw, carnivory, disease, the strong preying on the weak, is 'good', or divine benediction on God's part.”

That’s not an exegetical issue. The text says nothing about that one way or the other. Rather, that’s something you picked up outside the Bible, which you’re now interpolating into the discussion.

“I argue that this goes right to the heart of God's character, and if this was his plan from the beginning, then the skeptic (as many have rightly done) can ask what kind of God is this?”

i) Since I’m a Calvinist, I naturally think this was God’s plan for the outset. I don’t think God is improvising.

ii) Moreover, you haven’t argued for your position. All you’ve done is to stipulate that this is out of character for God.

“How is God 'good' when death has reigned for billions of years (which you have already acquiesced to in a belief in an old earth) in the animal kingdom, His Creation, and how is this all 'very good' Gen. 1:31?”

i) I haven’t acquiesced to OEC. You keep confusing logically distinct issues.

ii) How long animal death reigned is irrelevant to God’s character. If predation, parasitism, &c. for billions of years is incompatible with God’s character, then the same phenomena for thousands or merely hundreds of years is equally incompatible with God’s character. Likewise, if postlapsarian predation, parasitism, &c. is incompatible with God’s character, then so is prelapsarian predation, parasitism, &c.

Since animals aren’t culpable for the fall, you can’t cite the fall to justify animal “suffering.”

iii) And, again, you haven’t begun to show how these phenomena run counter to the benediction on exegetical grounds. You haven’t shown how the narrator defines “good” such that animal predation, &c. are bad.

iv) If the animal sacrificial system which God instituted was consistent with his character, then nature red in tooth and claw is also consistent with his character. It's not as if the animal sacrificial system was the ancient equivalent of PETA.

“The burden is on you to prove that animal death, disease, and suffering are all part of God's original Creation and reflect His Holy character.”

i) There’s no burden on me to refute your nonexistent argument.

ii) You appeal to the same anthropomorphic projections that I encounter among village atheists like John Loftus and Andrea Weisberger. Indeed, I already covered that well-trodden ground in my review of his chapter on the “Darwinian problem of evil” in TCD.

iii) The examples you cite are functional phenomena which maintain a natural balance. And they exemplify the principle of plenitude.

iv) As a Calvinist I accept the fact that since everything ultimately comes from God, everything is ultimately about God. Everything in creation and providence alike exhibits the manifold wisdom and goodness of God, although not everything is good in and of itself.

“And that handiwork includes cancer?”

i) In humans or animals? Cancer in humans is a lapsarian liability. I have no reason to think animals necessarily enjoyed the same immunity prior to the fall.

ii) God has a plan for the world, and God approves of his plan.

“Sure it is. I can conclude from your writings and opinions, (and that's all it is brother, my conclusion), your naysaying to the contrary, that your acceptance of secular science's interpretations of the geologic data and their conclusion of a billions of year old earth, is clouding your opinion of what the tree of life confers. I'm sorry you don't see that, and you can disagree, of course, but I do 'see' it (taking into consideration all the nuances and definitions of the word 'see').”

If you ever spent much time in the archives, what you’d see is how often I’ve shown how YEC chronology is consistent with the scientific evidence. Your confidence is inversely proportional to your knowledge.


  STEVE SAID:
Commenters don't get to derail the topic of a post to ride their irrelevant hobbyhorse. I do a post to make the point I wish to make, not the point you wish to make.  

10 comments:

  1. Brother Steve,
    I'm not sure why you would take up this discussion again in a new thread, since you've told me to "take my conspiratorial conclusions elsewhere", but I'm happy to have this discussion, with others joining in as they comment as well, as long as we can discuss this without you referring to my conclusions as "conspiratorial". 'As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another' (Prov. 27:17).

    ReplyDelete
  2. Steve Drake said:

    Brother Steve,
    I'm not sure why you would take up this discussion again in a new thread, since you've told me to "take my conspiratorial conclusions elsewhere", but I'm happy to have this discussion, with others joining in as they comment as well, as long as we can discuss this without you referring to my conclusions as "conspiratorial". 'As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another' (Prov. 27:17).


    I don't think Steve is necessarily posting your guys' discussion in order to "take up this discussion again."

    Rather he could be posting it for the benefit of others. The original discussion occurred in the combox of a previous post. Discussions in comboxes aren't necessarily as readily noticed by people.

    Not to mention I believe the original post was already off our front page while the discussion was still happening.

    Of course there are other valid reasons for why he could be posting the discussion that don't involve his desire to "take up this discussion again in a new thread."

    Also, telling someone to "take [their] conspiratorial conclusions elsewhere" is not necessarily the same thing as telling them the discussion is terminated. If they don't draw or continue to draw "conspiratorial conclusions," then I don't see why they can't continue the discussion.

    And Steve didn't actually tell you to "take [your] conspiratorial conclusions elsewhere." I think you make it sound like he's some sort of a drill sergeant that's telling you to go away or get out of here. His exact words were: "You're welcome to take your conspiratorial suspicions elsewhere." That's less explicit than how I think you're trying to spin it.

    BTW, as I read your discussion, the proximate reason Steve called what you said "conspiratorial" was because you claimed you knew his position and all but pigeon-holed him into the OEC category when you said: "It's a simple question. Your refusal to answer tells me all I need to know."

    Not to mention he didn't actually "refuse" to answer your question. For example, he said: "YEC is a package, of which some elements are better grounded than others . . . I haven't acquiesced to OEC . . . If you ever spent much time in the archives, what you’d see is how often I’ve shown how YEC chronology is consistent with the scientific evidence." That's not saying he's YEC, per se, but it's also not saying he's OEC. It's a nuanced response because it reflects a nuanced position.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thanks, Patrick. Well said!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thank you Patrick,
    The implicit inference from 'You're welcome to take your conspiratorial conclusions elsewhere' is to scram, I don't want to continue the discussion, you're wrong Drake, and I have no further need of you. This is not conducive to brothers in the LORD exchanging ideas in a non-confrontational way. If you follow the thread under 'What Does the Tree of Life Confer', as I'm sure you have, I've been charged with a lack of knowledge inversely proportional to time spent in your archives. A subtle put down to say the least, or 'Are you trying to avoid the point?' and tone that one could take as condescending. At the end of most of my responses, I have only conferred blessing on Steve, and have referred to him in the first person singular or as a 'brother', and yet no where does Mr. Hays refer to me in the first person singular, using my name as salutatory or indicate his awareness that we are both brothers in Christ and are having a discussion of ideas as brothers should.

    If you want to make the claim that I am conspiratorial because I pigeon-holed him and all but concluded that his position on the age of the earth is billions of years like Irons is, then my question to him is still on the table. It would be a simple matter for him to answer in the affirmative or negative. In my humble opinion, the age of the earth has a direct bearing on one's theology.

    I enjoy coming to your website and reading the articles and discussions, and hope that we can now have a discussion on 'Nature Red in Tooth and Claw?

    Respectfully.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hi Steve Drake,

    For starters, I say this respectfully, but I'm not sure why we're spending so much time on your hurt feelings? I mean, if you really just wanted a discussion with Steve over the topic, then why not just overlook what you perceive to be less than kind words and instead dig into the issues at hand? Yet you note you'd only be willing to discuss things "as long as we can discuss this without you referring to my conclusions as 'conspiratorial'."

    BTW, if you do want to discuss the issues, then perhaps you could ask a relevant question - not whether Steve believes the earth is billions of years old or not? At this point, though, you're already convinced and have come to the conclusion (however unwarranted) that Steve believes that the earth is billions of years old. So I'm not sure why you'd ask him if he truly does believe this since you've already made up your mind he does. But maybe it's like the Inquisition giving the heretic one last chance to recant.

    On the other hand, if you're already convinced Steve believes the earth is billions of years old, and if you believe this colors a person's theology ("the age of the earth has a direct bearing on one's theology"), then is there really going to be much room for discussion over these matters with you?

    Anyway, I don't think I'll comment again on this topic here, but I did want to say the following.

    The implicit inference from 'You're welcome to take your conspiratorial conclusions elsewhere' is to scram, I don't want to continue the discussion, you're wrong Drake, and I have no further need of you.

    Well, again, that's not how I read it, which I've already detailed above.

    On the contrary, I think you may be reading way too much into his words. Again, I say this respectfully, but it seems like you're being a tad bit oversensitive about this.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I've been charged with a lack of knowledge inversely proportional to time spent in your archives. A subtle put down to say the least,

    Actually, you first said to Steve: "your acceptance of secular science's interpretations of the geologic data and their conclusion of a billions of year old earth, is clouding your opinion of what the tree of life confers. I'm sorry you don't see that, and you can disagree, of course, but I do 'see' it..." So not only do you unjustifiably impute to Steve that he believes in "secular science's interpretations of the geologic data and their conclusions of a billions of year old earth," but you go on to say that this is "clouding" his "opinion" about a particular interpretation about the tree of life. In other words, you're telling Steve what he believes and then you're telling him that what he believes is negatively influencing his interpretation of Scripture. Sorry, but this strikes me as a "subtle put down"! Actually, it strikes me as a not-so-subtle "put down"!

    It's like telling someone who say hasn't definitively said one way or the other whether they believe the Loch Ness Monster exists: "Hey, that's crazy how you believe that the Loch Ness Monster exists! I think your belief that the Loch Ness Monster exists clouds your judgment about Scotland." It's pretty unfair to say the least.

    So Steve replies: "If you ever spent much time in the archives, what you’d see is how often I’ve shown how YEC chronology is consistent with the scientific evidence. Your confidence is inversely proportional to your knowledge." In other words, he's saying that you're way too confident about what he believes without any warrant or justification for saying that that's what he actually believes. Hence your confidence (about what he believes) is disproportionate to your knowledge (about what he believes). That's not a "subtle put down." That's Steve defending himself against your unwarranted attribution to him of a position which he doesn't necessarily endorse.

    or 'Are you trying to avoid the point?' and tone that one could take as condescending.

    Well, "tone that one could take" is not necessarily the same as "tone that is." But by your own admission, that's how you're taking it. Again I think you're being a bit touchy here.

    Maybe you could say it's direct language (which is how guys generally talk anyway). But what's wrong with direct language?

    At the end of most of my responses, I have only conferred blessing on Steve

    Okay, I'm not trying to be antagonistic. I'm just trying to get you to see this from a more removed or detached perspective because I think you might still be caught up in the heat of things. But when you said, "And with that show of disdain, and brotherly love, the matter is settled. May your borders continue to be enlarged, brother, and may you continue to be blessed by our gracious Lord and Savior," someone could take that as sarcasm. After all, you start off saying that it's a "show of disdain" but that would be incongruous with "brotherly love." And then one could say you just continue spreading on the sarcasm by saying "May your borders continue to be enlarged, brother." That's not how I read you. But that's how I could read you. What you say could be read as sarcasm.

    ReplyDelete
  7. and have referred to him in the first person singular or as a 'brother', and yet no where does Mr. Hays refer to me in the first person singular, using my name as salutatory or indicate his awareness that we are both brothers in Christ and are having a discussion of ideas as brothers should.

    As the saying goes, absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence.

    Also, at the risk of stating the obvious, this is primarily an apologetics weblog. One which happens to attract all sorts of colorful people with all sorts of colorful comments. We even get Christians posting here who might at first appear to be Christian but then later, through interaction with them, we find they're not really Christian. Or they're liberal Christians. Or legalistic Christians. Or even if they are Christians, they aren't necessarily very mature in the faith. Maybe they're part of the Truly Reformed clan or whatever. So, sorry dude, but maybe now you can better appreciate why we don't immediately roll out the red carpet for you, welcome you over to our place, and cook you a delicious dinner, and then have a friendly fireside chat with you over whatever happens to interest you!

    If you want to make the claim that I am conspiratorial because I pigeon-holed him and all but concluded that his position on the age of the earth is billions of years like Irons is, then my question to him is still on the table. It would be a simple matter for him to answer in the affirmative or negative.

    Speaking generally, it's not a simple yes or no answer. There are exegetical and scientific issues involved. As well as philosophical issues. A few other ancillary issues as well (e.g. literary issues). Not just a single exegetical or scientific or philosophical issues either. These are scads of them. Not just how do we interpret Gen 1 but also what do we make of Noah and the Flood, for instance. Not just radioisotope dating but also the speed of light and the origins of life (e.g. DNA > mRNA > proteins). (I assume we can bracket macroevolution.) Not just what is time but also how do we measure time or realism vs. antirealism. And so on and so forth. All this involves reading and digesting many expert opinions and studying multiple disciplines to be able to even begin to sort out the wheat from the chaff.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I have a friend who is an agnostic. She used to ask me lots of questions like how do we know God exists, what do you think about suffering and evil, etc. Each time I'd try to give her a lengthy, detailed answer. I'd bring up various arguments for God's existence, for example, and go through each one, trying to explain it fairly, and also give my evaluation of it, for what it's worth. We did this for a long time. But nearly each time she'd inevitably end the conversation saying something like: "Patrick, can't you just give me a simple answer that's under a minute? I don't want all the complicated arguments. I just want a quick one minute answer about why you think if God exists he allows suffering and evil in this world." I tried but I found I couldn't do it. At least not fairly. So I told her that I thought wanting a bite-sized answer was part of the problem about why she's still unsure about issues like whether God exists. It's at best a partial answer. And it leaves both her and me unsatisfied. (BTW, she wasn't say some typical dumb blond looking for a pat answer or something. In fact she's now a professor at a fairly sizeable university.) But I suspect that's the problem in our society and culture. We all just want fast, easy, quotable sound byte answers. But it takes considerable time and effort not only to understand the issues at hand but also to be in a position to even begin to evaluate them. There are no short cuts here.

    That's why Steve has taken considerable time in the past to give detailed, nuanced answers which, again, you can find in the archives. Just Google "site:triablogue.blogspot.com" and whatever search strings interest you.

    At the same time, he's already said quite a bit even in his discussion with you. For example, he's expressed to you that he has "shown how YEC chronology is consistent with the scientific evidence." He's listed the names of YEC scholars he's read and some of whom he's interacted with in the past: "YEC writers like John Byl, Marcus Ross, Jonathan Sarfati, Andrew Snelling, and Kurt Wise."

    But with all due respect (again), it doesn't seem like you're listening to him. It seems like you just want something that you can quickly stamp on an envelope to mentally file in your "biblical" or "not biblical" pigeonhole. Or something along those lines.

    In my humble opinion, the age of the earth has a direct bearing on one's theology.

    Why can't someone for example be non-committal as far as the definitive age of the earth, perhaps seeing strengths and weaknesses in both a young and an old earth? Why can't someone still be thinking over the age of the earth while fully accepting the Bible and say Calvinism or Reformed theology?

    ReplyDelete
  9. "So I told her that I thought wanting a bite-sized answer was part of the problem about why she's still unsure about issues like whether God exists. It's at best a partial answer. And it leaves both her and me unsatisfied."

    I think that's a terrific response, Patrick!

    Do you know if she's still agnostic?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Hm, I'm actually not sure if she still is or isn't. She's always attended a broadly evangelical church though. But she's told me it's more out of obligation to her family (who has been with the church for years and years) than because she desires it.

    ReplyDelete