Craig's backwoods exegesis

William Lane Craig recently expanded on a defense of a position he took regarding the depiction of God in Gen 2-3:

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/genesis-2-3-anthropomorphism-or-theophany

I've already discussed his original presentation: 

https://triablogue.blogspot.com/2019/08/is-genesis-mytho-history.html

https://triablogue.blogspot.com/2019/08/gods-audible-voice.html

I will reproduce his entire answer at the bottom of my post. By way of comment:

i) One of the revealing things about Craig's interpretation of Gen 2-3 is the contrast between his philosophical prowess and his exegetical prowess. How that exposes the difference between his philosophical sophistication and his hermeneutical naivete. Over the decades, Craig's philosophy and philosophical theology have undergone great development. By contrast, it's like he still reads the Bible the same way he did as a teenager. His grasp of biblical hermeneutics never developed in tandem with his grasp of philosophy. His hermeneutic is in a state of arrested development. Intellectually, part of Craig never grew up. His philosophical toolkit matured while his hermeneutical toolkit remains immature, stuck in Sunday school. 

It reminds me of some apostates who become proficient philosophers and scientists, but when they attack Christian theism, they never brought their understanding of the Bible up to the same level of their mastery of science or philosophy. In the age of specialization, that's understandable, but it lays bare a big hole in Craig's skill set. 

ii) The way Craig frames the alternatives is an understatement. As he explained in his original presentation, what he means by "anthropomorphic" is "palpably false if taken literally".

iii) A basic flaw in Craig's analysis is assumption that in order for something to count as a theophany, the criterion is not the nature of the event but whether the account is introduced by a verbal formula: "God appeared to…" Likewise, that a figure must be explicitly called the "Angel of the Lord". 

iv) Another flaw in his analysis is his failure to appreciate that Gen 2-3 isn't told from the viewpoint of Adam and Eve. It's not a first-person, indexical description of how God looked to them. Rather, it's told from the third-person, external viewpoint of the narrator. 

v) Yet another flaw in Craig's analysis is the equivocal notion of an "appearance". It doesn't even seem to occur to Craig that that word or concept has multiple meanings, and so it's necessary to identify which one or ones may be germane to the issue at hand. Among other things, "appear/appearance" can mean the following:

• Materialize

• Be present or show up

• Come into view; become visible or noticeable

• Perform (e.g. Franco Corelli appeared in Il Travatore)

• How something is perceived by one or more senses (e.g. an indirect realist says appearances are all we have to go by–we can't peel back the veil of perception. Or a Catholic says that in transubstantiation, the Host retains the appearance of bread and wine) 

vi) Apropos (v), does a "theophany" mean God "appears" in the sense that he's present or localized at a particular time and place? Does it mean God "appears" in the sense that he can be seen? These are distinct ideas. For instance, an angel might be present but invisible. Take the Balaam account where the Angel of the Lord was present, but initially invisible to Balaam. 

vii) Although the default connotation of "appear" may signify to a visual appearance or apparition, theophanies often include auditions as well as visions. God's audible voice. Or preternatural thunder. So "appearance" can be shorthand for something that's perceptible to one or more of the senses. In principle, it could be tactile as well. 

viii) Some incidents in Scripture indicate that angels are able to materialize and dematerialize. So that's another sense of "appearance" which is applicable to theophanies and angelophanies. In the case of the Angel of the Lord, the two categories overlap. He's the theophanic angel.  

ix) Then there's Craig's frankly silly objection that Adam and Eve didn't exist at the time of the theophanies. But once God brought them into existence, they were in a position to see their Maker, if he took the form of the Angel of the Lord to create them. Likewise, Adam regained consciousness after the operation. So even on his own grounds, Craig's objection is hairsplitting. 

x) Craig reads biblical narratives atomistically, as if similar incidents in the Pentateuch can't shed light on one another. To take a comparison, consider movies, novels,, or a miniseries where earlier scenes raise questions that are answered as the plot unfolds. You don't understand it all at once. Rather, as you go deeper into it, later plot developments retroactively illuminate earlier scenes. 

Likewise, it isn't necessary to pedantically use the same clues each time same kind of event is narrated. That's woodenly repetitious. Readers are expected to analogize from explicit examples to comparable examples. 

God's audible voice

Having done a general commentary on Craig's treatment of Gen 1-3, I'd like to zoom in on one detail:

The anthropomorphic nature of God, which is merely hinted at in chap. 2, becomes inescapable in chap 3, where God is described as walking in the garden in the cool of the day, calling audibly to Adam...many features of these stories are fantastic. That is to say, they are palpably false if taken literally.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OC9zwO0Gw40&t=165s

1. Is Craig suggesting that if Gen 2-3 attributes an audible voice to God, that's palpably false if taken literally? In his overall treatment of the account, that's one of the "fantastic" features he singles out as metaphorical. 

2. If so, that's a remarkable position for a Christian apologist to take. It would be understandable from John Spong or Rudolf Bultmann. If he's stating a general principle, then it can't be confined to Gen 2-3 or Gen 1-11. The same principle extends to the patriarchal narratives, Exodus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, the Historical Books, the Prophets, the Gospels, Acts, &c. 

3. Over and above Scripture, many Christians claim that God spoke to them in an audible. I'm not suggesting that we should credit every reported voice of God. But if enough Christians say God spoke to them in an audible voice, that's evidence that it happens some of the time. Not all of them are wackos or charlatans. 

4. Perhaps, though, what Craig means by an "audible" voice is not a voice you hear in your mind, not God communicating telepathically, but a physical external voice. If God spoke to someone in an audible voice, and someone else was standing next to him, they'd both hear the voice. An objective sound. Maybe that's what Craig deems to be "fantastic" and "palpably false". 

If so, what is the basis of Craig's objection? Surely God can miraculously structure sound waves to create a disembodied, but external voice. I'd at that even on the telepathic interpretation, God is able to communicate the same message to two or more people at the same time. 

5. But maybe what Craig has in mind is not a disembodied voice, but an embodied voice. If God is an incorporeal being, then he can't use an audible voice in that sense.

But consider the Angel of the Lord. Consider the "mechanics" of the Angel of the Lord. In the OT, angels sometimes have physicality. They can materialize and dematerialize. In principle, the Angel of the Lord might have one of two modalities:

i) God takes possession of an actual angel. A preexistent angelic being–like Michael or Gabriel. He uses the angel as a vehicle to express himself–akin to how God sometimes takes possession of a human seer.  

ii) God creates a temporary body every time the Angel of the Lord appears. A temporary material vehicle to speak to humans and interact with the physical surroundings. And it ceases to exist after it serves the immediate purpose. It might be a humanoid body, or a luminous body, depending on how God wants to present himself. 

6. But maybe Craig's point is not that God's audible voice is "palpably false" considered in isolation, but as one more contribution to the overall scene in Gen 2-3. One of several cumulative, telltale signs that "these stories are fantastic (i.e. palpably false if taken literally)". 

Yet the "fantastic" details are a fixture of biblical supernaturalism. Unfortunately, Craig's treatment of Gen 1-3 is a gift to infidels. He argues that Gen 1-3 is pious fiction. While he avoids the term, that's what his position amounts to. And to judge by his treatment of Gen 1-3, we can expect him to treat the flood account as fictional, too. 

Is Genesis "mytho-history"?

After completing his research program on penal substitution, Craig moved on to his next research program regarding the historical status of Genesis. This seems to be an interim report, but I'm guessing it's a forecast of his final views:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OC9zwO0Gw40&t=165s

No one was expecting Craig to emerge from his studies a young-earth creationist. I wonder if he even bothered to read the best of the young-earth creationists. The question was whether he'd land on the side of old-earth creationists like Vern Poythress and John Collins or the BioLogos crowd. Now we know.

BioLogos backs down

https://evolutionnews.org/2018/05/discussion-is-over-on-adam-and-the-genome-former-biologos-fellow-backs-down/

Mixed nuts

I recently read The Lost World of the Flood (IVP 2018) by Tremper Longman & John Walton. It's like a can of mixed nuts. 

It's noteworthy that the two main collaborators, as well as one contributor, are all affiliated with the BioLogos Foundation, which is the flagship of theistic evolution.

1. This is part of an ongoing series: The Lost World of Genesis One, The Lost World of Adam and Eve, The Lost World of the Israelite Conquest, The Lost World of Scripture. 

Although it's not entirely fair to judge a book by its title, since a title is simpler than the content of a book, it is, nevertheless, misleading to frame the issue in terms of a "lost world" of Scripture, as if the Bible was a complete cipher until the advent of biblical archeology. 

Going ape over Adam

i) Dennis Venema seems to be the big gun at BioLogos these days. This year he's done a running series attacking Vern Poythress, before he turned his guns on W. L. Craig. 

I don't know where Venema gets the theistic component of theistic evolution. Perhaps that's from the fine-tuning argument.  However, Venema is a biologist by training, whereas the fine-tuning argument would seem to be the provenance of an astronomer. If so, then for the branch of science he's least qualified to assess, he thinks the evidence points to  supernatural origins, and in the branch of science he's best qualified to assess, he thinks the evidence is indistinguishable from naturalistic origins. That doesn't inspire confidence in his synthesis. 

ii) I think creationists are sometimes guilty of special pleading. That's hardly a fatal admission, for from my reading, Darwinians are often guilty of special pleading. From the standpoint of somebody like William Provine, Venema's theistic evolution is a makeshift position. 

To be on the defensive posture tends to be a position of weakness. Instead of giving positive reasons for his position, or reasons for why he thinks the alternative is wrong, someone on the defensive is simply attempting to deflect criticism. That puts him at a disadvantage. May look like special pleading. Because creationism is under constant attack, it can foster that impression, but that's because the critics, the person on the offensive, enjoys a tactical advantage. 

Yet every side in this debate (young-earth creationist, old-earth creationist, Intelligent design theorist, theistic evolutionist, deistic evolutionist, naturalistic evolutionist) plays offense and defense at one time or another. 

Every side begins with set of facts. What they take to be a core of well-established facts. And that functions as their standard of comparison when they evaluate the evidence or prima facie counterevidence. 

Every position must contend with obstreperous data that don't easily assimilate into their paradigm. Yet, in principle, you could flip that around. You could make the recalcitrant data your starting point, and use that as the standard of comparison. There's nothing that automatically selects for or privileges what subset of evidence will constitute the benchmark in relation to which "anomalous" data must be reinterpreted and harmonized. 

I'm not saying the choice is purely arbitrary. But everyone is in the same boat in that regard, even if they occupy different decks. 

iii) Venema strikes me as a good student. Someone who believes what he's taught, learns the rules, and follows the rules. Unquestioning. Submissive. Dutiful. 

Following the rules can produce good science. Following the rules can make small, incremental contributions to scientific knowledge. 

But that can also inhibit scientific progress. Venema doesn't seem to have the kind of mind that moves science forward in dramatic new directions. That opens new vistas in the frontiers of science. That requires a more creative and iconoclastic turn of mind. 

iv) With those preliminaries out of the way, I will venture a few comments on this post:

https://biologos.org/blogs/dennis-venema-letters-to-the-duchess/adam-eve-and-human-population-genetics-part-6-common-ancestry-nested-hierarchies-and-parsimony

On the face of it, this is one of the more impressive arguments for common descent. I'll just mention some of the questions and considerations that come to mind when I read something like this:

v) One point of contention is how much DNA humans generally share with the great apes, or chimps in particular. 98% is a popular figure. but that doesn't strike me as very significant one way or the other. 

a) To begin with, the higher the figure, the harder it is to account for drastic differences between humans and great apes. It threatens a paradox. 

b) More to the point, I doubt this is relevant to the creation/evolution debate. Even before the advent of comparative genomics, it was obvious that humans have more in common with some animals than others. We have more in common with mammals than reptiles. We have more in common with some mammals than other mammals. By process of elimination, we will have more in common with one particular species than other species. 

That's inevitable given biological diversity, which can be arranged along a spectrum of similarity and dissimilarity. Given that continuum, there's bound to be degrees of increasing similarity and dissimilarity. Bound to be species that range along our section of the continuum. Bound to be a species most like us. You can arrange them in ascending or descending orders of similarity, with many borderline cases. 

c) Apropos (b), suppose we view DNA as a blueprint. That's a popular, if simplistic, metaphor. Why would two species have similar blueprints? From a theological standpoint, the answer is that if God wants to make two similar species, he will give them similar blueprints. 

So in that respect, genetics doesn't furnish independent evidence for common descent. That's a circular appeal. 

The deeper question is why God would want to create two kinds of animals that are alike. And the answer, or at least one answer, is that God wanted to create a world full of variety. Variations illustrate divine ingenuity. In that event, some animals will be more alike while other animals will be more unalike. 

So I don't think that provides even prima facie evidence for common descent. It's entirely consistent with creationism. 

vi) However, Venema is appealing to a more specific kind of evidence for common descent. Not designed commonalities, but acquired characteristics. Historical accidents (e.g. deletion of the same DNA letter in three primate species).

For humans and great apes to share that in common implies common derivation. Can't be coincidental. 

Well, what about that inference? 

a) Let's take a comparison: how did lactase persistence develop? Would it be possible for humans to adapt to adult milk consumption if enough adult humans sampled milk or dairy products on a regular basis? Even if that was initially nauseating, when food is scarce, humans will eat anything. 

b) Assuming that adaptive mutation is possible, then lactase persistence could develop repeatedly and independently in isolated populations by the same process of adaptation. 

c) Finally, in terms of DNA sequences, is it just happenstance where these "letters" occur, or must their placement be in a certain order for the code to be functional? 

If so, then even if you had independent genetic developments, you'd expect the pattern to be the same in case the pattern must be the same. If certain "letters" are out of place, then it's selected out. The code won't work. The organism won't be viable. 

Mind you, I believe the code has enough redundancy that it can survive some errors. 

So those are some doubts I have about the validity of his inference. 

Is theistic evolution scientific?

It's revealing to see the tactical and strategic priorities of BioLogos. The contributors to BioLogos think evolution is a fact. They think evolution is consistent with a suitably reformulated Christian theology. They think Christians who deny evolution and claim that Christian theology is incompatible with evolution drive people away from the faith. Prevent unbelievers from giving Christianity serious consideration. They think Christian opposition to evolution creates a gratuitous impediment to faith.

Let's concede all that for the sake of argument. Consider this:

http://old.biologos.org/ecf/grantees

Notice anything amiss? They target churches and Christian colleges. They try to recruit theistic evolutionists by attacking young-earth creationism, old-earth creationism, and intelligent design theory.

Now, what's striking about this is what they don't do. Notice where the don't go poaching for converts to theistic evolution. They don't put nearly the same effort into frequenting secular college campuses and recruiting converts from science majors in general or biology majors in particular. They don't sponsor or host debates between BioLogos spokesmen and secular paleontologists or evolutionary biologists. 

Their efforts are directed at folks who already profess to be Christian. They don't make the case for theistic evolution with professors at scientific bastions like MIT, Cornell, Caltech, Harvard, Chicago U, the Institute for Advanced Study (Princeton), &c. Yet if they think theistic evolution is scientifically defensible and intellectually respectable, why don't they routinely go head-to-head with secular scientists whose speciality intersects with evolution? 

Evidently, they think theistic evolution is only plausible to Christians, not to secular scientists. After all, if theistic evolution is scientifically credible, shouldn't the recruitment pool draw from Christians and atheists alike? Why focus on turning Christians? Why not concentrate similar resources in turning unbelievers who major in science? Why is their emphasis so lopsided? 

Seems to betray a lack of confidence in the scientific credibility of theistic evolution when they are so reticent to test their claims against an audience that comes to the issue from a purely scientific standpoint, with no theological presuppositions. They avoid a tough audience. 

"Toward a theistic evolutionary anthropology"

From a recently exchange I had on Facebook:

"I am sympathetic to ID, but really think we can do apologetics without making TE/ID/YEC/OEC an issue. It's not an essential, but it is an obstacle for some skeptics, so I'm all about sticking to obstacle-free essentials."

i) A basic problem with that strategy is that many skeptics regard evolution in itself as a major obstacle to Christian faith. For instance, there was a 2003 Cornell survey of evolutionary biologists in which 87% deny existence of God, 88% disbelieve in life after death, and 90% reject idea that evolution directed toward “ultimate purpose.” Likewise, a 1998 survey of members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) in which nearly 95% of NAS biologists identify themselves as either atheists or agnostics.

Secular biologists typically think the evolutionary record is incompatible with a wise and benevolent Creator God. They think it shows no evidence of planning or foresight. To the contrary, they believe it shows utter indifference to which species survive and which species go extinct. It's just the luck of the draw. 

Unless you're prepared to challenge evolution, that's going to be a major obstacle to many skeptics. That's not just something you can work around. 

ii) And that's apart from the question of whether the Biblical doctrine of creation and the Fall is inessential.

Steve Hays 

i) How is your statement the least bit responsive to the specific issue I raised? I replied to you on your own terms. If you take evolution for granted, then for many skeptics, that alone is reason enough to reject Christianity. That's an "obstacle".

ii) Actually, it's unclear how theistic evolution meshes with a first sin. From an evolutionary standpoint, many attitudes or actions traditionally classified as "sin" would be reclassified as a throwback to our animal nature. For instance, it is argued that higher animals have the same behaviors.

Steve Hays As to keeping one's focus on the Gospel, the Book of Romans is a sustained exposition of the Gospel, in the course of which Paul frames the issue in terms of Adam and Christ (Rom 5).

Steve Hays 

"So you think a skeptic, who believes evolution is true & conflicts with Christianity, will more readily accept Christianity if you refute evolution (granted that is possible), than if you show how it is not actually in conflict with Christianity?"

You seem to think this is just a question of harmonizing evolution with Scripture or Christian theology. For instance, BioLogos contributors (e.g. Peter Enns, Karl Giberson, John Schneider, Denis Lamoureux) generally say the Bible is simply wrong on this point. 

However, the objection skeptics often raise isn't that Scripture conflicts with evolution. That's one objection they sometimes raise.

But in addition, they think evolution is at odds with the argument from design. That's a broader objection. That's not about the Bible, per se, or Christian theology. 

Rather, they think the evolutionary record reflects an unguided, undirected process. A blind, groping process. 

Their objection isn't in the first instance to Christianity in particular, but theism in general. For them, the evolutionary narrative is exactly what you'd expect if there is no God, viz. Darwin, William Provine, Richard Dawkins, Jerry Coyne. To take one example:

"Now suppose that individuals are killed at random, without reference to membership in species or higher groups. This has been called the Field of Bullets scenario–all individuals exist in a field of flying bullets, and death or survival is solely a matter of chance. The image is awful, but it does the job," D. Raup, Extinction: Bad Genes or Bad Luck? (Norton & Co., 1991), 71.

For them, evolution isn't going anywhere. It has no goals. Humans aren't the intended outcome. Natural selection doesn't care who dies and who survives. If you find yourself at the wrong place at the wrong time, tough luck! 

You talk about the love of God, which they regard as wishful thinking in light of natural history.

Steve Hays 

1. In my experience, BioLogos contributors typically employ a two-pronged strategy:

i) They vigorously argue for evolution (i.e. macroevolution/universal common descent). They devote great time and resources in attacking Christians who deny evolution.

In addition, they attack an interventionist version of theistic evolution. Even though ID theory is consistent with theistic evolution, BioLogos contributors attack it because ID theorists like Behe espouse a version of guided or directed evolution. 

As a result, the model of evolution which BioLogos contributors promote is indistinguishable from naturalistic evolution. 

The evidence for theism is supplied from sources extraneous to biology. 

ii) They argue that this is consistent with Christian theology. Mind you, they admit that this is inconsistent with traditional Christian theology. And they square this with the Bible by saying Gen 1-3 and Rom 5 reflect an obsolete, prescientific outlook.

2. Now, even if that's persuasive to people who already profess Christianity, it is counterproductive when dealing with skeptics. For many skeptics regard evolution in itself as deeply problematic for theism. When, therefore, BioLogos contributors steadfastly argue for evolution, they are reinforcing an objection that skeptics already have. Many skeptics regard the "fact" of evolution, all by itself, as a powerful reason to doubt or deny the existence of a wise and benevolent Creator God.

In addition, when BioLogos contributors labor to debunk the Biblical account of creation and the Fall, that, too, reinforces an objection that skeptics already have. Skeptics think the Bible is just pious fiction, on a par with ANE creation stories generally. 

At best, the BioLogos strategy is helpful to progressive Christians who accept evolution, but struggle with how to reconcile that with Scripture or Christian theology. 

By contrast, it confirms the objections that many skeptics have for not taking Scripture or Christian theology seriously in the fist place.

Steve Hays The skeptics I read would consider a "literal first sin" minus a literal first couple (special creation of Adam and Eve) to be a makeshift compromise that's equally false to science and Scripture alike.

The ad hoc quality of theistic evolution is one of the persistent problems. Going with the evolutionary narrative in the main, but clinging to residual bits of the traditional Christian narrative. That's not something you get from Scripture, or evolution, or combining them–since they don't dovetail.

BioLogos and stealth atheism

Karl Giberson is an outspoken critic of ID theory, so it's revealing that he endorses an all-out assault on the Christian faith by apostate-turned-atheist John Loftus:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/karl-giberson-reviews-atheist-john-loftus-new-book/

Let's harmonize Genesis with a fake universe

BioLogos has a stable of scientists to defend deistic evolution, viz. Denis Alexander, Louis Ard, Francisco Ayala, Stephen Barr, Sean Carroll, Francis Collins, Darrel Falk, Karl Giberson, Denis Lamoureux, Clarence Menninga, John Polkinghorne, Dennis Venema.

Likewise, it has a stable of Bible scholars to reinterpret the Bible, or simply nix the authority of Scripture, to accommodate the scientific establishment, viz. Peter Enns, Kirk Daniel, Charles Halton, Tremper Longman, Scott McKnight, Kenton Sparks, John Walton, N. T. Wright.

They consider it essential to the survival and credibility of the Christian faith for theology to adapt to mainstream science. 

But when they labor to harmonize Gen 1-9 or Rom 5 with the hard scientific evidence, with the "real world," what's the frame of reference? Consider the following?

I began bemused. The notion that humanity might be living in an artificial reality — a simulated universe — seemed sophomoric, at best science fiction.  

But speaking with scientists and philosophers on "Closer to Truth," I realized that the notion that everything humans see and know is a gigantic computer game of sorts, the creation of supersmart hackers existing somewhere else, is not a joke. 

I asked Marvin Minsky, a legendary founder of artificial intelligence, to distinguish among three kinds of simulations: (i) brains in vats, (ii) universal simulation as pure software and (iii) universal simulation as real physical stuff. 

"It would be very hard to distinguish among those," Minsky said, "unless the programmer has made some slips — if you notice that some laws of physics aren't quite right, if you find rounding-off errors, you might sense some of the grain of the computer showing through." 

If that were the case, he says, it would mean that the universe is easier to understand than scientists had imagined, and that they might even find ways to change it.  

The thought that this level of reality might not be ultimate reality can be unsettling, but not to Minsky: "Wouldn't it be nice to know that we are part of a larger reality?" [Incredible Technology: How Future Space Missions May Hunt for Alien Planets ] 

For a reality check, I visited Martin Rees, U.K. Astronomer Royal, a bold visionary and hard-nosed realist. "Well, it's a bit flaky, but a fascinating idea," he said. "The real question is what are the limits of computing powers." 

Astronomers are already doing simulations of parts of universes. "We can't do experiments on stars and galaxies," Rees explained, "but we can have a virtual universe in our computer, and calculate what happens if you crash galaxies together, evolve stars, etc. So, because we can simulate some cosmic features in a gross sense, we have to ask, 'As computers become vastly more powerful, what more could we simulate?' 

"It's not crazy to believe that some time in the far future," he said, "there could be computers which could simulate a fairly large fraction of a world." 

http://www.space.com/30124-is-our-universe-a-fake.html

What if they are harmonizing the Bible with a cosmic computer simulation? 

Consider, too, how this theory cuts the ground right out from under historical geology or evolutionary biology. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that genetics and paleontology do indeed point to the evolution of man from microbes. Ah, but that's virtual evidence. The Grand Canyon is Virtual Reality. The population bottleneck is Virtual Reality. And so on and so forth. 

They scoff at mature creation, yet entertain a cosmic computer simulation as a realistic possibility. It's incredible that God would make the world "mature," but a serious scientific conjecture that an advanced alien civilization might simulate earth. 

I don't think it's true. I'm just responding to them on their own ground. 

Board my burning ship!

Peter Enns hosted a guest post by Karl Giberson

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2015/06/creating-adam-again-and-again/

Giberson was a founder of BioLogos, the flagship of theistic evolution. 

The challenge of taking “God’s Two Books” (nature and the Bible) seriously has grown dramatically in recent years as genetic evidence has made it clear that Adam and Eve cannot have been historical figures, at least as described in the Bible.

i) That statement has the merit of clarity. Rather that saying genetic evidence forces us to reinterpret Gen 2 (or Rom 5), he says genetic evidence falsifies Gen 2. Adam and Eve, "as described in the Bible," "cannot have been historical figures" given the genetic evidence.

So on his view, Gen 2 is simply inconsistent with the genetic evidence. He doesn't fudge the issue by saying the traditional interpretation of Gen 2 is wrong. Rather, he says Gen 2 is wrong. The traditional interpretation is right; what's wrong is the text itself!

ii) Keep in mind that Giberson is a physicist. He has no particular scientific expertise to pronounce on human evolution. 

More scientifically informed evangelicals within conservative traditions are admitting that the evidence is undermining Creation-Fall-Redemption theology. Christians have struggled to preserve this central Christian understanding in a way that is faithful to both the Bible and science; literalists have tried to preserve it by rejecting science or making increasingly strange claims about the world.

Why does he label them "literalists"? He's just admitted that he interprets Gen 2 the same way they do. The difference is that he feels free to reject it. He acknowledges what the Bible says, but denies it. 

He then picks on Ken Ham. But Ham's an easy mark. Why not select a more intellectually impressive creationist as his foil? 

Ross also insists that the Fall inaugurated only human death. Ross goes further. Not only is death a part of the natural order but God ordained it to provide oil and other raw materials useful for humans. The benefits to humanity of these earlier life forms, says Ross, renders their suffering, death, and even extinction a good thing, and not an evil to be explained as a consequence of sin.

Although I disagree with some other things Ross says, I don't have a problem with that statement. 

[Denis] Alexander suggests that the Genesis account is based on an actual historical episode where God reached into history: “God in his grace chose a couple of Neolithic farmers in the Near East, or maybe a community of farmers, to whom he chose to reveal himself in a special way, calling them into fellowship with himself—so that they might know him as a personal God.” (Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose?p. 236)

That treats Gen 2-3 as an allegory. Problem is, Gen 2-3 doesn't say or imply that God chose a couple of Neolithic farmers in the ANE, or maybe a community of farmers, to whom he chose to reveal himself in a special way. It doesn't say anything like that. What it says isn't even analogous to that. And what it actually says is contrary to that. 

So that's an arbitrary "interpretation" that has no basis in the text. No connection to the text. Superimposed from the outside. 

Back to Giberson:

Christianity, after all, is not a religion about Adam; it is a religion about Christ. Adam can be understood in many ways. Unfortunately, however, the historical Adam has become a line in the sand for many evangelicals, who don’t even want to engage the conversation.

i) That's far too facile. Can a Christian have faith in Christ without having faith in what Christ had faith in? Christ had faith in OT history–including the creation account (Mt 19:4-5). Can a Christian have faith in Christ if he fails to share Christ's faith in OT revelation? 

ii) Moreover, many evangelicals do engage the conversation, but hold their ground.

iii) Finally, Giberson isn't laying his cards on the table. But as he himself as admitted elsewhere:

…my belief in God is tinged with doubts and, in my more reflective moments, I sometimes wonder if I am perhaps simply continuing along the trajectory of a childhood faith that should be abandoned. As a purely practical matter, I have compelling reasons to believe in God. My parents are deeply committed Christians and would be devastated, were I to reject my faith. My wife and children believe in God, and we attend church together regularly. Most of my friends are believers. I have a job I love at a Christian college that would be forced to dismiss me if I were to reject the faith that underpins the mission of the college. Abandoning belief in God would be disruptive, sending my life completely off the rails. I can sympathize with Darwin as he struggled against the unwanted challenges to his faith. 

http://creation.com/giberson-unmasked

Sounds like he's a closet agnostic (or atheist). Intellectually, he's not a Christian believer. But the consequences of open apostasy are too emotionally and socially disruptive. So he goes through the motions. 

Why, then, does he think it's so important to make Christians agree with him, when he himself has so little intellectual investment in the Christian faith? Why go to such efforts to coax them into a sinking ship which he'd abandon if a lifeboat was available? Why exhort Christians to board his burning ship when he himself would jump ship were it not for his professional and sentimental attachments? 

From ape to Adam

Tue April 14, 2015

(Christianity Today) - Peter Enns and John Walton recently returned from an expedition to Armenia to find out what really happened in the Garden of Eden. Their archeological excavation unearthed a cuneiform DVD. This records the very moment when Yahweh conferred the imago Dei on a hominid by process of ensoulment. 

After a private viewing, Pope Francis, the Dalai Lama, Darrel Falk, and the Archbishop of Canterbury hailed their discovery as the long-sought reconciliation of science and religion. 

[skip ad]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ML1OZCHixR0

Walking it back

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/03/walking_it_back094031.html

Death as usual

Note in the first place that this doesn’t even solve the presenting problem. If Adam and Eve were the first emerging humans from a crowd of primates, what is the sense of telling them that if they violated whatever our replacement was for the Forbidden Tree, they would surely die? “Die?” they might say. “Everybody dies. My parents just died last year.” Why is it a threat to go through something that has been the way of the world for millions of years already? Why didn’t God threaten them with having to eat breakfast tomorrow, just like always? 

http://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/7-reasons-why-biologos-is-a-threat-to-classical-christian-education.html

BioLogos and bad science

Science is based on observed regularities and logical induction to unobserved regularity. The secular scientist assumes that everything works in a regular, reproducible kind of way because that is what science has always found to be the case so far. The scientist who is a Christian agrees, but in addition believes in a rational basis for that order, the creator God who faithfully endows the universe with its regularities and intelligibility. Denis Alexander, Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose? (Monarch Books; revised and expanded ed,, 2014), 48. 

There's some truth to this claim. However, it suffers from a strange overstatement. Mind you, that's not surprising considering the fact that he's one of the bigwigs at BioLogos. In particular, consider his claim that:

The secular scientist assumes that everything works in a regular, reproducible kind of way because that is what science has always found to be the case so far.

Really? To take a stock counterexample, what about miraculous healing in answer to prayer? I'm not saying that's commonplace. But how many medically verifiable examples would you need to disprove his universal claim to the contrary? 

Compare his outlook to M. Scott Peck. Peck was a psychiatrist who received his B.A. degree magna cum laude from Harvard College in 1958, and his M.D. degree from the Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine in 1963. From 1963 until 1972, he served in the United States as Assistant Chief Psychiatry and Neurology Consultant to the Surgeon General of the Army:

I had come to believe in the reality of benign spirit or God, as well as the reality of human goodness. I'd come to believe distinctly in the reality of human evil, and that left me an obvious hole in my thinking. Namely was there such a thing as evil spirit, or the devil specifically? In common with 99.99 percent of psychiatrists and with 80 percent of Catholic priests--as confidentially polled back in 1960, the figure would be much higher now--I did not believe in the devil. 

But I was a scientist, and it didn't seem to me I should conclude there was no devil until I examined the evidence. It occurred to me if I could see one good old-fashioned case of possession, that might change my mind. I did not think that I would see one, but if you believe that something doesn't exist, you can walk right over it without seeing it. 

These cases, in a whole number of ways--the more I studied them, the more they did not fit in a typical psychiatric picture. The second case [Becca], for instance. As she should have been getting better, she got worse. 

And this is what's called diagnoses by exclusion. I'd go through the whole range of psychiatric conditions, whether they could explain the patient's condition. In both of my two cases, they were unexplainable by any kind of traditional psychiatric terms. 

Because I was a scientist I was perhaps more stringent than most people would be in diagnosing these two cases. I wasn't going to try to deal with something I wasn't sure was possession. Particularly as a psychiatrist, I was really sticking my neck out. 

http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/2005/01/The-Patient-Is-The-Exorcist-Interview-With-M-Scott-Peck.aspx

Peck doesn't begin with the postulate that "everything works in a regular, reproducible kind of way because that is what science has always found to be the case so far." Peck is more scientific than Alexander. Peck doesn't assume he knows the answer in advance. He examines the evidence. 

If, moreover, some forms of mental illness are the result of possession, then everything doesn't work in a regular, reproducible way. Machines work in a regular, reproducible way. That's in contrast to personal agency. 

Deistic evolution

We at BioLogos believe that God used the process of evolution to create all the life on earth today.  While we accept the science of evolution, we emphatically reject evolutionism.  Evolutionism is the atheistic worldview that says life developed without God and without purpose. 
Supporters of Intelligent Design accept more of evolutionary science, but argue that some features of life are best explained by direct intervention by an intelligent agent rather than by God’s regular way of working through natural processes.
The BioLogos view celebrates God as creator. It is sometimes called Theistic Evolution or Evolutionary Creation. Theism is the belief in a God who cares for and interacts with creation. Theism is different than deism, which is the belief in a distant, uninvolved creator who is often little more than the sum total of the laws of physics. Theistic Evolution, therefore, is the belief that evolution is how God created life.
BioLogos differs from the ID movement in that we have no discomfort with mainstream science. Natural selection as described by Charles Darwin is not contrary to theism. Similarly, we are content to let modern evolutionary biology inform us about the mechanisms of creation with the full realization that all that has happened occurs through God’s activity.
BioLogos celebrates the reality of miracles, including the miracles of Scripture, but also those we experience in today’s world through answered prayer and the work of the Holy Spirit in our own lives. However, the demonstration of such supernatural activity in the history of the natural world is, we think, unlikely to be scientifically testable. 

http://biologos.org/questions/biologos-id-creationism

This statement reflects the tensions in theistic evolution. Evolutionary theory operates with an essentially closed-system view of the universe. Events unfold according to a chain of physical cause and effect. There are roughly three ways in which this can be modeled:

1. Naturalistic evolution

This is thoroughly secular. No supernatural agent outside the universe plans the outcome, initiates the process, directs the process, or intervenes once the process is underway. 

2. Deistic evolution

There are basically two models:

2a. Frontloaded evolution

Like the acorn to the oak, God has programmed evolution to unfold according to a predetermined outcome. Once God puts the initial conditions in place, he doesn't intervene. 

2b. Stochastic evolution

God kickstarts evolution, but the process is autonomous. It has no predetermined outcome. No teleological progression. No back door for God to rewrite the code. 

Theistic evolutionists generally prefer the frontloaded model, but the problem with their preference is that, according to the standard evolutionary narrative, the origin and development of life are haphazard and wasteful. And theistic evolutionists have bought into the standard evolutionary narrative, since the alleged evidence for evolution is what makes them rejection fiat creationism. So they can't turn back at this point.

You can see the deistic cast of theistic evolution in their antipathy towards ID theory, with its interventionist model of divine action. God should't monkey with the natural mechanisms or causal continuum. At this point, their concession to miracles and answered prayer is ad hoc, for that kind of divine "interaction" tinkers or meddles with the uniformity of nature. 

Misplaced confidence

"Biologos, Theistic Evolution, and Misplaced Confidence" by Michael J. Kruger.