And God said, "Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens." So God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. And God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth." And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day (Gen 1:20-23).
Now when it was evening, the disciples came to him and said, "This is a desolate place, and the day is now over; send the crowds away to go into the villages and buy food for themselves." But Jesus said, "They need not go away; you give them something to eat." They said to him, "We have only five loaves here and two fish." And he said, "Bring them here to me." Then he ordered the crowds to sit down on the grass, and taking the five loaves and the two fish, he looked up to heaven and said a blessing. Then he broke the loaves and gave them to the disciples, and the disciples gave them to the crowds. And they all ate and were satisfied. And they took up twelve baskets full of the broken pieces left over. And those who ate were about five thousand men, besides women and children (Mt 14:15-21).
Many professing Christians subscribe to theistic evolution. From what I can tell, that’s the default position in modern Catholicism. There are also some “evangelicals” like John J. Davis and Alister McGrath who represent that position.
Some Darwinian theists are more conservative than others. For example, you have Darwinian theists who deny the historicity of the creation account, but affirm the historicity of Jesus’ miracles. For example, although they’d deny the historicity of Gen 1, they’d never presume to deny the feeding of the multitude.
But this raises some interesting questions. Take the creation account of fish in Gen 1:20-23. A Darwinian theist will deny that this is how fish actually originated.
Rather, he believes that fish originated through a long evolutionary process. And he believes that because he thinks the scientific evidence points in that direction. However, he also believes that Jesus miraculously multiplied two fish.
Now we don’t know exactly what the additional fish were like that Jesus made by instantaneous fiat. But they were probably duplicates of the two fish. Just like you could catch in the Sea of Galilee.
Suppose you were an evolutionary ichthyologist who traveled back in time to this event. Suppose you examined one of the miraculous fish–only you didn’t know it was a miraculous fish.
Could you tell the difference between the miraculous fish and a normal fish from the Sea of Galilee? No. All the evidence would point to a fish from the Sea of Galilee.
What is more, the miraculous fish would look just like fish that had gone through all of the preliminary stages in the lifecycle to reach that point. Its parents had mated. It started out as a fish egg. And so on.
But, of course, none of that would actually apply to the miraculous fish.
What is more, not only would the miraculous fish resemble a fish with a personal history, but, of course, that history would be continuous with the history of all its ancestors. The generations of fish which came before it.
But, of course, none of that would actually apply to the miraculous fish.
What is more, our evolutionary ichthyologist would explain to us that this fish was a “living fossil”–insofar as a modern fish bears the telltale traces of its evolutionary past. A living record of the past. Of prior adaptations leading up to a modern fish. Not only does this fish have a personal history, from its conception forward, but it evidences the evolutionary history of its species. To get to this fish, you have to go back millions of years through all of the intervening stages in evolutionary development.
But, of course, none of that would actually apply to the miraculous fish.
What is more, our evolutionary ichthyologist would explain to us that this fish evidences the common ancestry of man and fish, for human blood shares the same basic salt content as fish blood.
But, of course, none of that would actually apply to the miraculous fish.
The presumptive history lying behind the miraculous fish turns out to be nonexistent. All of the “scientific evidence” amounts to evidence of something that never happened.
So the position of a conservative Darwinian theist seems to generate a dilemma. Why treat the multiplication of fish as factual while treating the initial creation of fish as fictitious?
What is more, the miraculous fish would look just like fish that had gone through all of the preliminary stages in the lifecycle to reach that point. Its parents had mated. It started out as a fish egg. And so on.
ReplyDeleteBut, of course, none of that would actually apply to the miraculous fish.
Ah, but maybe it would, someone might argue, and that might jeopardize your conclusion.
The argument would go as follows: we tend to think of the multiplication of the fish as a kind of cloning, in a sense, of the existing two fish there. This is a creative act from something currently existing. But what if Jesus created all new fish ex nihilo, that is, not from the existing two fish. Or, perhaps He merely added to their number directly from the Sea of Galilee--that is, he "transported" them from the sea to their location. In that case, even the miraculous fish would have gone through a normal life cycle to that point.
Sorry if I sound stupid. My mother once told me, "Stupid is as stupid does." But I'm wondering if you need to simplify your premise regarding the nature of the miraculous fish. Would the Darwinian theist have to discount the creation theories of the miracle in favour of the transporter theory? Either way it doesn't seem to me to change the necessity for the DT to answer your final question:
So the position of a conservative Darwinian theist seems to generate a dilemma. Why treat the multiplication of fish as factual while treating the initial creation of fish as fictitious?
"Why treat the multiplication of fish as factual while treating the initial creation of fish as fictitious?"
ReplyDeleteI read the two texts differently because they are of different genres. The multiplication miracle is found in a biography of Jesus' life based on eyewitness testimony, within the range of ordinary human cognition (although we have to be careful, because the narrative doesn't tell us exactly how this multiplication happened, actually it doesn't describe the miracle at all, just its effects), so I find it easy to take it at face value. But no-one was there at the creation of the world (Job 38:4), so I think the question of how to interpret Genesis 1 is a lot trickier. Mind I am not saying that the text is fictitious, just that I'm not as confident in how exactly to interpret it. Exactly what kind of account is it? Does the text itself specify what the creation of fish looked like? Was there an initial speck of flesh in the water, which rapidly (how rapidly?) morphed like Jeff Bridges' Star Man into a full-fledged fish?
Is the text a historical one in exactly the same sense as the narratives about Jesus? If not, I don't see why there should be a problem? I don't take the visions of John in Revelation at face value when he describes a seven-headed beast emerging from the sea for a similar reason: when God grants visions to his prophets concerning things beyond the range of ordinary human cognition, they are usually heavily metaphorical and artistic.
You ask how an evangelical evolutionist could tell the difference between a fish formed by a long evolutionary process and that formed miraculously ex nihilo but with all the marks of its presumed evolutionary history on it, evoking Philip Gosse's challenge to the fossil evidence against Young Earth Creationism. But this question could be posed to any Christian who makes a distinction, however qualified, between ordinary and extraordinary divine providence. If you eat eggs for breakfast, how can you be sure on any given day that the eggs you are preparing to scramble actually came from a chicken and weren't miraculously created five minutes ago, with convincing traces of chicken poop on the outside to appear as if it had just come from a chicken?
I believe that God created a world that operates most of the time according to law-like processes. When extraordinary events take place, they happen in the context of God's redemptive plan for the world, as a sign to unbelievers, or to encourage the faithful, etc. Thus even if from a physiological point of view there would be no difference between a fish with a real evolutionary history and a fish created five minutes ago, in the latter case the context would make clear that this is a special case of God's action in the world, and I would still have confidence that most fish have real evolutionary histories because that is how I believe God normally works in the world.
JD WALTERS SAID:
ReplyDelete“I read the two texts differently because they are of different genres.”
Yes, that’s one potential move you could make. But there are some potential problems with that move:
i) The argument cuts both ways. For you obviously have folks who extend that argument to the Gospels. They don’t think Gen 1 represents a historical genre, and by the same token they don’t think the Gospel accounts (of Jesus’ miracles) represent a historical genre.
ii) In addition, some of the more radical contributors to BioLogos (to take one example) don’t dispute the fact the original audience for Gen 1 would have understood this account as a historical description. They didn’t know any better.
“(Although we have to be careful, because the narrative doesn't tell us exactly how this multiplication happened, actually it doesn't describe the miracle at all, just its effects)”
Yes, but even if that were so in this particular case, my comparison involves a question of principle. Darwinian theists who affirm the historicity of Jesus’ miracle don’t challenge the possibility that Jesus multiplied fish by a direct creative fiat. They are open to that understanding.
“But no-one was there at the creation of the world (Job 38:4), so I think the question of how to interpret Genesis 1 is a lot trickier.”
But Biblical narratives often include information which falls outside the range of ordinary human perception. Take the viewpoint of the omniscient narrator, who can read the minds of the participants. What is more, red the minds of participants who lived and died centuries before he was even born. Wouldn’t we attribute that to direct revelation?
“Does the text itself specify what the creation of fish looked like?”
Well, I think a primary purpose of the account is to explain where today’s fish ultimately came from. So the fish in Gen 1 would be recognizable fish. And they would be continuous with the types of fish known to the original audience, since they reproduce the same kinds of fish.
“I don't take the visions of John in Revelation at face value when he describes a seven-headed beast emerging from the sea for a similar reason: when God grants visions to his prophets concerning things beyond the range of ordinary human cognition, they are usually heavily metaphorical and artistic.”
A problem with that comparison is that Revelation comes at the terminus of a canonical tradition–stretching back to Genesis. John frequently uses metaphors which originated in nonmetaphorical settings. For example, he makes figurative use of temple imagery. But that’s made possible by the fact that Solomon’s temple (to take one precedent) was a real temple, which could generate a literary tradition of figurative temple imagery. But it isn’t metaphors all the way down. Metaphors take something real as their launchpad.
Cont.“You ask how an evangelical evolutionist could tell the difference between a fish formed by a long evolutionary process and that formed miraculously ex nihilo but with all the marks of its presumed evolutionary history on it, evoking Philip Gosse's challenge to the fossil evidence against Young Earth Creationism. But this question could be posed to any Christian who makes a distinction, however qualified, between ordinary and extraordinary divine providence. If you eat eggs for breakfast, how can you be sure on any given day that the eggs you are preparing to scramble actually came from a chicken and weren't miraculously created five minutes ago, with convincing traces of chicken poop on the outside to appear as if it had just come from a chicken?”
ReplyDeleteTwo problems:
i) Gosse’s explanation was pure conjecture. He didn’t give readers a reason to interpret Gen 1 that way. And he didn’t give readers a reason to believe that this is how God actually make the world. Rather, he took that as his operating assumption, then proposed a harmonistic device.
By contrast, the example I gave is not conjectural. I gave the case of what many Darwinian theists regard as a real-life event. So while it’s easy for them to dismiss Gossean explanations of Gen 1 (in relation to the fossil record), they can’t dismiss my comparison (as long as they credit the miracle account).
ii) One problem with your allusion to Russell’s famous quip (“There is no logical impossibility in the hypothesis that the world sprang into being five minutes ago, exactly as it then was, with a population that ‘remembered’ a wholly unreal past. There is no logically necessary connection between events at different times; therefore nothing that is happening now or will happen in the future can disprove the hypothesis that the world began five minutes ago”) is that unbelievers like Richard Lewontin are more than happy to call your bluff (as it were). They say that’s why it’s just as arbitrary to believe in the feeding of the multitude. So your analogy cuts too close.
“I believe that God created a world that operates most of the time according to law-like processes. When extraordinary events take place, they happen in the context of God's redemptive plan for the world, as a sign to unbelievers, or to encourage the faithful, etc. Thus even if from a physiological point of view there would be no difference between a fish with a real evolutionary history and a fish created five minutes ago, in the latter case the context would make clear that this is a special case of God's action in the world, and I would still have confidence that most fish have real evolutionary histories because that is how I believe God normally works in the world.”
Two or three problems:
i) Yes, all things being equal, a Christian can reasonably default to ordinary providence. However, the very question at issue is whether a text like Gen 1 gives us reason to surmise, all things considered, that ordinary providence is not the correct explanation.
ii) In addition, your response doesn’t get to the nub of the evidentiary issue. If what we take to be evidence of a prior event (or series of prior events) is consistent with a nonevent, then in what sense is this ever truly evidential? The “evidence” is the same in either case. So what does it evidence? Does it really point to anything at all?
iii) And surely it’s a significant concession to say, or merely allow for the possibility, that Jesus created instantaneous fish with all the incidental clues of evolutionary fish. That the evolutionary past was built right into these ex nihilo fish.
For the usual objection to Gossean explanations is that this would implicate God in a web of deception. But why doesn’t that objection apply to any analogous miracle?
PILGRIMSARBOUR SAID:
ReplyDelete“The argument would go as follows: we tend to think of the multiplication of the fish as a kind of cloning, in a sense, of the existing two fish there. This is a creative act from something currently existing. But what if Jesus created all new fish ex nihilo, that is, not from the existing two fish.”
But if (ad arguendo) normal fish evolved, then ex nihilo fish would be physiologically indistinguishable from evolutionary fish. But, in that case, wherein lies the distinctive evidence for fish evolution? What lines of evidence single out evolutionary fish in contrast to ex nihilo fish?
“Or, perhaps He merely added to their number directly from the Sea of Galilee--that is, he ‘transported’ them from the sea to their location. In that case, even the miraculous fish would have gone through a normal life cycle to that point.”
i) According to Köstenberger, in his commentary on the Johannine parallel, “the fish probably were dried or preserved, perhaps pickled” (202).
a) So, on your alternative, Jesus teleported dried or picked fish from the Sea of Galilee.
b) Or should we propose thousands (give or take) of dried or pickled fish teleported (invisibly?) from a local fish market?
ii) In addition, the “transporter theory” seems inconsistent with the fact that Jesus personally distributed the fish (via the disciples) to the crowd. But if the fish were teleported to the site, why not teleport them directly to seated individuals in the crowd rather than teleport a huge pile of fish which Jesus handed to the disciples, who handed them to the crowd?
"The presumptive history lying behind the miraculous fish turns out to be nonexistent. All of the “scientific evidence” amounts to evidence of something that never happened.
ReplyDeleteSo the position of a conservative Darwinian theist seems to generate a dilemma. Why treat the multiplication of fish as factual while treating the initial creation of fish as fictitious?
Darwinian theist treats dilemma:
(1) Deny the miraculous feeding of the multitude. Go the LibProt route and become a demythologizer. Or...
(2) Shrug your shoulders and suppress the cognitive dissonance. And...
(3) Look for and emphasize counter-attack opportunities against non-Darwinian theists to cause them cognitive dissonance so you don't feel so bad about yours.
But if the fish were teleported to the site, why not teleport them directly to seated individuals in the crowd rather than teleport a huge pile of fish which Jesus handed to the disciples, who handed them to the crowd?
ReplyDeleteThat would defeat one the purposes of the event, which is, I presume, that the people know from where and from Whom the fish came. I should think it was vital that the disciples actually pass out the food to the crowd.
BTW, the transporter theory I proposed sounds a bit more silly when considering the appearance of the bread, don't you think? There would have been a lot of people in the surrounding towns whose bread suddenly went missing, and whose children were needlessly punished for said alleged crime! ;-)
PILGRIMSARBOUR SAID:
ReplyDelete"BTW, the transporter theory I proposed sounds a bit more silly when considering the appearance of the bread, don't you think? There would have been a lot of people in the surrounding towns whose bread suddenly went missing, and whose children were needlessly punished for said alleged crime! ;-)"
The pretribulational rapture of the bread!