Wednesday, September 18, 2013

Young-earth theistic evolutionists


1) Like theistic evolution and old-earth creationism, young-earth creationism is prepackaged. Off the top of my head, these are typical elements:

i) God made the world in 6 consecutive calendar days.
ii) The universe is 6-10K years old.
iii) God made all the natural kinds ex nihilo during that one-week timespan.
iv) God directly created Adam and Eve.
v) Adam and Eve were the first humans.
vi) The flood was global
vii) Animal mortality, predation, parasitism, and pathogens are postlapsarian and/or postdiluvian developments.

Young-earth creationists disagree on whether the Genesis genealogies are open or closed. But even if they are open, that only allows for another roughly 4000 years. 

2) I'd like to focus on (vii). This generates internal tensions for YEC. 

i) YECs are ambivalent on the timing of carnivory. Is this postlapsarian or postdiluvian? On the one hand, they appeal to the cursed snake and the cursed ground (Gen 3). That would make it postlapsarian. On the other hand, they appeal to the permission to eat meat (Gen 9). That would make it postdiluvian.

ii) The appeal to the cursed snake is exegetically dubious. In the cultural context, this probably distinguishes a venomous snake in a striking position from a venomous snake in a docile position. 

Likewise, the cursed ground probably distinguishes the hospitable conditions inside the garden in stark from the inhospitable conditions outside the garden. 

ii) They appeal to the golden-age passages in Isa 11 and 65. However, many young-earth creationists are dispensationalists. They think these Isaian passages refer to the Millennium. Yet mortality is still in force during the Millennium. Presumably, that includes death by "natural causes," viz., disease, old age.

iii) Likewise, they extrapolate from passages referring to human mortality to animal mortality. But that ironically reflects an evolutionary outlook, where humans and animals range along a common continuum. By contrast, Gen 1-2 clearly distinguishes humans from animals. Although we share some physical commonalities, we enjoy privileges that animals do not. 

iii) They consider predation, parasitism, &c. to be natural evils, which are inconsistent with the "goodness" of the prelapsarian creation. However, they need to show on exegetical grounds that the narrator regarded natural "evils" (a modern classification) as not good, in terms of Gen 1-2. Ironically, young-earth creationists view the problem of animal pain in much the same way as atheists (e.g. Louise Antony, Andrea Weisberger). On the face of it, that's a preconception they are bringing to Genesis rather than deriving from Genesis.  

iv) They draw hairsplitting distinctions between different types of carnivores. Insects and invertebrates don't count.

v) They are ambivalent on what changes occurred. Sarfati says:

The Bible doesn't specifically explain how carnivory originated, but since creation was finished after Day 6 (Gen 2:1-3), there is no possibility that God later created new carnivorous animals (The Greatest Hoax on Earth, 288).

That's a key distinction–distinguishing fiat creationism from progressive creationism or theistic evolution. 

He seems to allow for predatory equipment like claws and venom to be preexisting features ("predesigned") which either weren't used before the Fall, or were used for something else (289-90).

On the other hand, he also says God programmed creatures with genetic information that was switched on after the Fall (290). And he talks about embryology (290). So perhaps he believes prelapsarian creatures didn't have the preexisting predatory apparatus. Rather, they had the genetic program. After the Fall, God flipped the switch, so that for the first time some animals began to develop these features during gestation and maturation. It's hard to make out his precise position.

Likewise, Snelling suggests this could have been preexisting equipment which wasn't used for predation (Earth's Catastrophic Past, 1:239). On the other hand, he says:

Such structures as fangs and claws could have been the result of the expression of recessive features which only became dominant due to selection processes later, or were  mutational features following the Curse instead of originally created equipment.
These would have included genetic changes so that its descendants would also henceforth slither on their bellies…if God chose to make design and genetic changes to the serpent.
God may have flipped some "genetic switches" present in His original design that caused these changes to appear immediately…If God used such genetic switches to cause physical changes in some plants in response to the Curse…then perhaps teeth in the mouths and nails on the feet of animals designed for herbivorous diet transformed into fangs and claws respectively…Similarly, it is possible that bacteria and other microorganisms…also underwent genetic changes (1:239, 254, 256).

The problem with this explanation is that it becomes a second creation. Young-earth creationists espousing postlapsarian (or postdiluvian) theistic macroevolution. Isn't the definition of macroevolution the development of novel morphology (e.g. new body parts and body plans) in response to new genetic information? 

vi) The argument suffers from additional problems. They appeal to examples of carnivores which can survive on vegetation. But that's very selective. Sure, there are exceptions. Some carnivores which normally prefer meat are actually omnivorous in a pinch. 

But that doesn't work for creatures whose digestive system is essentially carnivorous or even hematophagous, viz., anteaters, jellyfish, vampire bats. To retrofit them from herbivores to carnivores requires macroevolution, kinda like those transformation scenes where humans turn into werewolves. 

vii) For some odd reason, they think it would be morally impermissible for God to allow predation before the Fall, but morally permissible for God to allow predation after the Fall. The distinction is ad hoc.  

11 comments:

  1. >>Young-earth creationists disagree on whether the Genesis genealogies are open or closed. But even if they are open, that only allows for another roughly 4000 years.

    Why would that be? I know R. Reymond says the gaps probably add up to a relatively short period based on the fact that other genealogical gaps in Scripture are relatively short... but I don't think that's a very good reason. Won't the length of the gap be dictated by the time frame you're trying to jump too?

    So, for instance, the RTB crowd believes Adam and Eve existed about 70k years ago, possibly around 100k. In principle, I don't see why a YEC couldn't adopt a similar stretch... although it would be unusual.

    Concerning your point (iii) - It seems that all that has to be granted for the argument to have some force is that animal death and suffering is not good and can be, in fact, very bad. Many apologists and philosophers seem ready to grant that in the context of a theodicy.

    >>The problem with this explanation is that it becomes a second creation. Young-earth creationists espousing postlapsarian (or postdiluvian) theistic macroevolution. Isn't the definition of macroevolution the development of novel morphology (e.g. new body parts and body plans) in response to new genetic information?

    I think YEC, on any packaging, requires very rapid evolution that would, by secular standards, still be equivalent to macroevolution.

    >>But that doesn't work for creatures whose digestive system is essentially carnivorous or even hematophagous, viz., anteaters, jellyfish, vampire bats. To retrofit them from herbivores to carnivores requires macroevolution, kinda like those transformation scenes where humans turn into werewolves.

    If the YEC thinks the fall happened very shortly after the 7th day this objection may not carry as much weight. Carnivores like lions wouldn't have to live on a herbivore diet for very long. And since some YEC are willing to entertain the idea that a T-Rex's carnivorous elements didn't arise until post-fall (http://tinyurl.com/ls23ghy), I doubt they'd have trouble accepting the vampire bat and jelly fish arising, at least in their carnivorous state, post-fall too.

    Concerning your (vii) - I've never come across a YEC argument to the effect that it is *morally impremissible* for God to allow predation before the fall. The only argument I've seen is that the evaluation "very good" is not fitting in a world of death, disease, predation. It is morally permissible for God to allow predation before or after the fall--but God wouldn't look at a world post-fall or pre-fall with predators, disease, and suffering and call that "very good".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. janitorialmusings



      "Why would that be? I know R. Reymond says the gaps probably add up to a relatively short period based on the fact that other genealogical gaps in Scripture are relatively short... but I don't think that's a very good reason. Won't the length of the gap be dictated by the time frame you're trying to jump too? So, for instance, the RTB crowd believes Adam and Eve existed about 70k years ago, possibly around 100k. In principle, I don't see why a YEC couldn't adopt a similar stretch... although it would be unusual."

      In theory, YECs could be more flexible on the timeframe. I'm just stating the standard YEC position.



      "Concerning your point (iii) - It seems that all that has to be granted for the argument to have some force is that animal death and suffering is not good and can be, in fact, very bad. Many apologists and philosophers seem ready to grant that in the context of a theodicy."

      That proves my point. That's not an exegetical argument. That reflects the viewpoint of many apologists and philosophers. But that doesn't mean it reflects the viewpoint of the narrator. Indeed, that's in danger of mirror reading. Imposing your preconceived idea on the text.

      

"I think YEC, on any packaging, requires very rapid evolution that would, by secular standards, still be equivalent to macroevolution."

      i) Are you alluding to the explosive postdiluvial speciation of survivors on the ark? Even if we classify it as macroevolutionary, that would simply introduce a point of tension between the YEC view of creation and the YEC view of the flood, where the former opposes macroevolution at the front door while the latter waves it through the back door.

      ii) Again, though, I'm talking specifically about macroevolution, not just accelerated evolution.



      "If the YEC thinks the fall happened very shortly after the 7th day this objection may not carry as much weight. Carnivores like lions wouldn't have to live on a herbivore diet for very long."

      The question at issue isn't whether some carnivores can survive (at least for a time) on vegetation.

      "And since some YEC are willing to entertain the idea that a T-Rex's carnivorous elements didn't arise until post-fall (http://tinyurl.com/ls23ghy), I doubt they'd have trouble accepting the vampire bat and jellyish arising, at least in their carnivorous state, post-fall too."

      But the price they pay for that move is theistic macroevolution. 



      "Concerning your (vii) - I've never come across a YEC argument to the effect that it is *morally impermissible* for God to allow predation before the fall. The only argument I've seen is that the evaluation 'very good' is not fitting in a world of death, disease, predation. It is morally permissible for God to allow predation before or after the fall--but God wouldn't look at a world post-fall or pre-fall with predators, disease, and suffering and call that 'very good.'"

      They typically play up the invidious contrast between an evolutionary nature-red-in-tooth-and-claw scenario over against their Doctor Dolittle alternative.

      Delete
    2. >>That proves my point. That's not an exegetical argument. That reflects the viewpoint of many apologists and philosophers. But that doesn't mean it reflects the viewpoint of the narrator. Indeed, that's in danger of mirror reading. Imposing your preconceived idea on the text.

      Ok. But from an exegetical standpoint isn't the text silent on the issue? It doesn't give us a Cartesian picture of animals either. In that case, one can make the intuitive or otherwise appeal, granting the danger in that.

      >>i) Are you alluding to the explosive postdiluvial speciation of survivors on the ark? Even if we classify it as macroevolutionary, that would simply introduce a point of tension between the YEC view of creation and the YEC view of the flood, where the former opposes macroevolution at the front door while the latter waves it through the back door... But the price they pay for that move is theistic macroevolution. 



      Yes, I was alluding to the postdiluvian speciation. As for the point of tension I'm not sure whether you're, again, just talking about the standard YEC package. I agree that some YEC have a "yuck" factor when it comes to macro-evolution. They don't like the idea of it. Macro-evolution = bad. But I see nothing wrong with the concept per-se... I just don't happen to think God created that way. So if some Darwinist wants to argue that the rapid speciation that took place post-flood (or even post-fall in regard to, say, snakes losing their legs) counts as theistic macroevolution I'd be inclined to say "So?". If the YEC has some principled objection to God macro-evolving a species, I'm not aware of it.

      >>They typically play up the invidious contrast between an evolutionary nature-red-in-tooth-and-claw scenario over against their Doctor Dolittle alternative.

      That's true and I guess that might be the "principled objection" to it floating around in the back of their minds. But the rapid speciation or the case of the snake loosing it's legs isn't coming about through the same sort of nature (red in tooth and claw) mechanism and, at any rate, it's occurring in a post-fall world that has lost it's "ver good" status, presumably.

      Delete
    3. janitorialmusings

      "Ok. But from an exegetical standpoint isn't the text silent on the issue? It doesn't give us a Cartesian picture of animals either. In that case, one can make the intuitive or otherwise appeal, granting the danger in that."

      As I've written in my review of John Loftus on the so-called problem of animal pain, I don't have that intuitively problematic.

      Delete
  2. While meandering through the internet today (I started off on an OEC website and through a series of links ended up on a YEC website) I happened upon this statement which is relevant to an earlier point I made:

    From Todd Wood:

    "...horse evolution is not microevolution. Although it's a vague term, microevolution generally refers to evolutionary changes within a species. Horse evolution produced new species, genera, and even subfamilies. I'll probably get a lot of flak for saying this, but horse evolution counts as a kind of macroevolution."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think some YECs accept speciation. After all, that's a narrow modern taxonomic category whereas YECs focus on natural kinds (or "baramins").

      Usually they draw the line with new body parts, new body plans...that sort of thing. And, of course, they reject universal common descent, simple-to-complex, from goo-to-you.

      Delete
    2. Hi janitorialmusings,

      Thanks for the comment.

      1. Wood has often been far more critical of fellow "YEC" Christians than he has been of theistic evolutionists and even secular evolutionists. I agree with a lot of his criticisms about how many "YEC" don't quite understand the intricacies of "evolution," but I think there's strangely something off about Wood being so hard on them, and not so on evolutionists with whom he apparently disagrees, though I can't quite put my finger on it.

      2. I know secular evolutionists like Larry Moran and his ilk as well as the guys over at Panda's Thumb often cite him favorably too. Whereas AiG has taken down at least one of his articles (on natural selection).

      3. Wood is good at tearing down poor arguments against modern evolutionary theory (e.g. his famous or infamous chimp genome article). But what about building up? It's possible I missed it, but I haven't read a whole lot from Wood arguing for his purported position ("creationism"). Maybe an article or two on baraminology.

      4. Is Wood still at Bryan? Has CORE Academy shut down? At the least, I believe Wood has stated he'll have to change from a more research-centered role to more teaching.

      5. I've said similar things about "microevolution" vs. "macroevolution" being a bit vague, and not necessarily always the best way to frame the debate.

      6. I don't know what Wood's specific arguments are about horse evolution not being "microevolution." But speaking broadly, Jonathan has addressed horse evolution here.

      7. "Horse evolution produced new species, genera, and even subfamilies" is the closest he gets to a specific argument. But, as a baraminologist who ostensibly argues for "kinds" rather than "species" and so forth, I find this somewhat disingenuous of an argument. Although it depends on precisely what he means (e.g. maybe he's making way for "kinds"?). Perhaps there's better context to his remarks.

      Delete
    3. I agree that Todd Wood is a little strange like that. However YEC does need its in-house critics, since they might be more open to listening to someone who identifies with them (although when all you do is criticize and fail to build a positive case it does call into question your credentials). Personally, I wish YEC were more open to what their critics are saying. There is, I think, more homogeneity among YEC than can be reasonably explained apart from some group think. e.g., why don't we see YEC who accept animal death before the fall, who accept a non-global flood, or, say, Grudem's suggestion about Gen. 1:16 (which solves the light-without-sun problem)? I understand, of course, that some YEC will think they have good reasons rejecting these views... But none of them are essential to YEC itself, though they are often treated as such, and there are certainly some good reasons for adopting these views. So one would expect some more diversity or openness here were it not for something like group-think going on. As Steve points out, YEC is pre-packaged and it's a shame that so many don't take a step back to examine that more. ... Or I guess I could just be overlooking something that links all things together as part of an essential package.

      Delete
    4. The power of tradition.

      Delete
    5. Hi janitorialmusings,

      Good thoughts, and I agree with a lot of it.

      Also, this might be obvious, but in case it's not: we don't need to accept the entire YEC "package" to accept parts. We can mix and match, so to speak, depending on what best accords with the Bible, what's most reasonable, etc.

      Delete
  3. Hairsplitting distinctives? Not when the Bible makes those distinctions. There is no indication that insects count as nephesh chayyah. See for example The Fall: a cosmic catastrophe: Hugh Ross’s blunders on plant death in the Bible. Why there are different models for the origin of carnivory is very simple: the Bible doesn't say why. But it does unambiguously teach a vegetarian diet for both humans and animals before the Fall. Also, regardless of one's view of end times, commentators on Isaiah such as Alec Motyer agree that he was alluding to Edenic conditions in chs 11 and 65, as documented in The carnivorous nature and suffering of animals. Another common blind spot for old-earth compromise is human death before the fall, and by sinful means, according to the "dating" methods they swallow.

    ReplyDelete