Rethinking the αlpha and Ωmega

Some of my regular readers may have noticed, by the logo in the upper right-hand corner of my blog, that I was recently accepted as a full member of the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA), “a fellowship of men and women of science and disciplines that can relate to science who share a common fidelity to the Word of God and a commitment to integrity in the practice of science.”

I am extremely excited to have joined this unique organization, which is also dedicated to “providing advice and direction to the Church and society in how best to use the results of science and technology while preserving the integrity of God’s creation.” I would encourage anyone with a BS, MS, or doctorate in the sciences, regardless of your origins position, to seek out more information about joining this wonderful community of scientists by visiting the ASA website.

More recently, I’ve been in contact with the NCSE: National Center for Science Education, a non-profit organization dedicated to “providing information and resources for schools, parents and concerned citizens working to keep evolution in public school science education.” After investigating the organization’s mission and reading their most recent issue of its Reports of the National Center for Science Education journal, perusing the NCSE channel on YouTube, and participating in several email exchanges with Glenn Branch, the organization’s Deputy Director, I decided to take the plunge and join as a lifetime member!

If you are dedicated to ensuring that our children are receiving the best possible science education, it is imperative that the (well-meaning) efforts of my fellow Christian brothers and sisters to force the teaching of Special Creationism and/or Intelligent Design in the public school system be stopped cold. Joining the NCSE and participating in a number of activities that help support the teaching of evolution in America’s public educational system is one of the best ways that we can accomplish this. (Subscriptions and contributions are fully tax deductible.)

The fourth chapter of Evolutionary Creation, “The Ancient Science in the Bible,” is without a doubt the most illuminating chapter in Lamoureux’s book. It is this chapter, in fact, that has forced me to abandon John Walton’s position that Genesis 1 was not about the creation of material things. In a previous post, I wrote, “Walton argues that, in [Genesis 1], God is establishing function and purpose. . . . God is establishing order in the universe. Genesis 1:2 states the cosmos was ‘formless and empty,’ that is, not lacking material structure, but rather order and purpose.” As much as I appreciate Walton’s outstanding scholarship, I no longer believe this to be an accurate statement.

Just over a year ago, at the Ancient Hebrew Poetry blog, John Hobbins observed that “Walton’s arguments are receiving a lot of attention, perhaps especially from those who espouse evolutionary creationism (Mike Beidler, for example).” Apparently, Hobbins is concerned about this because he believes that not only does Genesis 1 describe the assignment of functions to things, but that it also concerns the material creation of things. In the aforementioned post’s comments, Professor of Hebrew Studies and Ancient Near Eastern Studies Alan Lenzi also took me to task for “taking Walton’s view as the typical ANE scholar’s view. And that’s simply not the case.” Interesting, I thought. I’ll have to check into this a little bit more. It didn’t take long to begin seriously reconsidering my stance on this, and chapter 4 of Evolutionary Creation has (in lieu of Walton’s forthcoming monograph on Genesis 1, which was announced in his response to Hobbins) put me solidly in the camp of Hobbins and Lenzi.

Considering all of the other non-Genesis 1 references to “ancient science” throughout the Scriptures that Lamoureux presents, it also makes sense to interpret Genesis 1 this fashion. Did the ancients not really consider, as Walton suggests, how the material world came into existence? My suspicion is that Walton, despite the evidence, is forced to interpret Genesis 1 as a “non-material” creation account (albeit wrapped up in a genre that mimics ancient Mesopotamian and Egyptian temple dedication texts; see this post) because his commitment to a certain brand of biblical inerrancy requires him to do so. In essence, Walton’s brand of inerrancy posits that, even in matters of science, the Bible is without error. (Walton also seeks to anchor the events and personalities of Genesis 2-11 solidly in history.) By reinterpreting Genesis 1 in such a fashion that it does not touch on the creation of material things, he bypasses the “more correct” and “more natural” interpretation for one that is in more harmony with his hermeneutic.

So what was this evidence that made me shift camps from Walton to Hobbins/Lenzi? The first line of evidence was the voluminous amount of biblical references to a 3-tiered universe. Of course, this fact is nothing new to Walton. In fact, he agrees wholeheartedly that Genesis 1’s cosmology contains the three tiers of heaven, earth, and the underworld. But Walton wants to have his cake and eat it too. Because this cosmology doesn’t comport with physical reality (which Walton will readily agree), he believes Genesis 1 cannot possibly be speaking of material creation. However, this ancient cosmology isn’t just restricted to Genesis 1; it extends into the New Testament as well (e.g., Phil 2:10), and it is much more pervasive than Walton either lets on or recognizes. Thus, Walton’s hermeneutic appears to stop at Genesis 2 and fails to work beyond this point.

The Evidence of the Bible’s Ancient Science

Many Christians would claim that descriptions of a 3-tiered universe fall into the category of “phenomenological language,” that is, language that describes appearance from a certain, fixed perspective rather than reality—for example, sunset and sunrise. It is true that we use terms like sunset and sunrise as phenomenological descriptions of the earth’s rotation on its axis, but that is only because our interpretation of Scripture is informed by the fact (taught to us in school and proven with every launch of a satellite or manned space mission) that we do not live in a geocentric universe. Prior to heliocentrism becoming mainstream, a vast majority of ancients took this so-called phenomenological language as scientific descriptions of reality. If this is so, then the Bible is, in fact, scientifically inaccurate. However, this does not bother Lamoureux one bit:

Passages in the Bible referring to the physical world feature both a Message of Faith and an incidental ancient science. According to this interpretive principle, biblical inerrancy and infallibility rest in the Divine Theology, and not in statements referring to nature. Qualifying ancient science as ‘incidental’ does not imply that it is unimportant. The science in Scripture is vital for transporting spiritual truths. It acts as a vessel similar to a cup that delivers “living waters” (John 4:10). However, the word “incidental“ carries meanings of “that which happens to be alongside” and “happening in connection with something more important.“ In other words, the ancient science in Scripture is “alongside“ the “more important“ Message of Faith. (p. 110; emphasis in original)

Lamoureux then proceeds to discuss numerous examples of “ancient geology” that bears absolutely no resemblance to physical reality:

• The earth is immovable (1 Chr 16:30; Ps 93:1; Ps 96:10)
• The earth is set on foundations (Job 38:4-6; Ps 75:3; Ps 104:5)
• The earth is surrounded by water (Gen 1:2; Job 26:10; Ps 24:2; Prov 8:27)
• The earth is circular, not spherical (Ps 19:4; Ps 104:2; Is 40:22)
• The earth has ends, or edges (Isa 41:8-9; Dan 4:12; Matt 12:42)
• The earth has an underside and an underworld (Num 16:31-33; Prov 5:5; Isa 14:15; Matt 11:23; Luke 10:15; Eph 4:9-10; Phil 2:10; Rev 5:13; Rev 20:14)
• The earth is flat (Dan 4:11; Matt 4:8)

Of course, these descriptions are not unique to the Bible; they are, in fact, similar if not identical to descriptions of the cosmos in other ANE cultures as depicted, for example, in ancient Babylonian maps.
Lamoureux next tackles “ancient astronomy,” in Walton-like fashion, discussing the likes of the daily movement of the sun, the firmament (the apparently firm, blue dome that covers the earth), the waters above the the firmament, the foundations and ends of heaven (including its various levels), and the placement of the sun, moon, and stars in the firmament itself. Like Walton, Lamoureux appeals to the original languages to bolster his arguments quite convincingly. (An eschatological futurist, Lamoureux has some interesting views on how he believes eschatological events might play out in the physical realm, but it is enough to say that Lamoureux believes that “divine judgmental action is filtered through ancient astronomical categories.” I’ll tackle this in a post later down the road.)

And if the Bible’s geology and astronomy weren’t ancient enough, Lamoureux adds “ancient biology” to the mix, proving that the Bible possesses ancient conceptions of taxonomy, botany, human reproduction, and the causes behind suffering, physical/mental disabilities, and disease:

• Bats categorized as birds (Lev 11:13-19)
• Cud-chewing rabbits (Lev 11:5-6)
• Mustard seeds declared (indirectly) smaller than orchid seeds (Mark 4:30-32)
• Spontaneous generation (Gen 1:11, 20, 24; Mark 4:26-29)
• The “one-seed” theory (Heb 7:9-10) of human reproduction, which blames the woman for being barren (Gen 11:30; Gen 25:21; Gen 29:31; Gen 30:22-23; Luke 1:7, 36; Heb 11:11).
• (Lamoureux takes an interesting view on the causes of various physical and/or mental maladies, to wit, that some of these illnesses attributed to demons actually have a natural, non-demonic cause. I’m not quite prepared to comment on this view.)

Conclusion

If the examples of ancient science in Scripture were relegated to only a few instances, one might be able to successfully argue against Lamoureux (and Walton, to a certain extent). However, it is clear to me that, in matters of science, the Bible does not concord with physical reality in a great number of cases. What are we to do with this fact? Lamoureux suggests that

it is necessary for modern readers of God’s Word to separate the Message of Faith from the incidental ancient science, and not to conflate these together. According to the Message-Incident Principle, inerrancy and infallibility rest in the spiritual truths of Scripture instead of its views on the structure and operation of the physical world. (pp. 146-147; emphasis in original)

I’d say this is an excellent place to start for the Christian struggling to reconcile the Bible with science. It is certainly counterintuitive at first to recognize and respect the incidental ancient science, but with practice it becomes natural to separate the “wheat” (theological truth) from the “chaff” (ancient science). It may also help to begin thinking of the Bible as somewhat incarnational, that is, both human and divine, much like (although not identical to) Jesus Christ. Is it really so hard to conceive of the Bible’s purpose as the transportation of divine truth in a fallible vessel? Wasn’t this also the case with the incarnation of the second person of the Triune God, Jesus Christ, who brought ultimate truth via the humiliating experience of becoming a physically fallible human being possessing an intellectually-limited human mind?

Several months ago, I came across a discussion of this blog on the CARM.org website. I was intrigued, to say the least. In fact, my primary critic, an apologist using the handle Mellotron, as well as the others involved in the discussion, was unaware that I was lurking. It was very interesting to observe the ongoing discussion unimpeded by my involvement.

After contacting Mellotron to request his permission to repost his critique of my journey from young-earth creationism to evolutionary creationism, he readily assented. So here it is, in full. For now, I’ll let my readers comment on Mellotron’s critique. After some time has passed, I’ll respond point-by-point in a separate post.

I’ve read through Mike Beidler’s blog and all of his “steps of the journey” so far, and I would honestly say that it IS an interesting blog by a sincere, honest, evangelical (at least so far) seeker of truth. A committed Christian man (at least so far). Really really clear explanation of Beidler’s life journey and how he arrived at the TE position. Sincere thanks for the head’s-up on this blog, Reb. I did enjoy reading it.

But, now that I did read about that Beidler’s journey, I would also say that there are some big problems there. I am not using that phrase “at least so far” in a comedic or joking manner.
Let me share some of my concerns.

Despite the clearly positive, intelligent, pro-dialogue approach of Beidler’s blog, and the obvious evangelical influences of his family (especially his father and his book-gifts), you can already see some really serious evolution-erosion (the kind Weisberg and Rachels talked about) brewing.

In brief, here’s the problems.

1. Beidler’s transition away from belief in OEC (a la the non-evolutionist John Walton) into Evolution via Gould and Van Till, is really really quick there….like a matter of mere months, not even a good full year.

That’s too quick, Reb. Beidler didn’t find any compelling evo-refutations of the overall OEC position that fast. In fact, as I reading each ‘step of the journey’, I don’t see where Beidler actually locates any compelling rational refutation (or set of refutations) from Gould and Van Till that would justify an abandonment of the overall OEC position itself.

Instead, at some point, he just stopped listening to the OEC’s (except when he needs somebody to run interference against the YEC’s). That’s not good.

I’m specifically saying that Beidler has gone too fast and thereby he FAILED to really “Test all things, hold fast to that which is good” (as the New Testament commands us) before jumping over to the TE position.

2. You can see clear erosion of Beidler’s biblical faith taking place even while Beidler was still transitioning from YEC to OEC.

Yes, Beidler was YEC-literate to some degree, with help from Daddy, but you can see from Beidler’s roommate hitting him with the starlight problem, that Beidler needed much more YEC education and training. And Beidler was apparently—totally—unprepared as a YEC to engage the challenge of TE when the roommate brought it up by suggesting evolution was compatible with Christianity. So the seeds of erosion were planted early on, especially in college.

Walton must also be mentioned in this respect. I have a lotta respect for OEC evangelical scholar John Walton (and one or two books of his as well), but one of Beidler’s discussion partners was able to point to the problem with Walton’s approach:

Walton’s “ANE approach”, when applied to Genesis, abandons the baseline Bible interpretation rule of “Scripture Interprets Scripture” and replaces it with “My Expert Opinion of ANE Texts Outside the Bible Interprets Scripture.”

(Indeed, when you hear Beidler say things like “the Hebrews would not have interpreted Verse So-and-so that way”—well, that’s exactly the same wording my atheist professor sometimes used to attack the historical and doctrinal reliability of the Old Testament!!)

Abandoning the “Scripture interprets Scripture” rule and replacing it with anything else…..hey that’s MAJOR erosion, bar none.

No wonder Beidler later allowed atheist Gould and TE VanTill to interpret Scripture for him. Beidler had already allowed Walton’s expert ANE opinions to interpret Scripture for him, instead of allowing Scripture to interpret itself. So when the other guys came along later……boom! Walton got dumped and so did the OEC position.

3. Speaking of Van Till……

(Please notice the highlighted part Reb—You’re talking about a Christian College professor who doesn’t even believe in the God of the Bible anymore!!! He had to retire early because he no longer believed in God whom he said he believed in when he originally signed the Christian College’s doctrinal faith statement. THAT’s what TE may ultimately do to a person!!)

(Van Till rejects supernaturalism now. That means rejecting a supernatural Resurrection of Jesus Christ too. Think it over. He’s a TE.)

Source—”The New Theology”, Chicago Tribune, 1-19-08

4. Speaking of Gould and NOMA…….Notice that Beidler never ever mentioned how he was coping (as an evangelical Christian) with the first commandment of Gould’s NOMA:

In other words, gotta abandon ALL historical claims of God doing ANY miracles in history, period. Even the Resurrection of Jesus Christ goes in the trash can. Otherwise you’re violating NOMA. Gould really means it. He is not joking with you or me.

But Beidler never addresses that one. He went ahead and accepted Gould and NOMA anyway. But he says he’s a Christian. No resolution.

Beidler gives NO indication that he’s spent an equal amount of time (nay, make that “spent any amount of time”) studying rational critiques and rebuttals to Gould’s NOMA and Van Till’s conception of TE.

Okay. Didn’t mean to do all this writing. These are just some notes I took while reading the blog like you asked YEC’s to do. I’m just trying to show you that I took your suggestion seriously.

But here’s the most important thing.

By his own admission, Beidler has NOT shown that evolution is compatible with Christianity. He is still struggling and has NOT found a reconciliation between the two.

Read the final paragraph of the final step, Step #12:

Dr. Francis Collins, former head of the Human Genome Project and author of The Language of God, recently unveiled the new website of The BioLogos Foundation, a private organization (funded by the John Templeton Foundation) which “promotes the search for truth in both the natural and spiritual realms, and seeks to harmonize these different perspectives.” In essence, the BioLogos concept is virtually indistinguishable from an evolutionary creationist or theistic evolutionary perspective, although I’m fairly confident that there are some nuances that are unique to the philosophy to which Collins and his board co-members hold. Two of those board members just happen to be Eastern Nazarene College’s Karl Giberson, author of Saving Darwin: How to Be a Christian and Believe in Evolution, and Point Loma Nazarene University biology professor Darrel Falk, author of Coming to Peace with Science: Bridging the Worlds Between Faith and Biology.

The website features a phenomenal FAQ that attempts to address many of the common questions and objections that Christians have in regard to accepting evolution in light of Scripture. It also features a page that, in the coming months, should prove to be an excellent source for teaching resources, audio/video lectures and presentations, online journals and essays, and links to additional websites and books.

After checking out The BioLogos Foundation’s website, be sure to also check out Steve Douglas’ comments regarding the BioLogos concept.

Two hundred years ago today, on 12 February 1809, Charles Darwin was born, sharing a birthday with America’s 16th president, Abraham Lincoln.

As the 200th anniversary of Darwin’s birth—and the 150th anniversary of the publication of On the Origin of Species—approached, I wasn’t sure exactly how to celebrate or observe it. I knew that I wanted to post a little tribute to Darwin, but I wanted to do something a little more substantial. So earlier this week, I ordered From So Simple a Beginning: The Four Great Books of Charles Darwin (ed. Edward O. Wilson), a single, hardcover volume (with slipcase!) collecting The Voyage of the Beagle (1839), On the Origin of Species (1859), The Descent of Man (1871), and The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals (1872). I felt that I needed to read Darwin’s works firsthand and not settle for someone else’s opinion (misinformed or not) of what Darwin wrote.

Only by critical questioning can I tell whether I am reading into the text, not only my own presuppositions and questions, but also those of my own generation and even those of my own church and religious tradition. Evangelicals have been too afraid of the word “criticism,” when only by critical questioning can I sufficiently disengage myself from my own worldly or religious (even evangelical) tradition to ask: Is this what the Bible is really saying?

— University of Chester (UK) Canon Professor Anthony C. Thiselton, BD, MTh, PhD, DD, DD