The problem of evil assumes the existence of a world-purpose. What, we are really asking, is the purpose of suffering? It seems purposeless. Our question of the why of evil assumes the view that the world has a purpose, and what we want to know is how suffering fits into and advances this purpose. The modern view is that suffering has no purpose because nothing that happens has any purpose: the world is run by causes, not by purposes.
— W. T. Stace (b. 1886), Religion and the Modern Mind [1953]
Filed under Uncategorized
Filed under Uncategorized
If you’ve visitied this blog at any time over the past several months, you know I’m a huge Indiana Jones fan. When I went to see Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull last night, I was “as giddy as a school boy.” It suffices to say, I was extremely impressed with all aspects of the movie, from the technical art of movie-making to the intriguing storyline to unforgettable performances. This blog post won’t contain any major spoilers, but you can’t help but take note of the movie’s extra-terrestrial overtones, as it’s central in both the title of the movie as well as the official movie poster.
So what does the latest Indiana Jones flick have to do with the creation/evolution debate? Plenty.
As reported by Catholic News Agency last week, Fr. José Gabriel Funes, director of the Vatican’s Observatory, told the Vatican daily newspaper L’Osservatore Romano that Catholic doctrine allowed for the belief in the possible existence of extraterrestrial life. Fr. Funes, who tentatively believes in the Big Bang theory for lack of a “more complete and precise explanation of the origin of the universe,” posits that the hypothesis that extraterrestrial life exists should not and cannot be discounted, especially when one considers the size of our universe. I agree with Fr. Funes.
Even when I was a young-earth creationist, I never fell for the common YEC argument that extraterrestrial life didn’t exist soley because God’s redemptive focus was on our blue and green ball alone. (Be sure to read Answers in Genesis’ full response to the ET question, in which they claim that “the thrust of the biblical testimony [and] the purpose of creation is uniquely centred on this earth.”) Maybe it was because I had been immersed in science fiction (“Star Trek,” Star Wars, Planet of the Apes, “Battlestar Galactica,” etc.) from an early age that I could theorize beyond my YEC shackles. Regardless of the intellectual contradiction, the question always simmered on my mind’s backburner. After reading C. S. Lewis’ Space Trilogy, I began to think more seriously about the possibilities, both scientific and theological. Fr. Funes certainly has:
“I think there isn’t [a contradiction]. Just as there is a multiplicity of creatures over the earth, so there could be other beings, even intelligent [beings], created by God. This is not in contradiction with our faith, because we cannot establish limits to God’s creative freedom. To say it with St. Francis, if we can consider some earthly creatures as ‘brothers’ or ‘sisters’, why could we not speak of a ‘brother alien’? He would also belong to the creation.”
And what would alien scriptures look like? I’m sure they would read completely differently. God would have accomodated Himself to their history, their myths, their traditions, and demonstrate His love for them in a way that may be completely lost on us. This, of course, begs a completely different but intimately related question: Was there a Fall of Spock? Is an alien “fall” inevitable?
And this is where I disagree with Fr. Funes’ assertion that “[the alien race]
could have remained in full friendship with the Creator.” Granted, we don’t know how long it took for mankind to go from an guiltless covenantal state to one of estrangement from the Creator, but I’m not so sure that any finite being, however intelligent, could stay in God’s good graces long. Last September, I pondered the origin of sin while finishing up a 19-novel Star Wars series titled “The New Jedi Order,” which takes place 25-30 years after 1977’s Star Wars: Episode IV—A New Hope. What is most unique about this series (and this novel in particular) is its emphasis on the nature of the Force, the philosophy of its use, and the origin of the dark side. The following extract from the hardcover version of Star Wars: The New Jedi Order—The Unifying Force (p. 268) features Jedi Master Luke Skywalker speaking with his nephew Jedi Knight Jacen Solo, son of Han Solo and Princess Leia:“… the dark side is real, because evil actions are real. Sentience gave rise to the dark side. Does [the dark side] exist in nature? No. Left to itself, nature maintains the balance. But we’ve changed that. We [sentient beings] are a new order of consciousness that has an impact on all life. The Force now contains light and dark because of what thinking beings have brought to it. That’s why balance has become something that must be maintained—because our actions have the power to tip the scales.” [emphasis in original]
(I was hoping to save questions like these for a special series on the theological ramifications of evolutionary creationism, but the timing of Fr. Funes interview and the release of the latest Indiana Jones flick was too tempting. I apologize for jumping the gun!)
Filed under Uncategorized
R. C. Sproul, Sr., who was extremely influential in my break from futurist eschatology, appears to have finally taken a stance on creationism. Ironically, in interpreting the early chapters of Genesis, he abandons the historico-grammatical method that he utilized so well in examining portions of Scripture that deal with the Second Coming of Christ (see Sproul’s The Last Days according to Jesus, as well as James Stuart Russell’s The Parousia).
Filed under Uncategorized
Steve Martin (Evangelical Dialogue on Evolution) has begun a multi-essay series written by some heavy hitters in the theistic evolution/evolutionary creationist movement. First up is “Creation, Evolution and the Nature of Science” by Kansas State University geology professor Keith B. Miller, editor of Perspectives on an Evolving Creation. Equally outstanding is the discussion that follows, which sparked Steve Douglas’ thoughtful blog post at Undeception.
Gordon J. Glover, author of Beyond the Firmament, has been blogging on science and education, several posts of which contain outstanding historical anecdotes detailing the conflict between mankind’s expanding knowledge base and faulty scriptural interpretive methods (i.e., hermeneutics). Check out the first one here and keep on reading!
Comments Off on Making (r)Evolutionary Waves in Creationist Ponds
Filed under Uncategorized
About the same time that I was introduced to the work of Howard J. Van Till, I was also introduced to the late paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould (1941-2002). I must confess that, until I read Gould’s outstanding essay “Nonoverlapping Magisteria,” I had never (and still have not) read a shred of Gould’s other works. I plan to remedy that down the road.
Gould was not, by any means, a theist. However, Gould respected the role of religion—a role that had the potential of giving mankind a sense of purpose and providing human beings with a method by which we could make contextual sense of the world around us. These were facets of our existence to which science could not speak. Like Van Till, Gould believed that the scientific method and the various religio-philosophical pursuits provided appropriate answers to different questions regarding identical phenomena, both of which were equally valid ways of understanding the universe which need not conflict—as long as each discipline respected the other’s domain.
Here are some highlights from Gould’s essay that I find extremely profound:
The lack of conflict between science and religion arises from a lack of overlap between their respective domains of professional expertise—science in the empirical constitution of the universe, and religion in the search for proper ethical values and the spiritual meaning of our lives. The attainment of wisdom in a full life requires extensive attention to both domains—for a great book tells us that the truth can make us free and that we will live in optimal harmony with our fellows when we learn to do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly. [bold emphasis mine]
No such conflict should exist because each subject has a legitimate magisterium, or domain of teaching authority—and these magisteria do not overlap (the principle that I would like to designate as NOMA, or “nonoverlapping magisteria“). . . . The net of science covers the empirical universe: what is it made of (fact) and why does it work this way (theory). The net of religion extends over questions of moral meaning and value. These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry . . . . This resolution might remain all neat and clean if the nonoverlapping magisteria (NOMA) of science and religion were separated by an extensive no man’s land. But, in fact, the two magisteria bump right up against each other, interdigitating in wondrously complex ways along their joint border. Many of our deepest questions call upon aspects of both for different parts of a full answer. . . . NOMA represents a principled position on moral and intellectual grounds, not a mere diplomatic stance. NOMA also cuts both ways. If religion can no longer dictate the nature of factual conclusions properly under the magisterium of science, then scientists cannot claim higher insight into moral truth from any superior knowledge of the world’s empirical constitution. This mutual humility has important practical consequences in a world of such diverse passions. [bold emphasis mine]
Since I began this blog, many have applauded me for finally reconciling my faith with the findings of science. In response, I tell them that I don’t need the applause. The perception that a reconciliation was required is really a false one, for there was no real conflict to begin with. The only conflict that existed was a product of my own misunderstanding of both science and religion.
Having taken the “red pill,” I was ready to see how far evolution’s rabbit hole really went . . .
Filed under Uncategorized
If I really wanted to let my sarcastic side loose, I wouldn’t have added any words to my review of Ben Stein’s propaganda tour-de-force Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed beyond those present in this post’s title. But I’m not feeling so sarcastic today. In fact, I’m feeling quite angry.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, I won two tickets to see Expelled. Being new to the area, I really didn’t know who to take. By chance, I met JP, whose wife attends my wife’s local bible study. Being the intelligent fellow JP seemed to be, I figured seeing Expelled would be right up his alley. Thankfully, I was right, and we had an excellent conversation on the merits and boundaries of both science and religion during yesterday’s drive home from Salinas, where we viewed the movie. (Thank God it wasn’t an IMAX. The director of photography loves closeups. Remember the “Seinfeld” episode about the mole?)
We both admitted that the movie was an extremely powerful piece of propaganda, regardless of the truthfulness or falsity of its claims. The liberal use of pre-color television, news, and motion picture clips were ingeniously interspersed throughout the movie in order to reinforce the charges that Expelled made, namely: (1) people from various industries have lost their jobs and sufferered humiliating ruination all because they “mentioned” Intelligent Design in the workplace, and (2) Darwinism is the beginning of a slippery slope into atheism and a philosophy of life that not only allows but encourages abortion, euthanasia, eugenics, and other moral monstrosities, much like those (if not identical to) crimes against humanity conducted by mid-20th century Nazism and communism.
In regard to the first charge, I was naturally skeptical. One of my favorite rock bands of the 90s was Extreme, founded by former Van Halen lead singer Gary Cherone. As the band progressed through their four studio albums, Cherone’s Christian faith made its presence known increasingly. Their third album was titled III Sides to Every Story (1992), which was was divided into three parts: “Yours,” “Mine,” and “The Truth,” the last of which contained some of the most gorgeous statements of Davidic pleading and faith I’ve heard in modern music. But I digress. My point is that Ben Stein, et al, were not telling the whole story regarding the alleged dismissals of those Stein interviewed, and it appears that the interviewees took great pains to paint pictures of a vast atheistic conspiracy to target Christian scientists or teachers who believe in God by leaving out (conveniently, I might add) details that would change the story from “Mine” to “The Truth.” ExpelledExposed.com provides more illuminating details on each of the six “victims.”
In recent years, advocates of “Intelligent Design” have proposed teaching “Intelligent Design” as a valid alternative theory for the history of life. Although scientists have vigorous discussions on interpretations for some aspects of evolution, there is widespread agreement on the power of natural selection to shape the emergence of new species. Even if there were no such agreement, “Intelligent Design” fails to meet the basic definition of a scientific idea: its proponents do not present testable hypotheses and do not provide evidence for their views that can be verified or duplicated by subsequent researchers.
The movie also makes the claim that scientists’ attempts to discover a natural explanation for the origin of life on earth have come to a complete standstill since the failed experiments of the 1950s in which scientists applied electricity to a primordial soup in hopes that life would spontaneously arise. This can’t be further from the truth, as scientists have recently made great leaps toward understanding what environmental conditions may have served as a cataylst for the origin of life. (No Lightning Allowed. Sorry, couldn’t resist.)
Also disturbing was Stein’s “guilt by association” sleight-of-hand, which linked Darwinism’s allegedly logical ends and the horrific Holocaust perpetrated by Hitler’s Nazi regime. Stein even quotes Darwin at length while touring the remnants of Germany’s concentration camps, creating a powerful indictment of a brilliant man who harbored no such ill will toward any of his fellow man. But Stein’s Darwin quote is selective, leaving out entire sentences in order to make Darwin sound like a card-carrying member of the Aryan race. To the contrary, if one were to read the passage in context and in full, it turns out that Darwin extolls the nobleness of the human race (having risen above its animal instincts) and depicts the elimination of the weak and helpless (like those conducted by Hitler’s goon squads) as a supremely selfish act and an “overwhelming present evil.” Shame on you, Ben Stein. Back of the line! No primordial soup for you!
And poor Richard Dawkins. If he only knew for what his interview was really intended. As much as I disagree with Dawkins’ philosophy, I feel sorry for him and others (like PZ Meyers) who were hoodwinked into thinking their interviews were being filmed for an objective documentary. Does anyone know if Alister McGrath and John Polkinghorne, both theistic evolutionists, knew that their interviews would be featured in Expelled? From the quotes used, I doubt anyone in the audience would have suspected that they are theistic evolutionists who, as far as I know, don’t accept the precepts of the Intelligent Design movement.
You’d think that Expelled‘s deliberate misrepresentation of the facts, both in terms of movie production and presentation of the scientific evidence, would make me angry. Not so much. I wouldn’t expect anything more from a fringe establishment trying to masquerade their faith as science. With such an entrenched paradigm, their actions don’t surprise me. So what is making me angry? Honestly, it’s the fact that one year ago I would have fallen for Stein’s presentation—hook, line, and sinker. I’m also angry at how easily Christians fall for half-truths and outright lies. I’m angry at how often we Christians check our brains at the door and are perfectly willing to serve as messenger boys for the most outrageous urban legends, folk sciences, doctrines, and just plain idiotic belief systems. I’m angry at Christianity’s penchant for dismissing the claims of biological and astronomical science despite the voluminous amount of evidence in favor of evolution.
Have you seen Expelled? What are your thoughts?
Filed under Uncategorized
Faced with the scientific evidence of an old earth, as well as the literary evidence that Genesis 1 was intended as a combination creation “myth”/temple text, I found it much easier to understand how some Christians could reconcile the theory of evolution with their faith. I immediately recalled the name of Howard J. Van Till, whose theistic evolutionist contribution to Zondervan’s Three Views on Creation and Evolution I never read because I dismissed it as an outrageously inconsistent position that was incompatible with the doctrine that the Bible, as God’s inerrant word, is historically and scientifically accurate in regard to all topics upon which it touched. But I knew that I’d come across Van Till’s name long before. I checked my personal library’s creation/evolution section (still bursting at the seams with YEC literature and a smattering of OEC stuff from Hugh Ross), but couldn’t find his name. Then I remembered: it was packed away in a box of books in the garage.
Over 20 years ago, my dad gave me Science Held Hostage: What’s Wrong with Creation Science and Evolutionism, written by Howard J. Van Till, Davis A. Young, and Clarence Menninga. (In retrospect, I’m pretty sure my dad wouldn’t have agreed with the authors; I think he just wanted to give me a book that fit my interests.) Sadly, I didn’t crack it open for two decades. But after having adopted Walton’s ANE perspective, something urged me to unpack that box, dig out the book, and “pick up and read.” Within a few short chapters, I was convinced of the book’s core message: both creationists (of the young- and old-earth sort) and evolutionists (of the rabid atheistic sort—hence, the “-ism” in evolutionism) had presented us with a false dichotomy. As such, both atheistic evolutionism and special creationism victimized the public by demanding we choose one of two options: either (1) science can settle infallibly (or legitimately discard) questions of a philosophico-religious nature, or (2) religion can infallibly answer questions of a scientific nature.
Because both groups colluded (albeit unintentionally) to form this false dichotomy, Van Till, et al, considered both groups to be “folk science.” In “FROM CALVINISM TO FREETHOUGHT: The Road Less Traveled”, Van Till writes:
. . . a ‘folk-science’ is a set of beliefs about the natural world—beliefs that need not be derived from, or even consistent with, the natural sciences—beliefs whose primary function is to provide comfort and reassurance that the rest of one’s worldview is OK.
The illusion
of “irreducible complexity” isn’t as unassailable as ID proponents would want the public to believe. As much as I sympathized with the ID movement in its quest to prove the existence of an Intelligent Designer via the scientific method, thus explaining “knowledge gaps” as evidence of divine creative activity and supernatural tampering, the core of my being didn’t want any part of that. Did I really want to be caught holding the ID bag when scientists declared that something previously thought “irreducibly complex” by ID proponents was, in fact, “reducibly complex”? Of course not. Van Till’s aforementioned essay “FROM CALVINISM TO FREETHOUGHT” essentially updates the core of Science Held Hostage‘s message to take ID into account:Similarly, the concept of Intelligent Design functions today as the folk-science of a large portion of the broader Evangelical Protestant population in North America. A fundamental tenet of ID’s folk-science is that the system of natural causes fails to include the formational capabilities needed for assembling certain complex biotic structures, such as the bacterial flagellum. If natural causes are inadequate, then the form-imposing intervention of some non-natural Intelligent Designer must have been essential (wink, wink, we don’t say who the Designer is, but you know who we mean). And if supernatural (power over nature) intervention was necessary for the formation of rotary motors on E. coli bacteria, then there is nothing standing in the way of Evangelicals maintaining their conviction that God could have performed all of the other supernatural acts portrayed in the Bible.
Filed under Uncategorized
Men today do not, perhaps, burn the Bible, nor does the Roman Catholic Church any longer put it on the Index, as it once did. But men destroy it in the form of exegesis: they destroy it in the way they deal with it. They destroy it by not reading it as written in normal, literary form, by ignoring its historical-grammatical exegesis, by changing the Bible’s own perspective of itself as propositional revelation in space and time, in history.
— Francis Schaeffer (1912-1984), Death in the City [1969]
Filed under Uncategorized
I know Van Till was supposed to be the subject of my next post, but this link was too good to pass up! Chris Tilling, at his Chrisendom blog, tells his own creationist-to-evolutionist story, albeit in a much more succinct way than I have.
[HT: Exploring Our Matrix’s James F. McGrath]
Comments Off on From Creationist to Evolutionist – Chris Tilling’s Story
Filed under Uncategorized
