Monthly Archives: February 2008

I’m not sure whether this picture is genuine, but I think it could settle forever the entire whale/cow common descent debate.

Part 1 of my John Walton’s “Greatest Hits” series can be read here.

Another favorite illustration is the weather. While it may not be purely random (certain known processes are involved, such as temperature, pressure, humidity, etc.), actual weather events can be seen to encompass a good deal of randomness when we look at the detail level, even with modern instruments and observations. Chaos theory is now invoked to describe these random processes.

I suspect if questioned, [some] would respond that these specific examples of God “directing” the otherwise natural and random processes of weather, are evidence of the NON-randomness of those particular events. But this is an ad hoc distinction. Looking from a neutral, scientific perspective, the events in question, though perhaps unlikely, would be part of the random distribution of possible weather patterns and indistinguishable from “non-directed” events. It is only by looking at those events with a theological perspective, knowing that in some cases there is a revealed “purpose” and intention behind them, that one can say they are non-random or directed. (And even then there is the question in many cases, did God cause the event, or did he simply infuse it with meaning through the message of the prophets or by the action of His Spirit working on human hearts, bringing them to repent of their ways?) In so doing, there has been introduced a completely different level of observation, and I suspect even a different definition of randomness when viewing the event from the perspective of “theological purpose” versus “physical process.”

This is a valid question for Theistic Evolutionists—for those who defend “undirected” evolution as the mechanism of evolution, do you also hold the idea of purposefulness at a higher level? Is there any Theistic Evolutionist who doesn’t confess directedness and purposefulness behind evolution, when viewing it above the level of scientific and biological fact? Isn’t this the very meaning of the term “Theistic” Evolution? Evolution is the mechanism of the biological level, theism is the mechanism of a higher order.

I also like the illustration that has been given before, of the words “God is love” written on a blackboard. At one level, they are simply solid bits of chalk adhering to the board. At a lower level, they are not solid at all, but are mostly empty space consisting of random motions of electrons, protons and neutrons. At a higher level, it can be seen that there is a non-random design and intentionality in the pattern of chalk, provided one recognizes the language of English in which they are written. And at a yet higher level of cognitive and emotional awareness, the words “God is love” mean something more than the pattern of the letters reveals, and on the highest level is God’s love itself which incapable of being fully understood. Which one of these levels of perception is the “true” one—the random motion of electrons, the designed pattern of bits of chalk created by human hand, or the divine reality of God’s love that transcends mortal ability to comprehend? They are all true from different frames of reference.

I’ve been “tagged” by ElShaddai Edwards at He Is Sufficient.

1. What translation of the Bible do you like best? New English Translation (NET)
2. Old or New Testament? New Testament
3. Favorite Book of the Bible? John
4. Favorite Chapter? Genesis 1
5. Favorite Verse? Revelation 21:5a
6. Bible character you think you’re most like? David … a “man after God’s own heart” (1 Sam 13:14) but with enough character flaws to offset things a bit
7. One thing from the Bible that confuses you? The timing and length of the Millennium
8. Moses or Paul? Paul
9. A teaching from the Bible that you struggle with or don’t get? The tension between man’s freedom and God’s sovereignty. Odd struggle for me, especially as a Calvinist.
10. Coolest name in the Bible? There were only two named angels: Michael and Gabriel. Guess which one I think is coolest?

I will now tag: Virgil Vaduva (Planet Preterist), Gordon J. Glover (Beyond the Firmament), and Tim Martin (Beyond Creation Science).

Many apologies for the lengthy delay between blog posts! On way too many occasions, when I had intended to summarize John Walton’s “Greatest Hits,” I found myself surfing the internet, aghast at how much science I’ve ignored over the decades. That, and reading Daniel J. Fairbank’s Relics of Eden! God, forgive me for: (1) ignoring your general revelation for so long, and (2) leaving my readers on the hook for what came next in my journey toward becoming an Evolutionary Creationist. Now that I’ve assuaged my guilt, on to what Paul Harvey calls “the rest of the story” …

Scientific Worldview vs. Integrity of the Text

In his wonderful online presentation, Walton offers up several options people consider when it comes to resolving the apparent contradictions between science and the biblical text:

(1) Construct an alternative science (e.g., Young-Earth Creationsim, Intelligent Design, etc.)
(2) Consider the text to only teach theological truths, not science
(3) Consider the text to be a vehicle for metaphor through use of poetry

Fortunately, these three options aren’t the only ones available to us. The first option, constructing an alternative science, is typically used when one cannot deal with the face value of the text. The YEC might say, “But I am taking the text at face value! The Bible clearly says that God created the universe in six days!” Walton, however, would respond that the Hebrews would have read the very same literature very differently. What a modern, 21st-century reader would consider a “face value,” or “literal,” interpretation of the text does not necessarily equate with what an inhabitant of the ancient Near East (ANE) would consider a “face value” interpretation.

In regard to the second option, considering the text purely theological, Walton asks whether Israel (or any other ANE culture for that matter) distinguished between “science” and “theology.” It is only because our understanding of the material world has progressed far beyond that of ANE cultures are we able to contemplate the difference between the physical and the metaphysical. Four millennia ago, that difference did not exist.

As tempting as it is to go for the third option, Walton urges us not to read the opening chapters of Genesis as mere literary expression, but rather as a literal (not literary) expression of Hebrew cosmology. Ironically, the YEC and ANE interpretations of Genesis 1 use the same methodology while producing two completely different conclusions as a result of their differing worldviews.

Does Genesis Concern Making Things?

99.9% of armchair theologians would say, “Duh!” to this question. ANE scholars, on the other hand, would likely smile and invite you to sit down with them for lunch and discuss some of the following points:

• The overarching theme of Genesis 1 is that of God creating order out of disorder.
• “Order” is thought of in terms of “functionality,” not structure. In other words, Genesis 1 is not speaking of God creating the universe ex nihilo (out of nothing), but rather of God assigning function to the cosmos and its component parts.
• The “existence” of an object is dependent upon whether function (or a name) has been assigned to it, not the fact that it takes up space. In ancient Egyptian thought, for example, things were considered “non-existent” if it wasn’t assigned a function.