Genesis - Again!

Hi Allen!

Of course God is the God of science and God, by definition, being all powerful, all knowing, etc. can do whatever he wants to do.  On the one hand (the Bible) we have evidence of a process of creation.  On the other hand, (empirical observation) we have evidence of the result of that process of creation.  Being stuck in the present, we're only ever able to hypothesise about the past.  Something to ponder, if you believe that God created Adam as it is described in Genesis, forming him out of the dust of the earth, breathing life into him, did God create Adam as a mature human being?  If so, why?  You can hypothesise that Adam had to be mature in order to be able to reason, obey, function and survive apart from other human interaction.  Genesis seems to indicate that Adam was formed quickly, and fully mature, for the purpose of survival, to fulfil God's commands (tend the garden, name the animals, not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil), etc.  If Adam had to be fully mature in order to function and survive, then one could hypothesise that the universe also had to be created fully mature in order to support Adam's life.  So, it is not as though God lacks the ability to create over a great period, or that he's trying to play a trick on us, rather, for life to exist on planet earth, the universe has to be exactly the way it is, as old as it is.  He created it mature, in an instant, just as he created Adam mature, in an instant.  Nor should we be put off by the suggestion that God somehow limits his power.  We know he chooses to do so, as Christ chose to humble himself and take on human flesh.

Science and theology are complementary disciplines, for sure.  We've seen the error of using the scriptures to define or limit science (Jesus said the sun rises and sets, therefore the sun moves around the earth!).  Thus, we also must be careful to use science to define or limit theology.  At the end of the day, science is the attempt to understand the empirical evidence.  That understanding is limited and therefore should be placed under the authority of special revelation, for the same reasons we place the teachings of the church (creeds, 3 forms of unity, etc.) under the authority of scripture.

Allen, "that's silly" you say.   I think you need a better justification than that.   God's foolishness is greater than the wisdom of men... did I get that right?    Does silly include people who restore old automobiles to look like new?   Or young actors who play old people?   What's the definition of silly?   Maybe the apparent age of the universe is old to us because we are not using the right glasses.   But, besides that, even if the universe was old, does that prove evolution?   In the theory of evolution, they are tied together.   But an old universe could exist without biological evolution. 

Faith in God is the first thing that many people call silly.   Are they right? 

Allen, I'm antagonistic towards the use of the word "silly".    I just think it is important to keep in mind the fact that many people would claim that for Jesus to feed 5000 men (plus women and children) with five loaves and two fish, would just be plain silly.  

When we measure two distant objects by the angle of difference, and calculate their distance and thus the age of the light we are observing, it would seem to be silly to say that they are younger than 10,000 years.   Perhaps so, but perhaps also there is a reason we do not yet know.   This reason may be "miraculous", or it may be a phenomena not yet known or understood.   There are some aspects apparently about the expansion of the universe for example which are difficult to measure in terms of estimating events of the past. 

I don't think God threw in dinosaur bones to throw us off.   But it is possible that the assumption about the age of these dinosaur bones is way off.  

Bottom line is that dinosaur bones do not prove maco-evolution.  

Steve Van Noort and Chad Werkhoven, in their 6/03/2011 postings do add very helpful thoughts to this discussion.  I would like to echo some of these concerns.  My own reflections (over the past 27 years) and reading in this area lead me to share the following concerns:

1.  I am concerned that we not capitulate to what we are told is the "vast consensus" and the "overwhelming evidence" that leads to believe that theistic evolution assuming a gradualist, uniformitarian development of life is the only acceptable view to be held by prudent and informed believers.  We are often accused of taking a "God of the gaps" approach, yet few acknowledge that there are many inconsistencies and "gaps" in neo-darwinian evolutionary theories.   Let's be done with saying that young earth, 24-day creationists are incapable of doing responsible and credible science.  Let's quit dissing "intelligent design theorists as not quite doing responsible science or engaging in "folk science" at best (ala Van Til).  It seems to me that even theistic evolutionists fall under the banner of "folk science."   All creationists of young earth or old earth stripe that i know, believe in evolutionary processes for adaptation and change within species.  But we've moved into a whole new realm of speculative and interpretive theorizing when we move to evolution producing new species out of existing species.

2.  Lets agree that, beyond the core doctrines of the Scripture, which are perpiscuous (sp?), some of these areas aren't, e.g. trying to lay rationally bare all points of the interplay between God's predestining decrees and man's will.    But I would contend that the "Book of General Revelation" has greater perspicuity only in science done in present time with immediately observable phenomena, but increasingly less so as we move to the earliest beginnings.  Science in this realm is, of necessity, more speculative and open to misconstructed hypotheses, etc.  So, when we get in a shoving match between the Book of Special Revelation (i.e., the Scriptures) and the Book of General Revelation (i.e., creation and our scientific approximations of how it works), humility is in order when speaking of beginnings on both sides of the conversation.  Scripture should not be the first to be radically reinterpreted or scrapped.  

I'm not terribly sympathetic when our own scientists "whine" that if God, by an intervening miracle, produced in a moment or a day a fully mature human that in all other situations would appear to be at least 20-30 years of age, that God is somehow "playing a trick on us."  This is unworthy and anthropomorphizes God's motives for what He has done.  Simply because the earliest points of beginnings might be beyond the reach of our ability to give a total scientific explanation doesn't mean that God deceived those who are called as scientists to unfold and explore His creation.  Frankly, I have not been sold on a young earth and 24-hour days of creation; yet, I would still maintain it is possible and not improbable given the character of almost every other miracle God has done as recorded in the Scripture, e.g. water-to-wine,  feeding the 5000 and the resurrection.  

So, when we come to the first humans I fully believe it possible to believe that two individuals were created by a special immediate act of God.  Literarily, I can see how "dust of the earth" could also be figurative and not exclude evolutionary processes just as "knit in my mother's womb" figuratively describes conception and gestation culminating in actual birth.  However,  I more appreciate Derek Kidner and Tim Keller as they attempt to craft a "permissible" view and a "possible" view that still takes seriously the historic event character of the opening chapters of Genesis.  I'm not comfortable with the idea of pre-hominid forebearers of the human race, but these two efforts at a concordist approach to Scripture and Science strike me as much more faithful to both. Kidner and Keller and others rightly see that to deny the two original humans (even if culled from pre-hominid forbearers) results in no gospel.    I am convinced, moreover, that neither science nor our theologizing will be able to conclusively nail down these matters.  Is it possible that God created in 6 24-hour days and is it unworthy to embrace a personal preference for this view of origins?  I think not.  Is it permissible and possible to see a vastly old universe and interpret Gen 1 as a highly stylized and exalted prose, using figurative descriptions of God's creative work that in no way address the actual length of days or the processes by which He formed man from the "dust of the earth"?  Certainly!  But, as Keller et al. warn, Genesis 2 is a retelling not in conflict with Genesis 1 but more is narrative more historical  in character  than poetic and, even if culled from 10 or 100,000 pre-hominds, the first two humans were at the very least such upon whom God bestowed His unique image and who fell in an actual historical fall.  To say otherwise, Keller notes, is unsafe and not necessitated by either science or Scripture.  Some theistic evolutionsists have even admitted with a bit of a sneer that Common DNA (between primates and humans) does not conclusively prove Common Descent, but as easily argues for Common Designer.  So, even 98% shared DNA between humans and primates does not compel or prove the view that man arose from primates via evolutionary processes.  But this admission has been dismissed with a sneer by some who derisively chide that we're putting God in the gaps.  Folks, frankly I think permissible and possible is the best we can get in this area.  You may like one view better than the other, find it more compelling, and only one view (maybe with modifications) will actually be found to be true.  But If our theologizing in some areas of reflection must admit to unresolvable mystery, why don't we expect the same of some areas of  the scientific enterprise?

My concern is that no miracle recorded, of the original creation or any other, in Scripture can be scientifically analyzed to correct conclusions about age and processes; not any.  If we say of the more traditional views of biblical origins that they're to be scrapped because they cannot be harmonized with our current scientific musings, what do we do with all the rest biblical miracles?  Are they, too, suspect? Surely we are not suggesting that creative miracles in the scripture could not have happened because they do not conform with the current scientific consensus of gradualistic, uniform evolutionary processes.  Did Jesus "deceive" or "trick" the crowd at the wedding in Cana by producing a grape wine of the best sort from water and not even using the grapes or normal processes of fermentation?  Did he do this to trick scientists or play games with them? Did He sin against the calling for scientists to explain the creation when he produced from a few loaves and fishes, by a creative miracle, enough food to feed a crowd of more than 5000?  This spontaneous production of so much food from so little original biomass certainly could not be accounted for by our scientific formulae of physics and matter.  No, I don't want to argue for a flat earth or a geo-centric universe or repeat the historical tragedy of censuring Galileo. But neither do I want to utterly cave to a science held hostage to atheist materialism and make as Berkhof called it a "theology of embarrassment."  

I would like to see our institutions of Christian learning invite to their faculty the diversity of theoretical views and their proponents, within the bounds of what scripture may, with integrity, be considered to allow.  Wouldn't it be neat if Calvin and Dordt and Wheaton, et al. all had on their faculties colleagues in the sciences and the theology departments of young earth and ancient universe, of a limited theistic evolutionary view, some of intelligent design, all respectfully reflecting, interacting in a robust conversation without hubris and thinly veiled slander?  I fear when we let one group get a lock on our institution and we refuse to hear dissenting voices we create a worse environment for doing responsible science and theology.  I think this is especially true in this matter of bio-origins and the beginnings of all things.  I believe our Synod needs to do something constructive to address these matters.  Simply dropping Declaration F or reinstating it does not fix the problem.  I initially felt reinstating Declaration F was called for, but I do no longer.  But I believe the recent articles by Daniel Harlow and John Schneider have not been helpful either, however well intentioned these men may be.  

Sorry for being so long and rambling.  But I hope this gets traction with some of us in the conversation.  I'm praying for our Synod and all you delegates, our professors and the churches.  May God guide and lead us well and for His glory.

Steve, it is good to fight against worldviews, especially in the church.   Philosophers and theologians love to fight and debate worldviews.  But for a worldview to mean anything to a scientist, you must be able to demonstrate and show how it is affecting the scientific work they do.   It is not just enough to say that it must be having an impact.  You have to show the mechanism of the impact of their worldview on their work. 

Our christian colleges would spend their time more profitably if they challenged the theory of evolution scientifically as well as philosophically and theologically.    Maybe it is an uphill battle.  But there are plenty of people, scientists, schools, colleges and universities who defend, accept, and swallow the theory of evolution and use it as a basis for interpreting everything they see.  We do not need any more of those.   We need people who are willing to stick out their necks, to postulate alternate theories, to examine other possibilities, to critique the status quo (which is the evol theory)  and to search for other mechanisms.   We really don't need a christian college that teaches and lives by a theory that ridicules scripture, miracles, belief, faith, God.   There are plenty of secular universities that do that. 

Good posts, Neil, I appreciate your views.    and Steve, too.  

A quote from your link:   "Unfortunately, Behe doesn't mention the Krebs in his book. A pity. Here is a complex biochemical system, clearly an excellent hook on which to hang his thesis. Right?     However, closer inspection of the literature reveals problems with such a "Krebs cycle is irreducibly complex" hypothesis..."

Why would you try to refute a comment that Behe never made, as you acknowledge yourself?   Seems a bit like bait and switch? 

Irreducibly complex does not mean that you could not have a smaller eye, or a different eye.   It means you need more than half the parts to make it work.   If you take 90% of it away, you do not have something useful, and usually if you take one small part away, it is also not very useful.   This reduces the chances based on random mutations, to get a combination of simultaneous mutations that would produce something useful, and this must be combined with a larger organism in which there are other parts that are also complex, and need to be there for the whole organism to function.   It is not only that you need all the parts, but they must also be there at the same time, in the right position, of the right size, and fitted together properly, and then hooked up to the larger organism properly.   A perfect eye without a brain behind it would also be useless. 

The eye of the ragworm is useful to the ragworm, but not to the human;  it would be like walking around with your eyes closed. 

The beefalo tends to revert back to the bison.  This appears to be more of a selection than a mutation.   There is an assumption by evolutionists that recessive genes must have originated from a mutation, but how is that proved?