Republicans, Gallup and Young Earth Creationists

According to Charles Johnson:

That’s right — according to Gallup, 46% of the American public are hard core young Earth creationists who believe the Earth was poofed into existence in its present form about 10,000 years ago.

And for Republicans, of course, the numbers are even worse; 58% of Republicans are young Earth creationists.

America, we have a problem.

Most Americans are not scientists, of course, and cannot be expected to understand all of the latest evidence and competing viewpoints on the development of the human species. Still, it would be hard to dispute that most scientists who study humans agree that the species evolved over millions of years, and that relatively few scientists believe that humans began in their current form only 10,000 years ago without the benefit of evolution. Thus, almost half of Americans today hold a belief, at least as measured by this question wording, that is at odds with the preponderance of the scientific literature.

The picture is awesome. Half the reason I posted this. 

--Nick

Ken Ham's Ninja Defense

A bit cheap, but it made me chuckle.

--Nick

Inerrancy, Genesis and Terms of Endearment

OPENING

I've had a few recent shifts in thought about the topic of biblical inerrancy, spurred on by discussions with good friends, reading the Bible and perusing various literature about said holy book.

So, to begin this off on the proper foot, I'm going to create a phrase that I will attempt to defend in the ensuing post(s?) as the way I tend to approach the Bible. This definition is more of my own musings on the topic, as many within Christendom are arguing over it and I'm nothing if not needy for more controversy.

INERRANCY AS A BRICK WALL

I was raised with the idea of biblical inerrancy, and that was more or less defined by the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. Their "short statement" reads:

1. God, who is Himself Truth and speaks truth only, has inspired Holy Scripture in order thereby to reveal Himself to lost mankind through Jesus Christ as Creator and Lord, Redeemer and Judge. Holy Scripture is God's witness to Himself.
2. Holy Scripture, being God's own Word, written by men prepared and superintended by His Spirit, is of infallible divine authority in all matters upon which it touches: it is to be believed, as God's instruction, in all that it affirms; obeyed, as God's command, in all that it requires; embraced, as God's pledge, in all that it promises.
3. The Holy Spirit, Scripture's divine Author, both authenticates it to us by His inward witness and opens our minds to understand its meaning.
4. Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God's acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God's saving grace in individual lives.
5. The authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited or disregarded, or made relative to a view of truth contrary to the Bible's own; and such lapses bring serious loss to both the individual and the Church.

Presumably, this excludes interpolations within the text by stating implicitly that if it was not divinely inspired then it carries no authority. An example of an interpolation is a word or phrase that was not in the original manuscripts (further ex. 1 Corinthians 14:34-35; for a compelling conservative evangelical case for this, Philip Payne's "Man and Woman, One in Christ" pgs 217-67). But, upon reading this shorter statement, I don't find much that makes my toes curl or my scalp itch.

Interestingly, the writers also mention that inerrancy is not necessary for salvation (Article XIX), though they worry of the consequences.

A MOST LINGERING QUESTION

How do we honestly resolve apparent tension (historical, scientific, textual) in the bible without glossing over it?

DEFINITION

My view is one I will dub "flexible" or "open inerrancy." This means one can take into account various textual or historical errors by maintaining genre distinctions and personal witnesses. Various people viewing something from different angles resulting in various points of view on the same event does not nullify the actual event.

By this, I mean inerrancy (like evangelical) is a flexible definition and can include various options and ranges of influence. A big debate over this comes about by Mike Licona and Norm Geisler with Licona's view of Matthew 27 and the raised saints likely being not historical fact (one I agree with and support Mike). The question under the microscope is not the Bible's authority as most would suggest, but how to interpret such a strange little text within the confines of biblical authority.

An openness to expand the walls of inerrancy while maintaining biblical authority is what is necessary. We have to be personally critical to see if we can resolve issues within the text without a priori assuming that the bible is already perfect. I'm not willing to throw out the term "inerrancy" simply because other Christians claim ownership. In the same way Universalists don't get to claim Romans 5 or Calvinists get to claim Romans 9.

GENESIS AND THE "TEST CASE" FOR INERRANCY

I've heard it repeated that if one denies a "literal" interpretation (literal being used in an inflexibly flexible fashion, or rather, what makes sense to me is literal) of Genesis that one ceases being an inerrantist. I find this quite odd. So I'll muse a bit.

I think Genesis 1-11 aren't meant to be used or abused in a scientific fashion. Given the ANE culture and the prevalence of varying views of gods (an example being used that the gods flooded the earth because the puny humans were making too much noise) comes to mind.

Genesis personifies chaos, possibly utilizing the Babylonian god Tiamat (a primordial goddess of the sea; possible reference to Genesis 1:2 and the deep). This personification is used in a way to not only assert that YHWH is greater than their gods, but that YHWH is separate from creation (v.1). Though Church Father Origen was prone to over-allegorization, he never considered a "literal" view of 6 literal 24 hour days, citing the sequencing of the creation of night and day, sun and stars. The early church didn't seem to view Genesis in the same way, so I'm concerned why modern evangelicalism feels the need to draw the line at Genesis.

For a post-creation account exhibiting YHWH's subversive power, see Elijah's experience with the prophets of Baal. YHWH is bigger than your god (1 Kings 18).

Needless to say, Genesis cannot be read "literally" because it is not a literal account. Instead, from an ANE perspective, the greater principles are quite strong: YHWH is sovereign and creation came about because of a command. Genesis is intended to be a mythic, grandiose explanation as to the creator God's desire for community and his power to bring this about.

Another issue comes about when historical aspects are put in incorrect order, or technical difficulties like the spear/sword that King Saul is killed with in 1 and 2 Samuel. These would be technical errors, but they do not detract from the truth of the statement.

To view this in the oppose way is to miss the point of the text. At this point, the issue isn't the authority of Scripture, but of interpretive method. The method I have in mind can easily account for scientific formulation while maintaining the authority of the Bible.

A FALLIBLE DOXOLOGY

Maintain the bible's authority while keeping a critical eye is no easy task. In fact, I doubt I've done much to assuage the issues within the text. What about the "all or nothing" bit? Besides it being a fallacy, I don't see much of an issue. One needn't run away in fear unless they are committed to a specific view of Scripture that crumbles when challenged.

Hopefully this conversation helps. 

--Nick

(postscript) re-editing this post. Things may change.

BioLogos & Core Theistic Evolution Tenants

Ted Davis:

(1) The Bible is NOT a reliable source of scientific knowledge about the origin of the earth and the universe, including living things—because it was never intended to teach us about science.

This reflects not only modern scientific knowledge, but also (more importantly) modern biblical scholarship. Peter Enns and some other evangelical scholars have recently stressed this point, initiating a firestorm in the evangelical academic community that, so far, has confirmed my view that evangelicals in general are just not ready to deal with this, even though it is consistent with the classical notion of accommodation. My own comments about the magnitude of the problem, written before the firestorm started, can be found here.

(2) The Bible IS a reliable source of knowledge about God and spiritual things.

Remember the quip that Galileo attributed to Cesare, Cardinal Baronio, “The intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how heaven goes.” (We discussed this earlier in the series). Evolution was not an issue in Galileo’s day, but this platitude is frequently quoted by advocates of TE—and often without proper attribution to Baronio. Commonality obviously lies in the attitude, not the topic. Many critics of TE are willing to adopt Galileo’s approach when it comes to the Solar System, but not when it comes to evolution: they are anxious to keep Galileo out of the garden of Eden.

(3) Scientific evidence is irrelevant to the Bible—it is simply not a science book.

See above. This needs to be stated separately, since some believers look to science for “proof” of the Bible, just as some unbelievers look to science for “disproof.” Proponents of TE stress that science and the Bible aren’t like apples and oranges; rather, they are more like apples and rocks: you can hold one in each hand without tension, but they have very little in common. We wouldn’t look for God in the phone book, or in an automobile repair manual. Don’t look for science in the Bible. In principle, scientific theories neither support nor threaten the Bible.

(4) The creation story in Genesis 1 is a confession of faith in the true creator, intended to refute pantheism and polytheism, not to tell us how God actually created the world.

This is meant to echo what we said about the Framework View. It is not necessarily true that all TEs accept the Framework View or something like it, but many do. Most would probably say that the Bible is not contradicted by any specific scientific theory of biological diversity—unless that theory oversteps its philosophical boundaries and functions as a kind of religion, what Conrad Hyers called “dinosaur religion.”

(5) The Bible tells us THAT God created, not how God created

Again, this sounds like the Framework View—or, at least, it should. Belief in God the creator is consistent with science, and even supported by some aspects of science; but, it is not a substitute for scientific explanations.

For my part, I see too many similarities between ANE literature and Genesis 1-11 to consider it a historical account, though there may be historical truths involved. However, I think Ted gets close to the heart of the issue, and it not about how one takes the authority of the Bible, how one interprets it.

If one is attempting to stay true to the text, this includes the implication of genre and literary devices within the genre. To extrapolate principles is necessary, but to take every detail literally seems to go beyond the natural scope of the text.

Plus, a TE doesn't deny God created the earth. Imagine for a moment, that creation is linked with itself, and itself reflects the glory of God. In my own eyes, if I share DNA with creatures from the past, that shows me how God not only brought me/us forth, but that we share a special bond with creation. That creation is intrinsically linked.

But, I'm just musing right now. For me, point 5 is the better point; one that I made when I was a staunch OEC.

For the entire article, click HERE.

--Nick

Odd Theology: Pokemon, Dominionism & Appositional Musings

I might just do this every Sunday. Play some Pokemon and muse about the relationship between Pokemon and theology or philosophy. Y'know, nerd stuff.

Beginning with the naming of the villain:

Of course he does.

I did name my Bulbasaur "Origen." Yes. Yes I did. And I got my ass kicked by the little flamer.

This is actually kinda fun. Won't lie.

And the final results of my foray into the Pokemon realm:

Most of my favorite theologians, or at least one's I tolerate. Augustine being one. The next one's on my list are KIERKEGAARD, DANTE, PINNOCK, HITCHENS (yes, that guy) and TALBOTT.

In thinking and playing this, I do wonder why Pensacola and others reacted so strongly to the creatures "evolving." I probably learned more about biological evolution and science from the two weeks I was allowed to play Pokemon than I did in the several years of A Beka book material. Though Pensacola did allow me to play with corrosive chemicals.

Anyway.

I just got a Pikachu and named him CLEMENT. I tried naming him GAIMAN, but I think I'll wait for a psychic Pokemon to be caught.

As for theology, I do find interesting parallels between Genesis, Christian dominion-ism and the Pokemon world. Not really, but run with me.

I don't really consider Genesis 1-11 to be historical. Sure, historical things may have happened, but I see too many parallels with near-eastern creation myths and don't find the hermeneutical methods of interpreting Genesis in a young earth way very persuasive. In regards to Pokemon, I see some sort of De/Theistic Evolution at work, given the near mythological creatures and that some of the townspeople have a near "religious" fascination with them.

Gotta catch em' all never sounded so fanatical.

But, considering that Genesis 1:28 is often the central proof text for Christian Re-constructionists to support literally "ruling" the earth ( as well as "Christian" rule but I won't get into that), it came to mind when I realized I was capturing and subduing the entire nation of creatures known as Pokemon. Was it "good?" Not "good?" Or very "good?" It begged the question, "should I have dominion over this world, and subdue each creature for my own personal gain?"

Then I realized that I was debating this over brightly colored pixels when I could be eating tacos and playing basketball.

Til next Sunday!

Gonna catch em' all.

--Nick

Wright, "Creationism vs. Evolution: An American Story"

Robert Wright over at National:

About half of Americans--46 percent, in the latest Gallup Poll--believe human beings weren't created by evolution. 

Over at the Daily Dish, Andrew Sullivan says this is a grave problem. "I simply do not know how you construct a civil discourse indispensable to a functioning democracy with this vast a gulf between citizens in their basic understanding of the world." 

Over at Mother Jones, Kevin Drum says Andrew should calm down. "This 46% number has barely budged over the past three decades, and I'm willing to bet it was at least as high back in the 50s and early 60s, that supposed golden age of comity and bipartisanship. It simply has nothing to do with whether we can all get along and nothing to do with whether we can construct a civil discourse."

As the narrator of the old Certs commercial used to say: Stop! You're both right!

I agree with Kevin that it's not a big problem--at least, not a big inherent problem--that America is divided over evolution. There's only one policy arena where the two Americas naturally clash--the science curriculum of public schools--and even there they manage to avoid clashing most of the time.

But I do think that in recent years disagreement over evolution has become more politically charged, more acrimonious, and that the rancor may be affecting other science-related policy areas, such as climate change. 

My theory is highly conjectural, but here goes: 

A few decades ago, Darwinians and creationists had a de facto nonaggression pact: Creationists would let Darwinians reign in biology class, and otherwise Darwinians would leave creationists alone. The deal worked. I went to a public high school in a pretty religious part of the country--south-central Texas--and I don't remember anyone complaining about sophomores being taught natural selection. It just wasn't an issue. 

A few years ago, such biologists as Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers started violating the nonaggression pact. [Which isn't to say the violation was wholly unprovoked; see my update below.] I don't just mean they professed atheism--many Darwinians had long done that; I mean they started proselytizing, ridiculing the faithful, and talking as if religion was an inherently pernicious thing. They not only highlighted the previously subdued tension between Darwinism and creationism but depicted Darwinism as the enemy of religion more broadly. 

If the only thing this Darwinian assault did was amp up resistance to teaching evolution in public schools, the damage, though regrettable, would be limited. My fear is that the damage is broader--that fundamentalist Christians, upon being maligned by know-it-all Darwinians, are starting to see secular scientists more broadly as the enemy; Darwinians, climate scientists, and stem cell researchers start to seem like a single, menacing blur. 

I'm not saying that the new, militant Darwinian atheists are the only cause of what is called (with perhaps some hyperbole) "science denialism." But I do think that if somebody wants to convince a fundamentalist Christian that climate scientists aren't to be trusted, the Christian's prior association of scientists like Dawkins with evil makes that job easier. 

 For the rest, click HERE.

--Nick

Craig Keener, "Is Young-Earth Creationism Biblical?"

Credit on the bottom of the photo. Epic.

Keener:

Even self-identified evangelicals, who tend to read the Bible more conservatively than most other groups, do not speak with a unified voice regarding the process of creation. Clearly, young-earth creationism, which argues that the world was created in six 24-hour days, is widely promoted on a popular level. Less publicized is that a large number of evangelical thinkers prefer a different range of options. Let me briefly survey some options before turning to Genesis.

For example, like many other evangelical scientists, Francis Collins, former director of the Human Genome project, affirms evolution. A 2009 Pew Forum poll suggests that roughly a third of evangelical Protestants agree. More surprisingly, this approach among some evangelicals did not originate recently. For example, one of Darwin's leading U.S. defenders in the 19th century was a committed evangelical. Harvard biologist Asa Gray, featured on a U.S. postal stamp in 2011, never persuaded his friend Darwin that evolution displayed divine design, but Gray defended evolution.

Some prominent evangelical theologians today (such as Alister McGrath) support evolution, but even late 19th- and early 20th-century conservative theologians such as Calvinist B. B. Warfield and Baptist A. H. Strong allowed that God could have used evolution as a mechanism of creation.

For the rest, click HERE.

--Nick

"What's at Stake in the Doctrine of Creation?"

Tony Jones:

A week from now, I’ll be canoeing through the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness with ten Fuller DMin students, Brian McLaren, Courtney, and a couple guides from Boundary Waters Experience. Our conversations will center on Christian Spirituality and the Doctrine of Creation.

I’ve been doing a lot of reading and thinking about the doctrine of creation in preparation, and I’ve come to the conclusion that the doctrine of creation is like an onion: you peel away one layer, and you find an equally significant layer underneath. Another metaphor is dominoes: knock the first one down, and lots more begin to fall.

I’m so intrigued by this that I think my next book after Why Pray? will be on creation. And I see my thoughts falling under these major categories:

For the rest, click HERE.

--Nick

Scot McKnight, Peter Enns and "The Evolution of Adam" part II

The more I read Peter Enns, the more interesting I find his ideas. Very cool material, regardless of prior convictions. 

Chapter Three of Peter Enns’s new book The Evolution of Adam: What the Bible Does and Doesn’t Say about Human Origins looks at the relationship between the stories of origins contained in the Hebrew Scriptures – our Old Testament – and the stories of origins in the surrounding Ancient Near East (ANE) cultures. 

Before the mid-nineteenth century it was possible to read the Old Testament in isolation and marvel at the creation stories in Genesis, to believe that they were a unique special perfect revelation delivered to Moses during the sojourn in the wilderness. A multitude of discoveries over the last two centuries has challenged this view in deep and profound ways. 

Among the most important challenges are the tablets that have been found dating from the mid-seventh century BCE and earlier, in fragments much earlier, that relate creation myths and flood myths of Mesopotamia, both Akkadian and Sumerian. I am an amateur here, but have on my shelf books like Samuel Noah Kramer’s The Sumerians and Stephanie Dalley’s translations Myths From Mesopotamia and several others.  The ANE stories are both obviously different from and unnervingly similar to the stories of creation, flood, and re-creation in Genesis 1-11. Of particular significance is the evidence that these ANE myths have their origins in stories dating far earlier than Genesis in the form we have it in our bibles. 

The study of the ANE texts is taken by some, both within the church and outside the church as a challenge to the inspiration of Genesis in particular, and more generally to the validity of scripture as a divine book of any sort. The implications of the discoveries in ANE archaeology are either “worldly wisdom” to be resisted or one more nail in the coffin of an outdated religious superstition. Both these extremes are misguided and damaging.  Enns takes us in a different direction: 

Perhaps a better way of thinking about the issue is to introduce the phrase “genre calibration.” Placing Genesis side by side with the primordial tales of other ancient cultures helps us gain a clearer understanding of the nature of Genesis and thus what we as contemporary readers have a right to expect from Genesis. Such comparisons have made it quite clear that Israel’s creation stories are not prepared to  answer the kinds of questions that occupy modern scientific or even historical studies. Genesis is an ancient text designed to address ancient issues within the scope of ancient ways of understanding origins. (pp. 35-36)

McKnight/Enns PART II


Thoughts?


--Nick

Scot McKnight, Peter Enns & "The Evolution of Adam" pt I

I'm currently considering/reconsidering the various interpretative methods involving Genesis, and I'm told Enns is one of the top Christian thinkers investigating evolution. Besides, y'know, Francis Collins. ;-)

Instead Enns has written a book coming from his expertise as a biblical scholar (Ph. D. in Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations  from Harvard) and rooted in the conviction that we need to revisit scripture and think deeply about how to read Genesis and how to read Paul. The first chapters of The Evolution of Adam address the questions raised by Genesis regarding the origin and purpose of the creation narratives in the book. Although evolutionary biology challenges traditional Christian views of human origins, it is important to realize that this is not the sole challenge. The challenges to the traditional view of Genesis and indeed all of the Pentateuch from Genesis through Deuteronomy are both internal and external to the text. These challenges arise from Biblical Criticism, Archaeological study of the Ancient Near East, and from science.

To continue, Enns/McKnight


--Nick