Science

The Life Dialogue: Young Earth Creationism 2

This is part of a series of posts on the “Life Dialogue” within Christianity. Check out other posts in the series here.

I realized as I was reading for this post that I, for some reason, have misrepresented and misinterpreted some of the evidences and arguments of Young Earth Creationism (hereafter YEC). I wrote before that a problem with YEC was “Where is the positive case? Rather than attacking all other views, where is the scientific case building bottom up a YEC explanation of the universe? I think this is absolutely essential for YEC to offer any competition [to other theories].” The problem with my questions is that YEC takes it as given that it already has a case. Not that this case is testable by scientific means, but that the case is simply built upon Scriptural interpretation. This is why, I believe, advocates of YEC most often simply attack competing theories rather than presenting their own. It is a presupposition that YEC provides the paradigm case for the origins of life and the universe.

The issue can (and, I believe, should) still be pressed: what is the case for YEC that can be discussed even among those who may not believe Christianity, let alone theism? The answer, I’ve found, is going to hinge upon The Flood (Genesis 6 and following). Von Fange writes that “These two models of what the early earth was like are gradualism for the evolutionist, and catastrophism, such as Noah’s flood, for the creationist” (161). Once again, it seems that it is a matter of taking the same data and interpreting it differently. The difference in interpretation is incredibly vast. Other versions of the “Life Dialogue” (as I’ve dubbed it) rely on long periods of time, whereas YEC argues that it is instead massive, catastrophic events in the history of Earth which have shaped the world geologically, anthropologically, biologically, etc.

The key is granting that The Flood was truly a completely catastrophic, worldwide event. This seems to me to be the most natural and clear interpretation of the Genesis account of The Flood. Granting that there was a worldwide flood of this magnitude, what does that mean for the world? Such a flood would have absolutely destroyed the world. This would have included the leveling of mountains, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, continents subsiding, and more unimaginable devastation (Rehwinkel, 286ff). Further, the amount of sediment that would be deposited by this worldwide flood would have been incredibly large (Rehwinkel, 288ff). The Flood could have carved canyons and presented the appearance of sedimentation that would parallel that which occurs over long periods of time (Morris). Fossils would be expected throughout this sedimentation for the obvious reason that the entirety of the world was under water. Not only that, but it would have reshaped the planet’s land masses, which would have had catastrophic effects on ecosystems upon the resurfacing of the continents (Rehwinkel, 287).

Thus, again it seems as though YEC depends thoroughly upon the account of The Flood and interpretations of what exactly such a Flood could do to the world. I don’t find this to be a weakness for the YEC position, but rather a great strength. It seems to me as though the YEC position is most capable of dealing with the Genesis account of The Flood, as well as what that would mean to the world. Further, interpreting various scientific discoveries through these lenses is what allows for proponents of YEC to argue for their position. It should also be noted that this proposition of The Flood is taken in conjunction with the belief that God created a “complete world” in the sense that it would have been already prepared for life–which includes the belief that the world was created with continents, bodies of water, and the like already formed (Rehwinkel, 283-284). This conjunction of beliefs provides a powerful theological argument for YEC.

The main problem with such an explanation of the age of the earth is that it seems to contain no ability to establish credibility in the scientific community at large. Such an account cannot be tested as it stands. I think there are prospects for YEC to present a testable model, but I still know of no such model. Such a model, were it to be created, would include predictions related to the effects of the flood, along with predictions for the condition of the universe being pre-made for human habitation. Reading from Rehwinkel in particular gave me much to think about as I’m evaluating all sides of this debate. The conjunction of The Flood with a “complete world” seems to have great explanatory power in theological terms.

Sources:

Morris, Dr. John D. “Lessons from Mount St. Helens.” http://www.icr.org/article/lessons-from-mount-st-helens/.

Rehwinkel, Alfred. The Flood. Concordia Publishing House. 1951.

Von Fange, Erich. In Search of the Genesis World: Debunking the Evolution Myth. Concordia Publishing House. 2006.

——

The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from citations, which are the property of their respective owners) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author.

The Life Dialogue: The Interaction of Science and Faith

This is part of a series of posts on the “Life Dialogue” within Christianity. Check out other posts in the series here.

While I’ve explored some of the major perspectives of this debate within Christianity, one element I’ve left untouched is the different approaches people take on the interaction between science and faith.

This interaction can be seen in (at least) four ways:

1) Faith and Science are both accurate and support each other in a mutually beneficial relationship–this view, interestingly enough, is advocated by all sides of the dialogue I’ve explored before: intelligent design, old and young earth creationism, and theistic evolution

2) Faith and Science discuss completely different realms, and as such are both accurate, but independent and non-overlapping–this is often referred to as the “Independence” theory or “Non-Overlapping Magisteria” (check out this post for an interesting exploration of this possibility)

3) Faith and Science are at odds, and we should favor Faith–this view is often advocated by those who feel uncomfortable with scientific discoveries they may feel challenge Christianity and Scripture

4) Faith and Science are at odds, and we should favor Science– this view is often favored by those who believe their religion must “keep up” with current science

Now, it seems to me that 1) should be the favored position by those interested in the interaction between science and faith.

First, 4) seems unacceptable because it endorses giving up truths of Scripture or belief as scientific discoveries emerge. This also means that faith must change as science does. This is not an attack on science; rather, it acknowledges that science can and does often change to correct theories, etc. Take the following hypothetical situation: science advocated some position z which seemed to be in confrontation with doctrine y, but then later science found that z was untenable–instead, it was x which was more likely, and x served as scientific affirmation of y. This convoluted scenario seems problematic for those who endorse 4), for they would give up y at first, but then would they take y as true again once x was advocated?

3) seems equally unacceptable because the opposite scenario would work to show potential absurdities in such a view. On this view, take the following example: science takes position z which serves to support the doctrinal position y, but then new discoveries are made which show that x is really the case, which goes against y. The scientist, however, can run multiple tests that demonstrate beyond a doubt that x is indeed the case. It doesn’t seem to me to be intellectually honest to say that x is not the case. Doctrine y would need to be evaluated Biblically and evaluated to see if it really fit the picture, not only that, but x and z would have to be evaluated Biblically.

2) seems to fare little better. Clearly there are places that science and faith will overlap, as has been demonstrated in this series of posts on the Life Dialogue. It seems as though the advocate of 2) would have to argue that any apparent overlap between science and faith is really just that: apparent. It seems to overlap but in reality it does not. However, the advocate of 2) could simply advance the argument that perhaps these positions do overlap in a sense, but the overlap doesn’t matter, as they are investigating different parts of reality. Faith explores the metaphysical aspects of a situation, x, while science explores the empirical aspects.

So why do I prefer 1)? I take for granted that faith explains reality. The claim, for example, that “God exists” seems to me not only obvious, but demonstrably true. Science also explains reality. Thus, as I accept that both science and faith explain reality, I believe that they must operate in a mutually beneficial way: where one has nothing specific to say, the other takes over, where they both have things to say, the interplay will occur. But I see no reason to deny aspects of faith for science or vice versa. Thus, it seems to me that the Christian doesn’t need to deny science, but neither should he/she deny aspects of her faith.

——

The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from citations, which are the property of their respective owners) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author.

The Life Dialogue: Old Earth Creationism 2

This is part of a series of posts on the “Life Dialogue” within Christianity. Check out other posts in the series here.

Last time I wrote about Old Earth Creationism (OEC), I referred to Hugh Ross’s More than a Theory. Perhaps the most interesting part of Ross’s “Reasons to Believe” (RTB) Model was that in order to harmonize a seeming mix of creationist, intelligent design (ID), and theistic evolutionist (TE) views, the model argued that humans were specially created. This was, I perceived, partially to avoid the problem that can be leveled against TE or ID, which is that man died before sin, which goes against Scripture. Thus, by asserting that mankind was specially created, and only died when humanity fell into sin, the RTB Model avoids this charge.

I was surprised to learn that it wasn’t only for theological reasons that the RTB Model made this argument. Rana and Ross (hereafter I’m going to say “RR”) argue in Who Was Adam? that there is reason to believe that Adam and Eve were specially made by God. RR assert that while the fossil record does indeed show evidence various hominids (distinguished importantly from humans), none of these can be seen as evolutionary stages or transitional forms that lead to humans.

The RTB model holds that God created the first humans through divine intervention, that all humanity came from Adam and Eve, that humanity originated in a single geographical location, that God created Adam and Eve fairly recently (10,000-100,000 years ago), that humanity’s female lineage would date later than the male lineage, that God prepared Earth for humanity’s advent and created humans at “a special moment” for humanity, human beings share physical characteristics with animals, that humanity displays distinct characteristics from animals, that life spans of humans were much longer at one time, that a universal flood shaped early human history, and that humanity spread from somewhere in or near the Middle East (RR, 43-51).

Clearly, I don’t have time to outline the entirety of their argument in a post. I’m only going to hit on the major points.

RR argue that molecular anthropology point to humanity’s origin from a mitochondrial Adam and Eve (73 and the pages surrounding). This is due to DNA evidence pointing not to multiple origins, but simply one X and one Y chromosome giving rise to the rest of humanity. This is evidence supporting a number of points in their model outlined above.

The next stage in their argument reflects the same idea that I’ve expressed before: different views of the same evidence are possible. I see ways to take the data RR presented here as evidence for evolution, but I also see how it can be interpreted as support for OEC. RR point to the fossil record, which contains various hominids. The archaeological evidence, however, does not support anything more advanced than the most basic usage of tools for these hominids. This, they argue, reflects the “image of God” in humanity. Early humans (contrasted here with hominids) arrive with complex tools immediately, religious beliefs and practices, etc. (77ff, 139ff).

RR argue that humanity came about when the conditions were exactly perfect for human civilization (97ff). This, combined with various arguments against the common descent of man from hominids (including the argument that there is no clear way to set up such a chain [139ff]), scientific analysis of and arguments refuting ideas that we came from either neanderthals (179ff) or chimpanzees (199ff), and finally examples of how “Junk” DNA is actually useful lead to the conclusion of RR’s argument:

“Genetic studies of human population groups signify that humanity had a recent origin in a single geographical location from a small population, with genetic links back to a single man and single woman… The research also demonstrates that humanity and human civilization arose relatively recently near (or in) the Middle East to fill the earth… The archaeological record reveals a veritable explosion of human culture–anthropology’s ‘big bang’–which marks the appearance of God’s image… At no other time in human history has the biblical account of humanity’s origin held greater scientific credibility than it does today… man is the crown of God’s creation (248-250).”

It seems to me that RR make a fairly strong case for their side, but the evidence they present could be easily used by theistic evolutionists (arguing within Christianity here) as well. Thus, I don’t think RR have definitively shown that the RTB Model is superior in regards to the origins of man, though they have offered a compelling argument that ties in with the rest of the RTB. Taken as a whole, I believe the RTB Model offers superior explanatory power in a number of aspects. Not only that, but as seen in Who Was Adam? it avoids the theological argument against views like Theistic Evolution or Intelligent Design.

I continue to find the RTB Model perhaps the most compelling of any side of the Life Debate within Christianity. As I’ve noted before, I don’t see any reason to throw myself in fully behind any of these views. Rather, I intend to pick and choose based on my presuppositions. In all things, however, Christ has preeminence (Colossians 1:15ff).

Sources:

Rana, Fazale and Hugh Ross. Who Was Adam? Navpress. 2005.

——

The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from citations, which are the property of their respective owners) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author.

The Life Dialogue: Christian Presuppositions and Science

This is part of a series of posts on the debate within Christianity about how life diversified on earth (i.e. evolution, creationism, ID, or something else). See other posts in the series here.

I’ve been reading a whole lot of material on this debate for this series of posts. I’ve been reading from all sides of the debate. As such, I’m often presented with completely conflicting views of interpretation of the same data or conflicting views about overall methodological approaches.

Thus, I’ve been thinking quite a bit about how it is the Christian should interact with this whole debate. It dawned on me as I was eating dinner today (and reading through a creationist magazine–I like to multitask) that most of the driving force behind this whole debate may simply be with the methodology. There seem to be two major groups within the Christian community who are arguing on this issue. One group asserts that Christians absolutely must keep up with science, and that this means jumping on board with the entire methodological approach inherent in contemporary science. The other group asserts that Christians should indeed keep up with science, but should do so while acknowledging that God is going to be intricately connected at all stages.

This is perhaps the absolute center of the entire debate. What presuppositions do Christians have when entering the “life dialogue” (as I’ve called it)? I tied this almost immediately with Paul K. Moser’s idea in The Elusive God that philosophy should be done differently by Christians, who assume God exists, and therefore focus philosophy around God. Should not science also be done differently by Christians?

What I mean to say is that basic to the Christianity is the idea that God not only created the universe and all things visible and invisible, but He also loves and interacts with that same creation. For Christians interacting with science, I think this must mean that Christians should enter any kind of scientific inquiry acknowledging that there are points not just historically (as in the case of Jesus or any number of Biblical events) but also biologically, astronomically, etc. (see Psalm 19:1-6 for reasons to think this). This doesn’t support a “God of the Gaps” proposition, in which God is thrown in anywhere that science can’t describe, but it does support a God who interacts with the universe.

The problem is that mainstream science does not share such propositions. Unfortunately, despite Christian origins of science (see here), science today seems to take naturalism as absolutely true. Thus, it is simply not a fair field of play for Christians. I see this happening often in theistic evolution. It seems to me that many some Christians seem to think that we can never assert that God did something (other than the things recorded in the Bible) in physical history. But I don’t see any reason why Christians should be encouraged to embrace wholly the naturalistic presuppositions of contemporary science. Christians, I think, should instead try to use their own paradigms to interpret scientific data. If God is seen as creator and sustainer of the universe, what does that mean for biology, astronomy, physics, or other fields of scientific inquiry? I don’t think Christians should have to operate under a naturalistic worldview in order to explore science.

Christians should make use of science. I would never argue otherwise. My point is that Christians shouldn’t be Christians in one realm (outside of science), but atheists in another realm (within science).

So what does this mean for the “life dialogue”? I tend to think that any view of the diversity of life that attempts to completely cut God out of the equation is ultimately deistic or atheistic, not theistic/Christian. Questions for Christians in this debate could be “What does this mean to our relationship with God?” or “What was God doing during this time span?” If the answer to either question is “nothing”, then it really doesn’t mean that much to the Christian. I believe that all truth will have relevance to our relationship with God. God is never inactive. He doesn’t passively sit back and “let it happen.” This can be seen in Scripture (see Psalm 104 for a particularly wonderful account of God’s interaction with the world).

Thus, as I continue in this “Life Dialogue”, I’ll be analyzing positions based on these presuppositional questions as well: What do these accounts of the diversity of life teach us about God and what do they mean to us?

——

The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from citations, which are the property of their respective owners) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author.

The Life Dialogue: Theistic Evolution 2

This is part of a series of posts on the means by which life came about within Christianity. See other posts on the topic here.

Last time I wrote about theistic evolution I mentioned I was quite excited to get into some the scientific side of the debate. I delved into that a bit with my first post on old earth creationism as well as in my post on young earth creationism. While I think that perhaps the biggest problem with theistic evolution from a Christian view is theological, I do believe it is important to examine the scientific aspect of all sides of the debate as well. Thus, I turned to Perspectives on an Evolving Creation, a work full of essays on theistic evolution, to give me the scientific aspects of theistic evolution.

Common descent is central to the notion of atheism. Often, common descent is the source of objections to the theory of evolution (Miller, 152). Common descent is the assertion that all life on earth is descended from an “unbroken series of ancestor-descendant relationships to a single ancestral life form” (Miller, 152). Perhaps the most frequent objection to this is the sparse distribution of the fossil record.

Miller argues that the fossil record, rather than being incapable of demonstrating common descent, provides “persuasive evidence for macroevolutionary change and common descent” (153). He quickly qualifies this statement, pointing out that most often people either assert that the fossil record is so sparse that nothing can be demonstrated by it or that it is so complete that all details can be brought to light.

Miller then points out the vast problems with trying to fill in a fossil record which, according to evolutionary theory, covers hundreds of millions of years. Some of these problems include the infrequent fossilization of soft bodied or thin-shelled organisms, environmental factors such as weather, scavengers, or water levels, erosion, irregular sedimentation, etc. (154-156).

Transitional forms also encounter the problems of classification. The way species are categorized can directly affect whether a species is seen as a transitional form. “The grouping of organisms in a classification scheme does more than describe nature: it also interprets it” (158). Miller goes on to discuss two types of classification: the Linnean and cladistic classification. Linnean classification views species as types. One individual is seen as the ideal “archetype” of the species, while all others are compared to this “archetype” and then seen as types or offshoots of this individual. This, argues Miller, “exclude[s] transition[al fossils] by definition” (158, emphasis his). Cladistic classification, by contrast, assumes an evolutionary scheme and places animals into overarching schemes based on such assumptions. Thus, species may not be grouped so much by common characteristics as they are grouped by characteristics seen as having a common ancestor (159).

Interestingly, this section seems to echo one of the statements I remember from a talk on Young Earth Creation I listened to on campus, in which the speaker stated that often scientists can look at the same evidence and come up with completely different interpretations–even though the evidence is the same. I’ll be keeping this in mind in my future interactions with the varied positions in this dialogue. Here, it seems the cladistic classification is preferred, though one may ask whether this is because one wants to presuppose evolution and move from there, or if it is because the fossil record points more readily towards evolution. Did the evidence lead to the classification or did the classification lead to the evidence?

Transitional forms often are attached to misconceptions. Miller warns against assuming that such a form would appear as a logical step from one type of animal to the next. Rather, he states that “Such forms will be unlike anything living today”. This is because “transitional forms are found by moving down the tree of life into the past, not trying to jump from limb to limb” (161). Thus, when thinking of transitional forms, rather than seeing a kind of orthogenesis (one step at a time) that would suggest, perhaps, species 1 => species 2 => species 3, the view should be a branching phylogeny which looks more like a tree than a straight line. Thus, transitional fossils could be radically different from the species to which they gave rise (163).

After this point in his chapter, Miller goes into some examples of just these types of transitions viewed in the fossil record. His examples include reptile-to-mammal evolution, a land creature-to-whale evolution, horses, tapers, rhinos, etc. having a common ancestor, and others (164-180). Due to such transitional evidence in the fossil record, Miller concludes that “transitional fossil sequences between higher taxonomic groups are a common feature of the fossil record” (180).

One may question Miller on a number of points in this chapter. The different classification systems is one presupposition that must be made. Another objection that came to my mind as I was reading was the definition of transitional fossil. Again, it seems as though the definition may be changed to fit the theory, rather than the theory changed to fit the definition or the evidence. Why couldn’t it be that transitional fossils are just what intuition suggests, and there really aren’t too many? Rather, the assumption seems to be that other fossils may be used for the transitions. Why make such an assumption? Is there any reason to push the transitional definition to the usage Miller is endorsing? I don’t know.

I enjoyed Miller’s chapter greatly. It is always nice to get a breath of fresh air amidst my readings of analytic philosophy or epistemology. I have enjoyed this series greatly, and I can’t wait to continue.

Finally, in closing, I would like to note two things again. The first is my stance on this whole debate: I believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, I believe that God did and does directly intervene in creation and the universe, and I believe that God has been and always will be the creator and sustainer of the universe. Thus, I am biased, just as anyone who approaches such questions is. Second, I have noted before that this series is meant to be for the in-house Christian debate on these matters. I’ve had a number of caustic comments thrown my way from those uninterested in such a debate. I welcome non-Christians to the discussion, but only if they can participate in a civil manner.

Miller, Keith. “Common Descent, Transitional Forms, and the Fossil Record.” Edited Keith Miller. Perspectives on an Evolving Creation.  Wm. B.Eerdman’s. 2003.

——

The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from citations, which are the property of their respective owners) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author.

Science: “Thanks, Christianity”

I remember recently I was talking to someone and they asserted that Christianity and science simply don’t mix. Often I run into the idea that somehow Christianity hinders science (and a great many people seem to believe science can hinder Christianity as well!).This is not only wrong, it is historically and demonstrably wrong. Science as it stands today would not exist if it were not for Christianity.

Christian presuppositions allowed science to develop. Science was built on the presupposition that God was rational. Because the universe was created by this rational God, “Christian Philosophers linked rationality with the empirical, inductive method” (Schmidt, 218). These philosophers included such giants as William of Ockham (1285-1347) and Francis Bacon (1561-1626).

Lynn White states that “From the thirteenth century onward to the eighteenth, every major scientist, in effect, explained his motivations in religious terms” (Quoted in Schmidt, 222). But it wasn’t just the motivations that were explained in religious terms. Too often it is the case that people argue, fallaciously, that they were only Christian because of the time these scientists were born into. They were too afraid, it is alleged, to state their true beliefs. Not only is this utterly without evidence, but it could not be farther from the truth. Many of these scientists spent as much time on theology as they did on science. They credited God with their discoveries. They believed that God had set the universe up in such a way as to be explored by His people. These convictions permeated the writings of scientists.

Alvin Schmidt, in his monumental work, How Chistianity Changed the World, outlines how Christianity changed science on every level. Gregor Mendel, Leonardo Da Vinci, Andreas Vesalius, Copernicus, Johannes Kepler, Galileo, Isaac Newton, Liebniz, Pascal, Ohm, Andre Ampere, Kelvin, Boyle, and Pasteur are just a few of the almost limitless examples. All of these were Christians. It is wholly fallacious to assert that science and Christianity do not mix.

Some might immediately attack Christianity when names like Galileo are brought up. The problem with this is twofold:

1) In the case of Galileo or Copernicus, Christians were actually supporting these astronomers, just Christians of a different variety (Lutherans backed Copernicus financially and offered encouragement and support, while Roman Catholics, still basing their assumptions on Aristotelian astronomy, persecuted him [Schmidt, 231])

2) These men were, themselves, Christian. It’s easy to argue that Christians were putting down science when one can point to cases of persecution, but these men were Christians!

Perhaps it is now, however, that Christianity is opposed to science. Perhaps in the modern day, Christians are not scientists. This is not true. Take the case of Francis Collins, for example. He is the scientist who was the head of the human genome project. He is also a devout Christian and the author of The Language of God, in which he argues that science has lead him even more into his belief in God.

It is simply not the case that Christianity and science do not mix. Christian presuppositions allowed for the development of the empirical method. Christian philosophers and scientists were the “giants” on whom people like Newton (and modern scientists) built their theories (Newton himself asserts this). Science is just another of the many areas Christianity has helped transform for the better. Science can rightly say, “Thanks, Christianity.”

Sources:

Collins, Francis. The Language of God. 2007.

Schmidt, Alvin. How Christianity Changed the World. Zondervan. 2004.

——

The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from citations, which are the property of their respective owners) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author.

The Dialogue Continues: Intelligent Design

This is another post in my series on the origins of life, the debate/argument within Christianity. See other posts in this series here.

I recently finished reading The Making of an Atheist by James S. Spiegel and while the book was by no means about the origins of life, one quote in particular made me think about this series I’ve been doing. Spiegel writes, “Once life appears, the only remaining rational debate should be among theists–as to how God did it, whether through special creation, natural selection, or some combination of these means. The issue of origins should be an in-house theistic debate” (50, emphasis mine).

I tend to agree. This series of posts seeks to foster that very in-house debate. Intelligent Design is another option I will explore in this ongoing series.

Intelligent design (hereafter ID) is often dismissed outright in discussions of this sort. Creationists see it as evolution-in-disguise, while theistic evolutionists view it as creationism-in-disguise. So what is it? Some of this aversion may be due to the fact that the modern ID movement suffered greatly in its definitions. Initially, due to the wide range of scholars involved, it weakened its scientific position in favor of a more theological one. Recently, however, this has been turned about.There is much discussion among theists and non-theists alike about the viability of ID, but it seems clear that ID is here to stay. Books like Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer continue to draw flak from all sides, but they also continue to push thinking minds to stretch and consider the ideas contained therein.

William Dembski is seen by some as the father of the modern ID movement. His book, Intelligent Design is a good introduction (though it is quite heavy both scientifically and philosophically) to the movement.

“Intelligent design is three things,” according to Dembski, “a scientific research program that investigates the effect of intelligent causes; an intellectual movement that challenges Darwinism and its naturalistic legacy; and a way of understanding divine action” (Dembski, 13). ID is based on empirically testing for design within systems (109). According to ID, mutation-selection mechanisms cannot account for the diversity of life (113).

How exactly is design discovered empirically? It is based on probability calculus, among other means (130). Central to ID is the notion of “irreducible complexity”. “A system is irreducibly complex if it consists of several interrelated parts so that removing even one part completely destroys the system’s function” (147). Dembski argues that this is a fully empirical question, “individually knocking out each protein constituting a biochemical system will determine whether function is lost. If it is, we are dealing with an irreducibly complex system. Protein knock-out experiments of this sort are routine in biology” (149).

Another important notion is complex specified information. This needs explanation, and it is explanation that naturalistic evolution cannot provide (167-169).

Dembski’s book is monumentally important for those Christians wanting to explore the origins debate. In the appendix he answers many of the objections to ID (God of the gaps, not science, etc.).

Theologically, ID could be subject to the same objections I would raise against theistic evolution. Why death before sin? Specifically, why human death before sin? Interestingly, ID can serve of an example of what a friend of mine suggested in my first post on Old Earth Creationism: combining various explanations as one sees fit. Take Hugh Ross’s RTB model, which argues that humans are specially created. One could easily combine this model with ID to make the model even more challenging to standard evolutionary models. Not only that, but this avoids the theological error inherent in theistic evolution (more on theistic evolution and possible ways to solve this problem in an upcoming post).

I have never claimed to be a scientist. The more science I read, the more I realize that in such a vast ocean of work, I can never even begin to unearth the tip of the iceberg. Thus, my scientific analysis of ID amounts, basically, to only being able to judge it on what I know. I have read rebuttals to arguments for irreducible complexity, but I remain unconvinced by these rebuttals. I find Dembski’s argument rather convincing, though some examples he uses may need to be rethought.

Thus, after my first go-round, in which I explored theistic evolution, old earth creationism, young earth creationism, and intelligent design, I must say that my mind is less muddled than before. Picking and choosing from these theories can be quite fun. Not only that, but it can expand one’s faith walk. I encourage fellow Christians to expand their borders. Think about these hard questions. Most importantly, judge all things by God’s Word, the Bible. The Word of God stands, unchanged, forever. Jesus has died for our sins once for all. This does not change. Science continually changes (not an argument against science). The Christian should base his/her worldview on the foundation: Christ the Cornerstone.

I’m looking forward to round two!

Dembski, William. Intelligent Design. IVP Academic. 1999.

Spiegel, James. The Making of an Atheist. Moody Publishers. 2010.

——

The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from citations, which are the property of their respective owners) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author.

The Origins Debate Within Christianity

This post is a collection of links to the series I’m doing on the “Argument within Christianity.” I’d make it all nice and pretty if I wasn’t computer illiterate. I will update this post as my series continues.

Introductory Post “The Argument Within Christianity: Evolution, Intelligent Design, or Creationism?”

Theistic Evolution 1 Theistic Evolution 2 Theistic Evolution 3 Theistic Evolution 4

Old Earth Creationism 1 Old Earth Creationism 2 Old Earth Creationism 3

Young Earth Creationism 1 Young Earth Creationism 2 Young Earth Creationism 3 Young Earth Creationism 4

Intelligent Design 1 Intelligent Design 2 Intelligent Design 3

Christian Presuppositions and Science

The Interaction of Science and Faith

Guest Post 1: Matt Moss Part 1 – Part 2 – Part 3 – Part 4 – Part 5

The Dialogue Proceeds: Young Earth Creationism

This is part in a series of posts I’m working on concerning the “Argument within Christianity” on the origins of the universe and life. Other posts can be viewed here.

Young Earth Creationism holds that the Genesis 1-3 account is to be literally read. The days mentioned are literal 24-hour days. The Creation account is not metaphorical or some kind of theological rendition of Creation, but is a literal, scientifically accurate (when science is viewed through this lens) account of the origin of the universe.

Central to Young Earth Creationists (hereafter YECs) is the idea that people can look at the exact same scientific data and take different interpretations. I remember a man coming to speak on campus about YEC and he said that he looks at the exact same evidence as other scientists, and simply comes away with a different interpretation.

So what does it mean to take the same evidence and look at it with different interpretations? One is the age of the earth. A prominent and important site for YEC scientists is the Mount St. Helens eruption site. This site has provided a number of startling findings. Specifically, YECs point to the layers of sediment deposited by the volcano as showing there could be a different interpretation of geologic time. In the space of a few days, Mount St. Helens deposited up to 600 feet of sediment. This sediment looks like the sedimentary deposits found throughout the geologic record across the world (Morris). Other evidence includes the fact that a canyon formed, complete with a redirected river flowing through it, trees were deposited standing up (similar to petrified forests), and peat moss deposits that could eventually lead to coal (Morris).

Thus, YECs take this as evidence for the Genesis account and creation in a few ways. First, if there was a worldwide flood, then it is possible that there would exist worldwide sedimentary deposits that are quite uniform. If canyons can form so quickly from a volcano, then could not other canyons that are often cited as having taken millions of years to form have been formed by an event like the flood or other volcanic activity surrounding the Flood (Morris)?

It seems like, on a YEC perspective, the Flood is the answer to a great many questions, including the evidence from geology for the age of the earth (YECs would say it is sediment deposited and compacted by the flood), canyons, fossils, etc.

I always find things like this greatly appealing, but I do have a few problems. I must stress again that I am not a scientist. Thus, I am not someone to go through and evaluate scientific claims in any scholarly fashion, as I don’t have the knowledge to do so. I try to stay on top of things by reading reports, whatever books I have or get a hold of that have to do with science, but the bottom line is that it isn’t my main interest. Anyway, these are the problems I have, with my layman’s knowledge of science:

1. What about evidence from astronomy for the age of the universe?

2. How does one go about putting things like this into a scientific model (again, not that this is the standard for truth of any claim, but it is the standard for science, and if the YEC perspective wants to compete on this level, it must provide a competing model that involves tests)?

3. Can we really take evidence from something like the Mount St. Helens eruption and assume things about the Flood because of it?

4. Where is the positive case? Rather than attacking all other views, where is the scientific case building bottom up a YEC explanation of the universe? I think this is absolutely essential for YEC to offer any competition to Old Earth Creationism, Theistic Evolution, or Intelligent Design. Hugh Ross has done well for the OEC view (here), but as far as I know, YECs have no comparable case.

Sources:

Morris, Dr. John D. “Lessons from Mount St. Helens.” http://www.icr.org/article/lessons-from-mount-st-helens/.

My notes from a talk on campus which I don’t feel like looking up a way to officially cite

——

The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from citations, which are the property of their respective owners) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author.

The Argument Continues: Old Earth Creationism

This is the third post in an ongoing series discussing the origins debate within Christianity. Click here for more posts in this series.

Before I delve too deeply into this post I wanted to raise a point a dear friend of mine made in a discussion we had recently. As Christians, there really is no need to jump on board with any of these labels. We don’t need to sit back, look at all the evidence, and then call ourselves theistic evolutionists, advocates of intelligent design, creationists, or any other label. Really, we’re all Christians, and we can take our Christian belief with us in this debate. My own presuppositions are of course that the Bible is the innerrant word of God, that the Ecumenical Creeds accurately describe the beliefs of the catholic faith, and that this faith is what saves (Ephesians 2:8-9), by the power of the Holy Spirit, the love of God the Father, and the salvation of our Lord Jesus Christ. Thus, while this debate is certainly an interesting, mind-bending task, we shouldn’t feel any need to jump on board any bandwagon. If, as Christians, we see merit in the Young Earth Creationist camp, but also some merit in the Old Earth Camp, we have no reason not to take what we believe from each side. Similarly, if we really think Theistic Evolution is where it’s at, but see some validity in the Intelligent Design arguments, there is no reason to not combine both. We don’t need to assign labels to ourselves.

There is no reason to treat these things like political parties and then duke it out. Instead, we can use our Christian presuppositions to engage this dialogue. Thus, while I am exploring these issues, keep in mind that this is what I am trying to do. I want to allow God’s work (nature) to speak for itself and I know that this work does not contradict His Word (Scripture). So let’s let the dialogue continue, shall we?

I must make a clarification here and say that my definition of “Old Earth Creationism” is incorrect. Old Earth Creationism is, rather, the belief that the Biblical account of Creation is correct, as are many of the findings of mainstream science (i.e. the universe is billions of years old, etc.). Old Earth Creationism (hereafter OEC) contains a huge variety of beliefs in its camp, so keep that in mind when discussing these issues.

My reading for OEC was the book More than a Theory by Hugh Ross. I’m not going to outline everything Hugh Ross is saying. Instead, I’ll present briefly the OEC beliefs he is arguing for (including the theological stance), outline the “testable model for creation” that Ross argues for, and analyze as I can.

Hugh Ross states that there is no reason why people who desire to remain true to the Word of God need to reject the current scientific consensus on issues like the age of the universe, the Big Bang, and the like. Rather, Ross argues that Christians can accept all of these things and even find them in Scripture. Ross makes the argument that in Genesis, the days can indeed many period of times, citing the familiar argument that the very same word in Hebrew (yohm) is used in order to state the periods in which God created the world. but also to imply analogously that God’s time is not our time, for a thousand years to God are as a day to us (Psalm 90:4). I tend to agree with Ross on this point. I don’t see any definitive reason to take the Hebrew word yohm to mean twenty-four hours, necessarily, as it is used in other ways throughout the Hebrew Scriptures.

A key point for argument within Ross’s creation model (he calls it the “Reasons to Believe” model, and I will refer to it as the RTB model from now on) is the use of Scripture. Rather than citing the more commonly used Psalm 19, Ross turns to Psalm 104 to argue that Scripture outlined scientific findings before they happened (85).

Ross also argues that the various references to God stretching out the heavens “like a tent” is wholly compatible with the Big Bang theory of universal origins, according to which our universe is still expanding (as a tent).

Perhaps the most important piece of interpretation Ross offers for this debate within Christianity is his rebuttal to the “original sin” challenge to any who argue evolution could have been used by God (see the post on theistic evolution, linked above). Ross argues that Adam and Eve were indeed specially created and that death, both physical and (potentially) spiritual were the consequences to mankind of sin. “The whole of Scripture confirms that only humans, among all life created on Earth, can (and do) sin. Therefore, this ‘death through sin’ applies to humans alone, not to plants and animals. In addition, the passage [Romans 5:12] states specifically that this ‘death came to all men.’ It does not say ‘to all creation’ or ‘to all creatures.’ The verses make no apparent reference to plant or animal life, nor do other parallel passages…” (85). Later, Ross argues that this claim for the special creation of man is not unscientific, as he offers reasons to reject man’s evolutionary ancestry from primates (181ff).

I think that this is Ross’ best point. If his RTB model does indeed avoid the weighty challenge of “original sin,” he has hit upon something major within Christianity.

Now, the model itself. Ross never really comes out in the book and says “This is the RTB model”, rather, he presents sort of an outline:

“The Universe:

• began once in finite time
• has a beginning that coincides with the beginning of space and time
• was not made from that which is material, visible, or detectable
• continuously expands from the beginning
• is governed by the laws of physics
• manifests precise fine-tuning for humanity’s benefit
• has enormous volume, encompassing an “uncountable” (to ancient peoples) number of stars
• contains stars that differ from one another and eventually stop shining
• will someday cease to exist

“Earth, which

• emerged from the cosmos at a specific time
• was enshrouded by an opaque cloud layer in the beginning
• began with an ocean that covered its whole surface
• was precisely fine-tuned for humanity’s benefit
• contains resources essential for launching and sustaining human civilization
• has a Sun and Moon and other astronomical companions specially designed to benefit life and humanity
• carries finite resources and time-limiting conditions for sustaining human civilization

“Life, which

• began early in Earth’s history
• began under hostile conditions
• began by divine intervention
• began with optimal ecological relationships
• began with optimal design for environmental conditions
• appeared in abundance, in diversity, and for long eras for the specific benefit of humanity
• started as physical only (most life-forms); then soulish creatures (many species) appeared; and finally, one spiritual species was introduced–an original pair of humans and all their descendants
• progresses from the simple to complex through a series of extinction and replacement (speciation events
• reflects shared common designs
• in its soulish characteristics, appears designed to serve and/or please humanity

“Humanity, which

• arrived late in Earth’s history
• resulted from divine intervention
• represents the culmination of God’s creation work on earth
• remains the only earthly creature with a spiritual nature
• descended from one man and one woman who lived in a God-designed garden near the juncture of Africa, Asia, and Europe
• migrated rapidly from area of origin shortly after the flood of Noah’s time
• experienced a significant drop in the potential life span after the time of the flood
• genetically bottlenecked at a later date for males than for females…
• was gifted from the outset with attributes needed for functioning in a high-tech civilization (89-91)”

The major point that jumps out at me about this model is the “soulish” creatures. Ross argues that some animals, like birds, dogs, cats, etc. are “soulish” and are better able to relate to mankind, thus pointing to design of life for humanity. I don’t think he develops this point strongly, nor does he present Biblical evidence for this point. I don’t see it as all that important, however.

Ross’ scientific argument is strong as far as I can tell, but as I said in the first post in this series, I am no scientist. Ross essentially accepts that the big bang was the start of the universe (and space-time), that the placement of earth was fine-tuned to an extremely minuscule accuracy, that life on earth was supernaturally generated, that life evolved (but was guided or “designed”), and that mankind was specifically created. This is the very basic outline. I will be discussing individual parts in future posts about OEC.

Overall, Ross makes a rather powerful argument throughout the work for the scientific and Biblical backing for most of the steps of the model outlined above. I’m not going to go into each specific step here, but I will in future posts. For now, I will say that I think Ross is definitely on to something here. I’m still mulling over his interpretation of Scripture, but I appreciate his no-nonsense approach. He clearly states that the Bible is authoritative and without error. Once I finished this book I was really excited to write this post out and get on to more reading from other sides of the debate. I’ll be looking into more stuff from the RTB model, as well.

One can read more about the RTB model at this site.

Source:

Ross, Hugh. More than a Theory. Baker Books. 2009.

——

The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick, apart from any quotations, and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author.