What underlies unbelief? Some will tell you that they have examined the evidence, and found it wanting. Of course, that is a tenuous assertion, as the inductive methodology applied there can never lead to absolute truth. But even that doesn't account for the underlying presuppositions that press one into scouting for evidence.
It is quite simple, and we find the explanation in the Psalms:
Around Christmas the chatter from non-Christians always seem to increase. On a few of the blogs and discussion boards I frequent there has been numerous discussions about the existence of God. Inevitably, these discussions lead to the current hot topic debate topic…evolutionist “science” vs Christianity.
One of the main points of attack from the non-believer seems to be that “science” is somehow shrinking the role of God, as more and more is discovered about how the “natural” world works. In anything where we observe a cause and effect relationship, we are assured that nog God is needed there, and God is therefore relegated to a spectator.
Even some Christians fall into this trap when they refer to miracles as a suspension of the natural order, or where God “interfered” with natural laws to make a miracle happen.
That is where the “God of the Gaps” theory comes from, invoking God for those things we cannot explain by an observed cause and effect relationship. This is one of the arguments used by Dawkins and the other “new” atheists, emphasizing the shrinking role of God as we understand more of these natural causes and effects.
And that is a major overstatement from those who claim that God’s role is being diminished in any way by finding a cause and effect relationship in anything. In fact, it is a shallow and ignorant statement. To follow just one of the arguments used by atheists to its logical conclusion, all that it leads to is a discussion about primary and secondary causes. If gravity is the cause of what keeps us glued to the planet, what caused gravity? (Just like the “What caused God/” argument) And is that cause of gravity then really what keeps us glued to the planet? It gets into an infinite regression pretty quickly.
Ah, but it is the underlying properties of the causal agent that really is the cause, we often hear. Which is no answer at all, since either the properties were caused by something, or they arose out of thin air, not a very “scientific” answer. Many try to isolate themselves from this problem by erecting artificial boundaries around the topic. The origin of life issue as “not a part of evolutionary biology” is a good example of that.
The key question to be answered in cases like that is whether we can understand the whole by understanding some parts, or whether we can only understand the parts if we understand the whole. Science, by its very methodology, falls into the first category, and some try to deify that limited understanding by extrapolating the parts to the whole.
Practical science, the understanding of how causes and effects work in what we can observe in parts, are, in the words of Thomas Kuhn, very useful in solving puzzles. Flight, medicine, utilities etc could not have come as far as it did without the puzzles being solved. But is that the final word as regards a comprehensive ontology of the whole? Not even close.
In the meantime, God stands gloriously unaffected by any of this. He alone is the ultimate cause of everything, at every moment. We confirm this in Scripture:
Heb 1:3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power.
Col 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities–all things were created through him and for him.
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
So while some may argue that God is being painted into an ever-shrinking corner, or that He “interferes” in His creation to effect miracles, the opposite is true. Since God is upholding everything, and holds all things together, there is no “natural” order to be interfered in, only different ways in which God chooses to act while holding things together. Sometimes patterns can be detected in how that happens, and sometimes there cannot.
How God chooses to act is His sovereign and holy choice, and we, from our observation of the parts, cannot understand the whole of His acts. We can solve some puzzles by observing regularity in how He chooses to uphold the universe, but it is still based on a limited, but reasonable, assumption that things will act the same way tomorrow that they did today.
Therefore, there is no “God of the gaps”. God is actively involved, every moment of every day.
Those of you that know me through private or public correspondence will know that I struggle, as many other Christians, with the creation account in Genesis 1. So any time a new explanation rolls around, I’m all ears. To be clear, my struggles have nothing to do with the existence, omnipotence or creation abilities of God. Those are clear throughout Scripture, although I have been called a heretic because I expressed doubt in the YEC approach.
The author starting principle sounds fair enough: “In this book I have proposed a reading of Genesis 1 that I believe to be faithful to the context of the original audience and author, and one that preserves and enhances the theological vitality of this text.” In broad terms I find this opening statement, as far exegesis is concerned, not too far from the result.
The book consists of 18 propositions. Propositions 1 through 11 deal with the text, and the other 7 deals with the alternative explanations, including YEC, OEC, progressive creation, theistic evolution, Intelligent Design as well as the general interaction of material creation theories with the proposed interpretation. It is my opinion that Professor Walton holds his own in the first 11 propositions, but that the last 7 are significantly weaker, and display a bias towards popular liberal post-modernism. It is ironic, as Professor Walton, in several places in the book, assures us that his propositions do not conflict with the sustaining actions of God in His creation. I therefore fail to understand how he can dismiss some theories, and promote others.
Professor Walton makes a solid argument that the creation account of Genesis 1 is not an account of material creation, but one of functional creation. One may have to overcome initial resistance to the idea, since most of us are predisposed to think of creation in material terms. Professor Walton demonstrates from contemporary (with the Genesis account) writings that ancient near East mythologies, and in fact the whole worldview at the time, revolved around function, and not necessarily around material origins. Just like our worldview tends to be dominated by scientific reasoning and material explanations, the inhabitants of that region at the time that Genesis was written had a worldview that was dominated by how the cosmos functioned in relation to the gods and the people.
Against that backdrop, Professor Walton proceeds to show that Genesis 1 is consistent with ancient cosmology, and that that ancient cosmologies were, without exception, function oriented. This includes the fact that ANE mythologies never really distinguishes a “natural” world from a deistic or theistic world. The gods are involved in it all, not through micromanagement or miracles, but through the fact that God is intrinsic to the cosmos, and that should He withdraw from that, all would cease to exist instantly. Therefore, there is no “natural” or “supernatural” apparent in the Bible.
Professor Walton spends an entire chapter discussing the verb “bara”…to create. “Bara” appears around 50 times in the OT, and God is always the one, either directly or by implication, doing the creating. However, when it gets to the objects of creation, i.e. that which is being created, Professor Walton argues that those objects are not always easily identifiable as material objects, and in cases where they are, the context dictates that they are not materialistic objects. The author also spends some time speaking about how the modern assumption of creation meaning material creation has corrupted the context to mean ex-nihilo creation, since the materials out of which is being created is never mentioned.
The next three chapters deal with the different creation days, with days 1-3 establishing functions, and days 4-6 installing functionaries. There is simply too much material there to share, but I would encourage the reader to read the creation account from that perspective to see for himself how that holds mostly true.
The next few chapters move us to the conclusion that the creation account is that of how God created the cosmos as a temple for Him to live in, and that the 7 days of creation is nothing more than an account of how God arranged His temple, and inaugurates it and moves in on day 7. The temple needs to have certain functions before God could move in, and Genesis 1 is the account of how God made the temple functional as a residence for Him.
Should one accept the starting premise of functional creation, as opposed to material creation, then this interpretation is not disturbing nor unChristian. For my own purposes, it does need some further development in a more scholarly work, and I can recommend Professor Walton’s Commentary on Genesis as a partial fulfillment of that requirement.
As I mentioned earlier, as a veteran of many origins debates, and as a student of all the different accounts, material and otherwise, I was pretty disappointed with the rest of the book. It does not display the same academic diligence and level of scholarship as the first 11 chapters. For example, Professor Walton chooses to espouse the popular, but false, position on intelligent design. He also promises to explain more about the challenges that the YEC and OEC/progressive creation positions hold, but spends very little time on that, and one almost gets the idea that it was added in as an afterthought to expand the possible reading audience.
Overall, I am thankful to the Professor for writing the book. If nothing else, the first 11 chapters has given me some food for thought and further study, and I would suggest that it will do the same for any serious student of Scripture. It delivers on it’s promise of taking material creation out of the equation when discussing Genesis 1. It does not attempt to solve the question of material origins, and leaves that open to any number of explanations of how God could have done it.
I recommend the book for anyone who has questions on how we should read Genesis 1. It offers an interesting alternative to other interpretations.
Richard Dawkins was invited to debate Dr. Stephen Myer of the Discovery Institute on the evidence for intelligent design but refused.
Dawkins, whose recent publication about evolution being the “greatest show on earth” is one long attack on creationism, does not debate “creationists”, he merely chooses to attack them in book-length pieces of self-important drivel. It seems that our atheist friend took this advice:
“Some time in the 1980s when I was on a visit to the United States, a television station wanted to stage a debate between me and a prominent creationist called, I think, Duane P Gish. I telephoned Stephen Gould for advice. He was friendly and decisive: “Don’t do it.” The point is not, he said, whether or not you would ‘win’ the debate. Winning is not what the creationists realistically aspire to. For them, it is sufficient that the debate happens at all. They need the publicity. We don’t. To the gullible public which is their natural constituency, it is enough that their man is seen sharing a platform with a real scientist. “There must be something in creationism, or Dr So-and-So would not have agreed to debate it on equal terms.” Inevitably, when you turn down the invitation you will be accused of cowardice, or of inability to defend your own beliefs. But that is better than supplying the creationists with what they crave: the oxygen of respectability in the world of real science.”
For him to say that he refuses to debate creationists is just as well. He conveniently refuses, and the proceeds to declare himself the winner of a non-existent debate, and then, knowing that he will be called the coward that he is, establishes an alibi based on the word of Gould.
Well then.
On the same basis, I refuse to debate Dawkins on anything related to science, theology or philosophy, and so should any other Christian. Because, quite frankly, he made his name “refuting” the existence of God, and any debate with him on the topic actually means that one thinks there is some merit in his arguments. The reality is that his “refutations” are laughable, as has been pointed out numerous times by many people. In fact, his arguments against the existence of God are so incredibly ineffective that he would be laughed off the stage in any debate (like he was in that very demanding debate in his appearance on the Colbert show).
One would think that anyone who spends so much energy and effort to debunk a position, and is so sure of his case, would jump at any opportunity to prove that his arguments stand up to some scrutiny. Isn’t that what science proposes? The hypocrisy is nothing more than what one would expect from an academic snob, and proves the point well, emperor Dawkins is not wearing any clothes.
The refrain is getting tiresome. I read it again this week: “If only Christians knew what science was really about…”, then, I suppose, it follows that we will also accept the atheistic conclusions that those who normally utter that phrase want us to. Christians are regarded as scientific neanderthals, moronic and blinded from reality by some religious obsession and utterly incapable and/or unwilling to even try and understand “science”.
What a load of nonsense. Because what they really mean is that Christians should accept the atheistic preconditions for abusing science to reach predetermined naturalist conclusions. It has little to do with science, per se, but everything to do with premeditated conclusions hidden behind a flimsy curtain of weak philosophy and untenable empiricism.
The chances of a Christian being unfamiliar with science is extremely remote. From elementary school through college, we learn about science. I myself hold undergrads in physics and electronics engineering, and postgrad in systems engineering, and I know many other Christians with qualifications in science and applied science. Most Christians have a decent understanding of science, and many are qualified in scientific areas.
But how about if we turn this around? I know that Dawkins, for example, refuses to even acknowledge the existence of anything outside of his preconceived atheism, and so do many of his disciples. Ironic, since that is exactly the “head-in-the-sand” attitude that they are so fond of accusing Christians of.
So, what if Christians said “If only atheists knew what Christianity was really about…” Theology does not have the benefit of being taught in school. And sad to say, is not addressed in most churches either. The unfortunate result is that most people, including many Christians, are unfamiliar with the richness of Christian study.
Most people think of Christianity only in terms of doctrine, and while doctrine makes up a decent part of what one studies in Christianity, there is so much more. There is archeology, textual integrity and criticism, cultural influence and then of course the incredibly richness of Christian philosophy, something which the majority of people are utterly unfamiliar with. In fact, it is painfully obvious just how illiterate people are about Christian philosophy when one reads not only the insipid screeds from Dawkins, Harris and the like, but also comments from the general public, even some Christians.
The responsibility falls on us as Christians to deliver and explain what Christianity is about. From my perspective there is too little of that in contemporary churches, and too much of the shallow “what’s in it for me” preachin’. There are virtually no public academic avenues left, and mainstream media and entertainment is militantly anti-Christian.
If Christians do not educate themselves on the richness and depth of Christianity, and take that message to the public sphere, we will continue to hear this tired refrain from atheists, and continue to see little response.
Thanks to my friend Puritan Lad, who let me know of the writings of John H. Walton, professor of Hebrew at Wheaton College, who offers an expanded framework perspective on Genesis. But he goes a step or two further than the traditional framework view, and explores the very purpose of Genesis.
While I don’t agree with all that he says, and find his reliance on other ancient near-East writings a little disturbing, it does offer some valuable insights that confused and helped me at the same time. Walton does not question ex-nihilo creation, but also asserts that the Genesis creation account is not it.
If we accept the exegetical and hermeneutical principle that we need to read the Biblical text in the same context and with the same intent as the original audience, then it gets pretty hard to differ from Dr. Walton on technical grounds. And maybe he is right, I am blinded by my modern presuppositions which I want to read into the text. I guess we are all a little guilty of that, especially when we are so keen to refute or confirm modern scientific hypothesis.
According to Dr. Walton then, Genesis is nit an ex-nihilo creation account, but the account whereby God brought order to a chaotic universe. He relies on both a comprehensive exegesis of ‘bara’ (create) and a cultural comparison to near-East contemporary religions. He concludes that the purpose of Genesis was to establish the Hebrew God as the lone personal God that organized the universe into its current form, and sustains it moment by moment.
Dr. Walton is also pretty blunt about the fact that despite many efforts to read many modern scientific principles (earth as sphere, for example) into the Scriptures, it is unjustified to do so. There simply is no correlation between Biblical accounts and modern science, nor should we try to find any, since the purpose of Scripture was to establish the covenant of the Hebrew God with His people as their God and Ruler.
In his commentary on Genesis, Dr. Walton offers his interpretation of the creation account, and concludes that it is about function, not the establishment of matter. He uses several analogies to demonstrate his point, saying that if we “create” a painting, it is about what ends up on the canvas, and not how the canvas, brushes and paint were made in the first place. In the same way Genesis is about how God used existing matter to create a functional universe, although Walton proposes that “design” might be a better translation of ‘bara’ in this context.
Personally, I still find it a bit challenging to accept all of the premises offered by Dr. Walton, and therefore also struggle to unreservedly agree with all of his conclusions. But it does offer an interesting alternative to the normal YEC/Old Earth/Evo/Design arguments, and I will therefore continue to explore it. Because if he is right, then all of those arguments are pretty much non-applicable to Genesis, and we will have to find other ways to reconcile Scripture with our modern scientific understanding.
I don’t recommend many books. But for someone who wants to read a solid Biblical treatment of the Christians role in science, as well as a fair (if a little bit short) treatment of the YEC/OEC debate, I highly recommend this book. Dr. Poythress is well-known theologian who teaches New Testament at the WTS, and holds multiple degrees.
He is not scared to explore the strengths and weaknesses in all positions, and in classical reformed style, always seeks to put God first, before any man-centered reasoning and conclusions. In the process he will offend many, no doubt, but even if you disagree with him, he provides good food for thought. His chapter on how YEC necessarily has to lead to some form of mature creation is insightful and offers some perspectives I have not yet seen anywhere else.
He also manages to convince me that the analogical day view of creation is the most logical and most God-honoring position to hold. One of the strengths of reformed scholarship throughout history has been that calm, rational exegesis and reasoning will help us towards the truth, and this book certainly displays that. The book is a nice balance between Biblical scholarship and modern scientific concepts throughout, with great care to emphasize human shortcomings in knowing the mysteries of God.
In some places I wish that he elaborated a bit more on some of his thoughts. But I guess with the book already at around 370 pages, it would have taken a book on each of the chapters to fully explore all that can be said.
I recommend that anyone interested in this subject read Dr. Poythress’s book. It has certainly blessed me, and cleared up some lingering questions I had. It also raised some new ones, for which I am equally grateful.
In the latest edition of Christianity Today, there is a review of a book that criticizes YEC. I’ve also read a couple of follow-up discussions at several websites, and it seems that since I don’t believe in a “young earth”, I am not a Bible believer, I am a scoffer, I am a misguided fool, I am a blasphemer, I am confused, I must deny whole portions of God’s Word and I hold to a twisted ideology. Oh, and don’t foget a charlatan and apostate, who is intellectually dishonest, and NOT a Christian.
I’m so glad we have all of that settled, including my one-way ticket to hell. Actually, it’s not the first time this has happened to me, that so-called brothers in Christ attacked my faith like that. Whenever I enter those discussions I make a bet with myself on how long it will be before the ad-homs start flying, and I usually lose because I overestimate the goodwill and fellowship of those who call themselves Christian.
We criticize atheistic evolutionists for their unwillingness to enter dialogue, for their hand-waving dismissal of anything that contradicts their beliefs, for closing the scientific apparatus to anything that doesn’t hold to their assumptions. And the criticism is valid. But why do some Christians insist on doing the same when it comes to the YEC position? I perceive the atheist attitude as being a sign of weakness, that such aggression and name-calling are the only techniques left after the house of cards come tumbling down. Must we now conclude that the YEC position is equally as fragile? Surely not.
Calling me names does nothing to my faith, and does nothing to God’s truth either. But it does affect my impression of those whom I enter into discussions with. I can call names as much as the next guy, but that is a waste of time, and an insult to God. In an area as sensitive as this, which seems to cause much division among Christians, it is especially an affront to our Savior that we cannot show goodwill and honesty towards brothers. Frankly, it just causes many to not want to have discussions like that any more. I now have to hide my beliefs because I know where it will lead….not to fruitful discussion but to the accusations above.
So I would urge that we show some tolerance and understanding amongst ourselves before launching into attacking others in such a brutal and insulting fashion. This manner of debate seems to have become a staple of modern America, answer your detractors by calling them the worst names you can think of and you will have won the debate. Facts, research and careful analysis seem to have mostly gone by the wayside as a result of this culture of attack. It’s easier to rattle off a two-line putdown than to conduct some research to see if the other person actually has a valid point or not, and to prepare a careful and thoughtful response. Pulling down a link is still easier should the conversation continue past the first exchanges.
We are so fortunate that we stand on the shoulders of giants that went before us, and that some serious scholars take the time today to try and gain insight into the mysteries of our Lord. That type of wisdom can never come from being proud and insulting mockers of brothers, but can come only from being humble before God.
So next time, before you mock and insult a brother or sister in Christ, think what effect you may have on that person. I can promise you, it is not a positive effect. Pray and be still before God before you speak dismissively and angrily. You may just honor God more that way.
I see this misunderstanding a lot. In a recent rant from an atheist, directed at a friend, he claimed that the basic message of Christianity, after you ignore the “witchcraft” and “superstition”, are the moral lessons. Treat others as you want to be treated, “go forth and make life better for all you encounter”, and “leave the planet better than we found it”.
Admirable traits, for sure, but as with many, this person is confusing the result with the cause, while cherry-picking the sections he likes, applying an arbitrary standard. Not only is he making claims not sustainable by atheism, he is also demonstrating his profound ignorance of what Christianity really is. We have discussed the shortcomings of atheist morality many times here and elsewhere, so I won’t dwell on that.
So what should we tell this person to demonstrate what Christianity really is? In short, the Christian belief is described in short as creation, fall, redemption and salvation.
Creation is the ex-nihilo coming into existence of all that can be described as having a cause. This is where Christian belief starts, with the belief that an almighty eternal God made our physical and spiritual universe.
Fall refers to the entry of evil into the world. It has had a profound effect on the world we live in and experience, an effect none of us can escape. We see it every day in evil acts, disease, disasters and tragedies.
Redemption refers to that grace our Creator has freely given us. While God expects us to behave in a certain way, He also knows that it is impossible for humans in their weakened sinful state to behave in that fashion. Transgression of the law requires punishment in any culture, and because God’s expectations is the universal moral law, He also punishes transgressions. But because He loves His creation more than we can describe, He also provides for us not to have to face that punishment, but rather sent a substitute to be punished on our behalf, Jesus Christ. We are redeemed before God by resting in the adequacy of Christ’s death to cover our transgressions.
Salvation is reached when our lives are changed by the belief in Christ’s redemptive act, and when that starts to change our lives so that we may act like our atheist friend thinks all people should.
Of course all humans may act in a moral manner from time to time, due to the fact that we share a common creation and common grace, that grace which transfers to all mankind to protect against anarchy and annihilation. But that behavior is still a result of grace, and not of selfish moral compunction.
Can one then be selective when claiming Christians should behave in a certain manner? Of course not, moral behavior in the Christian context is woven tightly into the Christian ground motive described above, and without it there is no compelling unselfish reason to behave in a certain fashion.
I would advise our non-believing friend to gain a deeper understanding of what Christianity is before he makes flippant statements again.
The storm rages (or fizzles) on. Intelligent design is creationism in disguise, theistic evolution is true but one cannot prove it by detecting design, and naturalistic evolution is still the ad-populum argument for atheism.
But what is design (the D-word) really? And can we argue that it is creationism in disguise?
There are of course a few definitions for design, but it seems to be appropriate in these discussions to define it as someone or something, with a predetermined outcome in mind, put forth some specifications for what that outcome should look like. As an engineer myself, I used to do that all the time…calculate and draw up designs from a statement of work, or, to use a military term, a required operational capability. But there had to be a starting point, some idea of where we wanted to go before we could add the numbers etc. Building and testing what was designed was a whole other mess.
I’m not always impressed with ID (Intelligent Design) being labeled as “creationism”. As a creationist, I don’t think it goes far enough. It kind of hinges on the edge of being useful. Because the one thing that evolution proposes that ID doesn’t, is a mechanism by which what we see (and what we are) has come to be. I can design things all day long, but without an artisan to put those designs into a working physical form, those designs are completely useless. One can see why there are supporters of theistic evolution, however flawed that compromise might be.
I guess one could argue that detecting design is a useful exercise, and may disprove one of the assumptions of the naturalistic movement, that of ontological naturalism…or does it? In efforts to keep ID immune from accusations that it is nothing but thinly disguised creationism, it has been proposed that a designer might be aliens. Which of course begs the question, where did the aliens come from? And in the absence of evidence, it is a similar commitment to that of a creator God. In other words, we are no closer to solving the ontological dilemma.I will add that the same holds true for the naturalistic atheist side, a belief in a multiverse is equally without proof.
In the end, we know very little. Do I think that the universe was designed? Sure. Do I think we can detect that it was designed? Sure. Do I think that we are all the result of a mindless random process? Most assuredly not. Do I have an alternative process by which we came to be? Sure, but it sure as heck isn’t scientific by current standards.
See, the problem is that something had to kick it all off. Something had to come from nothing, somewhere in the past, regardless of what position you hold. Time cannot be eternal past. Is the argument then how things developed from the first coming into existence until now, billions of years later, or is it the first appearance of existence, or both? We have options…
And this is where I feel that the current discussion ends. We simply don’t know. Design theory sure as heck ain’t gonna tell us. Non theistic evolution grinds to a halt pre-life. We simply cannot comprehend how something can come from nothing. Our whole life revolves around cause and effect.
As a creationist I of course believe that God created it all. He said it and it came to pass, instantly. God’s perspective of course is a lot different. He did not design with an outcome in mind. The outcome was there at the same time as the design, as God eternal is outside of our time dimension. God did not first put out a statement of work, and then calculated a drew the whole universe out, and then called up His Heavenly artisans to chop, hammer and fit together the whole universe. No, it was all complete in both design and existence at the same time. Of course, being subject to the temporal world, we perceive it a lot differently.
So while I believe that ID is useful to expose the limitations of non-theistic evolutionary mechanisms, it does not go far enough in trying to determine how design became existence.
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica. Powered by BibleGateway.com.
