Bruce Waltke and the Scientific Orthodoxy

_{Cornelius Hunter

April 7, 2010

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Bruce Waltke, a Professor of Old Testament, has parted ways with Reformed Theological Seminary, perhaps due to controversies over his sympathies with evolution. Rod Dreher at BeliefNet worries that this is a dangerous disregard for science: Read more

Comments

I have debated this issue many times from partisans from both sides [yes, I know some will be tempted to call me a partisan], and here is what I have found. Among the most reasonable of the TE’s and among the most reasonable ID advocates, God’s revelation in Scripture and God’s revelation in Scripture cannot be in conflict because God cannot be in conflict with himself. Contrary to this most reasonable view, we find, at one extreme, a very small section of reactionaries from the ID camp, for whom every word in the Bible must be taken literally, and, at the other extreme, no small number of heavy handed Darwinists among the TE contingent, for whom the clear teachings of Scripture may be abandoned anytime they feel the slightest tension between theological truth and the latest scientific fad. For those on both sides who are reasonable, the issue, it seems to me boils down to this: What Scriptural teachings are absolutely non-negotiable and cannot be compromised even if science seems to be tugging the other way? What scientific findings are so evident that they cannot be denied even if a “literalist” interpretation of Scripture [every work taken as written regardless of the author’s intent or context] may be tugging the other way? We are all, or should be, seeking a “literal” interpretation, which is simply that view which reflects exactly what the author had in mind. What we want to avoid are the two extremes. On one end, we find the “literalist” interpretation, which ignores context and the author’s intent, (if he writes that it was “raining cats and dogs,” we do, if we are not a literalist, understand that cats and dogs were not falling out of the sky), and, on the other end, we find the “demythologized” interpretation, which reads secularist world views and unproven scientific speculations into Scripture and compromise basic teachings which ought not to be compromised. Since Timaeus, one of my favorite writers is doing a good job at calling attention to the first group [I do not, in my wildest speculations place Cornelius Hunter, another one of my favorite authors, in that mix] I will comment on the second group. This brings us back to the question about which Scriptural truths are non-negotiable and the contemporary TE problem (not the traditional TE, which is a totally different mindset). I submit, for example, that the teaching about original sin, singular first parents, and God as creator of the universe should be beyond the reach of science to refute. If you give those away to the Darwinist mentality, you may as well go all the way and become an agnostic. Without the first Adam and Eve (not necessarily by name) there is not need for the second Adam and Eve, [Christ and his mother]. Take away original sin, and there is no need for a redeemer. Even so, I have never met a TE who does not sacrifice at least one of these two basic Christian doctrines in order to accommodate the Darwinistic ideology, with little sensitivity to the fact that not a trace of it has been confirmed by evidence. Press them about our singular first parents, for example, and they will say that they simply do not believe it, but rather than defend their position, they allude to other authors who agree with them as if that response addresses the issue. One TE, who visits here often, has suggested that I read more [I have already had more than enough, thank you] of the Rev. John Polkinghorne, who just happens to think that God cannot know the future. That means, of course, that he has forfeited any possibility of an Old Testament/New Testament connection, the phenomenon of prophecies, and, last but not least, God’s omniscience. It’s the same old story: Christian Darwinists want their God and their Darwin too, but, when push comes to shove, they want a quiet God and loud Darwin. These compromises do not work, and science doesn’t require them anyway. Thus, I find Cornelius Hunter appealing and Ken Miller appalling.StephenB_{April 13, 2010
April
04
Apr
13
13
2010
03:46 PM
3
03
46
PM
PDT}

Thanks to all who have said kind words about my posts. T.Timaeus_{April 13, 2010
April
04
Apr
13
13
2010
03:18 PM
3
03
18
PM
PDT}

Andrew: I don't agree with some of your historical claims, at least, not based on your presentation of them here. Yes, there are historical connections between Christianity and science. However, if you look at some of the best-known people who have made the argument for the connection -- Pierre Duhem, Stanley Jaki, Michael B. Foster, R. G. Collingwood, Peter Berger -- they do not place any emphasis on Biblical literalism. I have not read Harrison's book, and so will not comment on it, but the Christianity-science connection was noted by many long before Harrison. Origen's remarks on literalism I have recently consulted firsthand. He certainly was no Genesis literalist of the modern type. And yes, you are right that for him Genesis could be false literally while still true spiritually. What you have not yet done is to apply that principle to the Flood story, and to raise the question whether the Flood story *needs* to be literally true in order for Christianity to be true. There are many American Protestants for whom the fate of Christianity hangs upon the literal defense of the Flood story. I never spoke of undermining objective truth. The question is whether objective truth can be obtained only by a literal reading of certain Biblical passages. I do not suppose that there was a man named Scrooge who encountered three spirits on Christmas Eve, but the teaching of that story remains objectively true nonetheless. I am glad that you agree that the Bible can be read too literally. However, what I am asking Cornelius to provide is some inkling of the criteria which might be applied to determine when a literal reading is required and when it is not, especially when we are dealing with apparent clashes between inferences from history and archaeology and geology, and literal Biblical statements. I think he does not wish to take up this topic, so I will let it go. T.Timaeus_{April 13, 2010
April
04
Apr
13
13
2010
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PDT}

As an occasional reader and even more occasional commenter at this blog, let me endorse Ted Davis's remarks on Timaeus's post above. I came to glance and stayed to read. Timaeus, you are someone I could do business with.Zach Bailey_{April 13, 2010
April
04
Apr
13
13
2010
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PDT}

Matthew 13:31-32 states that the mustard seed is the smallest. Inappropriate literalism could be used to attack discoveries to the contrary. It seems a certain species of orchid have smaller seeds. My view is theologians should generally tread with caution when declaring what should be discovered through lab or field observations by scientists. Theoologians and Bible scholars can offer a hypothesis ( like Noah's flood or the age of the world), but dogmatically dictating what should and should not be discovered in the lab or field? Forget it. Are Maxwell's equations ungodly because they suggest the world is old? Do we solve the fundamental theorem of calculus, Planck's constant by reading the Bible? I don't think God would have us discern truth by pure appeal to scripture. God communicates through his works, to ignore them would be to ignore the fact God said, if you can't believe His words, believe his works. John 10:38. The issue with Waltke is he is guilty of the very thing he insinuates about others. In the eyes of several highly literate scientists, he's following the cult of Darwin in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary. He affirms the orthodoxy, not the facts. This is the pot calling the kettle black. My feeling, theologians and Bible scholars could benefit by acceptiing the possibility their hermeneutics might be inferior to actual empirical facts. Perhaps the study of nature might help inform theology.scordova_{April 13, 2010
April
04
Apr
13
13
2010
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT}

April is the heaviest time of the spring for me, in terms of my day job; it is not possible for me to expand greatly on the points I made above. (Anyone who wants me to can simply read the chapter I cited. Contact me privately about this, if you are unable to obtain a copy of the print source in a library. I realize that print sources are inherently less accessible, but in general much of the literature that is most relevant for conversations about religion is simply not available electronically: this does affect popular perceptions of, say, "theistic evolution" and the history of religion and science--and not for the better.) I am all the more grateful, then, for Timaeus' contributions on this thread. Except for his points about the flood (which I agree with), which I do not discuss, the other issues are directly or indirectly raised in my essay. Above all, I underscore the point he made in #55, as follows: "However much Waltke may have over-estimated the scientific evidence for evolution, and however much he may have overlooked the metaphysical biases of evolutionary theorists, he has made an important point of another kind, i.e., that, *if* there are cases (not necessarily the case of evolution, it might be the Flood or the age of the earth or something else) where the scientific evidence is truly overwhelming, it might be necessary to read some parts of the Bible in ways that some conservatives might not find acceptable. In such cases the refusal to reconsider certain traditional readings could indeed damage the credibility of Christians." Generally speaking, ID advocates have sought deliberately to avoid such topics; Bill Dembski's recent book on theodicy is an outstanding exception. However, for many--perhaps most--adherents of ID, those issues are probably very important and closely related in their minds to ID itself. Advocates of "theistic evolution," on the other hand, talk about these things all the time; it's inherent to such positions that opinions about theology and the Bible are part of the whole position. This creates the quite false impression that ID defends the Bible while TE attacks the Bible. The fact is that advocates of TE have often thought very hard about the Bible, while advocates of ID have often carefully avoided the subject--too carefully, IMO. Thus, the single most important message that Timeaus is bringing, IMO, is this one: "your comments don’t really help the religious community that Waltke is addressing to deal with its inner demons. Convincing that community that the scientific evidence for evolution is not so great will just enable that community to put off the fundamental rethinking of larger questions of Biblical interpretation which it needs to address, for all kinds of reasons other than the need to fight against evolution." George Murphy, a leading advocate of "theistic evolution" whose views have not been appreciated here, could not have said it better--though he has often said the same thing elsewhere. Speaking for myself, the inability of the evangelical community (whether reformed or not) to do the hard hermeneutical work that needs to be done, relative to science since the end of the 18th century, is an ongoing source of frustration. I talked about this at http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2008/06/evangelicals-evolution-and-academics.html Gotta go. Thank you, Timaeus, for taking the words right out of my mouth.Ted Davis_{April 13, 2010
April
04
Apr
13
13
2010
06:55 AM
6
06
55
AM
PDT}

Timaeus - the type of position of someone like Origen is that whenever scripture faces a problem in the literal, the meaning can be symbolised to maintain its truthfulness. So Scripture can never fail, but it may also say nothing about the real world in which we live. RC faith is based on Church authority, which too is fallible. Peter Harrison 'The Bible, Protestantism and Modern Science' has shown that the Reformation allowed a more literal reading of Scripture which then allowed a more literal reading of nature instead of a semiotic reading. This enabled science to get going in a more meaningful way. The problem is that both nature and Scripture are then potentially falsifiable because they make potentiall testable statements. So biblical literalism enabled science, but at the same time risks undermining the truthfulness of the Bible. But if we undermine the truthfulness of the literal reading of the Bible then we risk undermining science as well and we will go back to reading nature symbolically. This is why atheists like Dawkins are really enemies of science. They are unknowlingly cutting off the branch on which they sit and their position will lead to post modern relativism which is not a good place for science to flourish. I question whether there is such a thing as 'overwhelming evidence' in historical science because science and faith begin in belief. It is a foundational belief in order and objective truth that allows science. A belief in intelligent design can be part of that orderliness. But if we undermine objective truth we are left with subjective truths. If we could undermine a literal reading of the bible, then science would suffer. Having said that, I do believe that it is possible to read the bible too literally, or apply a false literalism because we read it wrongly. Both ignore the theological truths in the account.Andrew Sibley_{April 13, 2010
April
04
Apr
13
13
2010
04:11 AM
4
04
11
AM
PDT}

TWO of my favorite people on Uncommon Descent: Cornelius Hunter and Timaeus. I have thoroughly enjoyed their exchange, even though neither of them may have. ...just sayinUpright BiPed_{April 13, 2010
April
04
Apr
13
13
2010
03:23 AM
3
03
23
AM
PDT}

Cornelius (52): I believe that even if you have never said it directly in so many words, that a critique of theological naturalism, theological rationalism, etc. is implied between the lines if we take the overall drift of your argument over dozens of blog posts here and elsewhere over the last few years. However, I won't fight over this. Even if you have no such implicit message, it is clear that you prefer not to answer a good number of my questions, and don't want the conversation to go down the path I'm interested in going down. I gave you a pretty clear opportunity to clarify your thoughts on some issues with the Flood example, but if you don't choose to be explicit in the face of an opportunity like that, there is nothing I can do. So I will sign off for now, with just this warning: However much Waltke may have over-estimated the scientific evidence for evolution, and however much he may have overlooked the metaphysical biases of evolutionary theorists, he has made an important point of another kind, i.e., that, *if* there are cases (not necessarily the case of evolution, it might be the Flood or the age of the earth or something else) where the scientific evidence is truly overwhelming, it might be necessary to read some parts of the Bible in ways that some conservatives might not find acceptable. In such cases the refusal to reconsider certain traditional readings could indeed damage the credibility of Christians. This does not affect me in the slightest, as I do not hold to the kind of literalism which can be threatened by scientific evidence of any kind. But Waltke travels in a different branch of the Christian world, and it is a very real concern there. I don't have any objection to your observations on the metaphysics of evolution, but your comments don't really help the religious community that Waltke is addressing to deal with its inner demons. Convincing that community that the scientific evidence for evolution is not so great will just enable that community to put off the fundamental rethinking of larger questions of Biblical interpretation which it needs to address, for all kinds of reasons other than the need to fight against evolution. T.Timaeus_{April 13, 2010
April
04
Apr
13
13
2010
02:48 AM
2
02
48
AM
PDT}

Andrew: You're missing my point about the Flood. The point is that *if* the scientific evidence -- taking into account all the things you say about sediment and so on -- indicated overwhelmingly that there had been no global Flood, and if the *only* way there could have been a global Flood is if God had supernaturally erased every trace of evidence from it -- i.e., deliberately made it look as if the event had not happened -- then should sensible people, including sensible Christians, deny the global Flood and read the story non-literally? That is the methodological issue I'm raising -- is there *any* point at which a Christian who has been brought up as an extreme literalist should have to say: "The evidence shows that I was wrong." If there is *no* such point, then Waltke is right -- Christianity (of that variety) will never appear to the world as anything but a cult. What I've been trying to find out from Cornelius, with little success, is whether there is ever any such point of decision, where the Bible and science seem to make contrary historical claims. This is a completely separate question from the question whether that point of evidential strength has been reached in the case of evolution. It's an *if* question I'm asking, and it's a set of *principles* I'm looking for. T.Timaeus_{April 13, 2010
April
04
Apr
13
13
2010
02:24 AM
2
02
24
AM
PDT}

Timaeus - if both Scripture and the natural order are two narratives, or two books, then both have their own interpretive framework or hermeneutic. The applied framework can be exegetical or eisegetical for both. A naturalist can read naturalism into science instead of allowing the evidence to speak for itself and thus bring forth the truth out of the evidence. An example from geology - Lyell's friend Scrope praised him for writing two volumes on geology and carefully omitting the word strata. Is that exegesis or eisegesis ? So we can't see the flood because of the way we interpret the sediment, partly thanks to Lyell. When you see that the sediment must have been laid down in flowing water the flood begins to make sense. But to try and answer your question, we do need to be careful how we interpret both science and Scripture, but we shouldn't necessarily give priority to a naturalistic interpretation of science.Andrew Sibley_{April 13, 2010
April
04
Apr
13
13
2010
12:32 AM
12
12
32
AM
PDT}

Timaeus:
I am not asking this out of idle curiosity about your private religious views. Your past objections to naturalism, rationalism and liberalism in theology are relevant here.
Past objections? I suspect you are thinking of someone else. I don't recall making such objections or otherwise telling people how to do their religion. If I did I didn't mean to. Likewise for science, though I am concerned about lies about, or denial of, important religious premises. Evolutionists make religious assumptions, more significant than any made by Galileo's opponents for instance, deny doing any such thing, and even accuse others of this. This is a glaring internal contradiction which I think needs to be understood. But I'm not objecting to naturalism, as you say.Cornelius Hunter_{April 12, 2010
April
04
Apr
12
12
2010
10:39 PM
10
10
39
PM
PDT}

All right, Cornelius, you didn't actually say that Waltke believed that evolution is a fact. I shall rephrase. In your exchange with Beckwith over Waltke, you suggested that Waltke might be greatly overestimating the strictly scientific evidence for evolution and might not be fully appreciative of how much tacit metaphysics there is in most arguments for evolution. (See your reply 22 above.) I think that is a fair statement of your position. And as you know, I bracketed out this whole line of argument -- "there's a whole lot more metaphysics and whole lot less science in the arguments for evolution than most people realize" -- in order to address a different point, one important to many readers of UD and to Dr. Waltke who is an Old Testament scholar, i.e., the point of how the Bible is to be read, and how its interpretation is to be co-ordinated with other fields of human knowledge. The rest of your reply is rather sketchy and does not do justice to the care which I put into my line of questioning, but as you are the author of the column, you of course have the right to pick and choose which questions you will answer and how much depth you will go into. You did make one rather frank admission, which interests me: "I don’t think following the data, even to the point of modifying a religious belief equates to mandating a religious belief in spite of the data." I entirely agree that they are not the same thing, and, as I already said to both you and Andrew, I was not arguing that the two bodies of evidence, one for a round earth and one for evolution, should be treated as equally strong, or that we must accept evolution if we accept a round earth. I placed enough qualifying statements in my various posts to ensure that I could not be interpreted in that way by a careful reader. What I am interested in is the first part of your statement: "... following the data, even to the point of modifying a religious belief" The context seems to imply that you think that modifying a religious belief, in the light of scientific evidence, might be in some cases justified. Is that your position? And just to make it crystal clear, would you apply that to Christian belief? Would you say that some beliefs that have been held in the past by Christians, even by large numbers of Christians, even by major theologians, or by whole denominations, even ensconced in major confessions, can in some cases be rightly altered in the light of new knowledge of nature, without betraying or undermining true Christian religion? If so, I am not disagreeing; but please note my original framing concern. You know perfectly well that there are a large number of Christians whose "conservatism" is closely connected with a literal or near literal reading of Biblical statements. You also know perfectly well that many of these conservative Christians believe that Christian faith is in danger if *any* factually erroneous statement is found in the Bible, even if the statement does not appear to the average onlooker to be of any great religious import. Thus, I am sure you know of those who have gone to great lengths to suggest that there is no error in the Bible when it speaks of waters above the heavens, etc., and to try to "rescue" its literal sense by various more or less unconvincing devices. I am asking for your opinion about this sort of Biblical exegesis. Should these people give up the ghost, and just admit that there are geographical, physical and other sorts of errors in Biblical texts? I am not asking this out of idle curiosity about your private religious views. Your past objections to naturalism, rationalism and liberalism in theology are relevant here. It is not clear to me how your general line of argument can distinguish between a principled re-interpretation of a Biblical text, based on a sincere belief that the facts of nature prove the Biblical text wrong in its literal sense, and a re-interpretation driven by naturalism, rationalism, liberalism, etc. You and I agree that Schwarzert has no metaphysical axe to grind; he merely thinks that the evidence shows the earth is round. When he goes back to the Bible and tries to make sense of passages about a flat earth, he is not driven by "theological rationalism" or "theological liberalism" or anything of the sort. We have no dispute there. But suppose someone were to say: "There is no evidence for a global flood at about the time indicated in the Biblical story. The telltale geological, archaeological and historical traces are all missing. The most reasonable conclusion, based on current scientific knowledge, is that there was no such Flood. Therefore, we should investigate ways of reading the Flood story which treat it as non-literal, perhaps, e.g., as a myth or legend." And suppose a literalist replies: "How do you know that God did not deliberately alter the appearance of nature and of human habitations etc. in order to make it APPEAR that there had been no global flood? Perhaps he wanted to test our faith in the veracity of his written word. Your assumption that God has not intervened to cover up all evidence of a global Flood betrays a commitment to theological naturalism and theological rationalism, and therefore your "scientific" inference that there was no global Flood is metaphysics disguising as science." What would you think of this argument from the literalist, Cornelius? Would you think it quite just? Would you say that the modern scientist who infers "There was no global Flood at the time indicated by Genesis" is importing metaphysics into science? Or would you say that, like Schwarzert, he is simply following the data, and drawing the reasonable conclusion? Again, lest I be misunderstood, I am *not* saying that inferring the non-existence of a global Flood is exactly the same as the inferring the existence of evolution. But I *would* like your comment on the Flood example, in terms of naturalism, rationalism, etc., and I would like to know how it differs from the Schwarzert case, if at all. You see, if we don't understand how to distinguish between a pure, honest, empirically based inference about the past, and an impure, theologically motivated inference about the past, then all inferences about the past will be frozen out of science. Is that your goal, to freeze all inferences about the past out of science? Or do you grant that inferences about the past are a legitimate part of science, and if so, do you propose ways in which we can sort out evidence-driven inferences from metaphysically-driven inferences? If it's the latter, please give me some examples. T.Timaeus_{April 12, 2010
April
04
Apr
12
12
2010
07:43 PM
7
07
43
PM
PDT}

Timaeus (48):
I think your point is that Dr. Waltke has not noticed the metaphysical assumptions, and therefore is too sure that evolution is fact.
It's funny how quickly things become distorted. My point, mainly directed at the BeliefNet blogger, was that the evidence is problematic for evolution, and so we ought not merely hand over the science to evolutionists, who inject deep metaphysics in the interpretation of the evidence. I said nothing about Waltke claiming evolution to be a fact (which he did not do AFAIK).
(1) Do you now concede that Schwarzert is making theological assertions and/or assumptions, insofar as he is *certain* that the earth is round rather than flat (i.e., discounts the possibility that God could be deceiving him to test his faith), and insofar as he believes that he has the right to read the Bible in a way which allows for errors of fact?
Even the most ardent empiricist makes assumptions somewhere along the line.
(2) Do you agree that these theological assumptions/assertions can be characterized as “rationalist” or “naturalist” as you have in the past employed those terms?
No. If two parts per hundred is no different than 98 parts per hundred, then the terms lose meaning. I think too often in the origins debate details are glossed over. I don't think following the data, even to the point of modifying a religious belief equates to mandating a religious belief in spite of the data.
(3) Finally, do you think that Schwarzert is reasonable and sensible, and that his peasant neighbors would be well-advised to adopt his adjusted mode of reading the Bible, and admit that the Bible may contain incidental errors, and that the truth of Christianity is not threatened by such errors, if they exist?
Rather than deciding what is and is not reasonable and sensible I'd settle for mere truth in advertising. There is a variety of evidence bearing on such cases, and different folks weight the evidence differently, and rely on non empirical assumptions differently. Some solutions are probably more reasonable than others, but it's not an easy question. Although I think evolution is weak, I also give it credit for its strong points.Cornelius Hunter_{April 12, 2010
April
04
Apr
12
12
2010
06:38 PM
6
06
38
PM
PDT}

Andrew (at 47): I don't dispute your recommendation that we should be cautious in our claims about nature, and take into account the possibility of an inadequate perspective. However, if we come up to date on the "flat earth" thing, I think it is now pretty clear -- based on our experience of space travel, and many other things -- that this earth is in fact spherical (roughly), not flat. And the question I am asking of those who style themselves "conservative" in their Biblical interpretation is: if there *were* a passage in the Bible that inescapably implied that the narrator viewed the earth as flat, would you (a) admit that the Bible has made an error; (b) adjust your ideas of infallibility and inspiration in light of that error? (E.g., would you say that Christian faith does not depend upon the Bible's being error-free in all respects, but only error-free in matters of faith and morals?) We can't even begin to discuss how Christians should respond theologically to the possibility of organic evolution, when the overwhelming number of "conservative" Christians I have read seem to be completely unaware of the numerous important statements that have been made by Augustine, Origin, Calvin, the Roman Church and many other sources regarding the Bible's mode of description of the natural world. To try to rule evolution in or out of court, without having first established any sound methodological principles for discussing Biblical statements about nature, is to invite endless quarrelling, which will yield all heat and no light. T.Timaeus_{April 12, 2010
April
04
Apr
12
12
2010
04:16 PM
4
04
16
PM
PDT}

Cornelius (re #36): I’m not contesting your assertion that metaphysical assumptions are built into many presentations of evolutionary theory. I think your point is that Dr. Waltke has not noticed the metaphysical assumptions, and therefore is too sure that evolution is fact. That is your battle with Dr. Waltke, and I will stand aside and let the best man win. I was focusing on something else in Dr. Waltke’s remarks, something else which ties in with comments you have made in the past in various blogs and other places about naturalism, rationalism, and how they affect religious orthodoxy and the reading of Scripture. You have not yet quite understood, or at least have not yet granted, the point I was trying to make in my little story. You wrote: “But Schwarzert has made no such assumption [about the kind of God that exists]. He has simply adjusted his reading.” And later, you remark that Schwarzert’s motivation for adjusting his reading is good empirical science [unlike evolution, which in your view is bad empirical science]. Here is what you are not seeing. Yes, Schwarzert’s intention is simply to report the conclusions of what is, to him, good empirical science: the earth is round. And yes, he sees himself as simply adjusting his interpretation of the Bible, not going against the Bible. But not everyone is going to see it that way. Remember that in my story, I postulated (for the sake of argument, not as a matter of fact) one or more Biblical verses which clearly state or imply that the earth is flat. (And for “the earth is flat”, the story could be adjusted for “the earth is immobile”, “there are waters above the sky”, or any number of other propositions about the physical arrangements and operation of the world.) So, suppose some conservative medieval peasant holds to the view that all descriptions of the world stated or clearly implied by the Bible have to be understood as part of the teaching of the Bible, and cannot be treated as incidental and non-binding upon the believer; i.e., nothing in the Bible can be false, not even side-information of a historical or geographical or other sort. The Bible is the Word of God and God does not lie. Now, for a peasant such as has been described, if the Bible says the earth is flat, then the earth IS flat, and not even “the best science” can be correct if it says otherwise. Thus, if a scientist should assert that the earth IS in fact round (viz., spherical), that scientist is inescapably implying (from the aforementioned point of view) that the Bible makes a false statement. And from the context of the example, we know that the scientist in question is no skeptic or atheist, but believes in God, considers him Christian, and believes that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. So he must hold to a view of revelation such as this: “The Bible is the inspired word of God, and in all matters of faith and morals in entirely reliable and true; but God has spoken in the language of men, and therefore accommodates the errors of men.” The moment he adopts that view (even if he adopts it only unconsciously), he is, in your terms, theologizing, making assertions, or perhaps tacit assumptions, about the way that God chooses to communicate, assertions or assumptions which he has not learned from God, but rather has come up with because they are necessary in order to allow him to say that the earth is round. He is letting his doctrine of scriptural inspiration be determined by the conclusions of his empirical science. He could take the opposite course. He could stick with the doctrine of inspiration, infallibility, etc. of his countrymen, and say: “God must be testing me, causing me to reason out a conclusion that conflicts with his Word, to see if I will proudly trust my own reasonings rather than Him. I will therefore refrain from proclaiming that the earth is round, and will trust in God rather than my fallible self.” And if, in response to this display of humility, someone were to say to Schwarzert: “God would never put human beings to such a test, asking them to deny their senses and the rules of basic reason and geometry and so on” -- that person would be, in *your* terms, theologizing. “God wouldn’t ... ” is a theological assertion in your book. So, in sum, this round-earth theorist in my story is theologizing, because he is tacitly assuming that God would never cause soundly employed reason and carefully checked sensory perception (in this case, reasoning and sensory perception related to receding ships and their masts) to produce falsehood in the human mind, and/or he is tacitly assuming that the inspiration or infallibility of the Bible is limited to “essential” teachings and does not apply to all its statements. I think I have now made the problem clear enough for you to reply in the spirit of my inquiry. My questions are: (1) Do you now concede that Schwarzert is making theological assertions and/or assumptions, insofar as he is *certain* that the earth is round rather than flat (i.e., discounts the possibility that God could be deceiving him to test his faith), and insofar as he believes that he has the right to read the Bible in a way which allows for errors of fact? (2) Do you agree that these theological assumptions/assertions can be characterized as “rationalist” or “naturalist” as you have in the past employed those terms? (3) Finally, do you think that Schwarzert is reasonable and sensible, and that his peasant neighbors would be well-advised to adopt his adjusted mode of reading the Bible, and admit that the Bible may contain incidental errors, and that the truth of Christianity is not threatened by such errors, if they exist? I think these questions are straightforward, and they are not intended to trap you, but merely to get you to clearly state your position on Biblical interpretive methods insofar as they relate to the factual character of statements about nature made in the Bible. That is why I have picked an example that has nothing to do with evolution, so that we can establish (if possible) some common epistemological and methodological ground, before plunging into the implications of Waltke’s views on evolution and the Bible. T.Timaeus_{April 12, 2010
April
04
Apr
12
12
2010
03:45 PM
3
03
45
PM
PDT}

Timaeus - your example is of non technical people who start with 'apparent' observations in nature and then read that into Scripture - or read Scripture in light of appearances. So they are practically starting in science, not in Scripture. I have written previously in the anthology 'Should Christians Embrace Evolution' (IVP) that Christians don't always get their interpretation of Scripture right - but that care needs to be given not to dismiss Scripture simply because of observations that are interpreted without taking full account of the problems of induction .i.e. all observations are limited in time and space.Andrew Sibley_{April 12, 2010
April
04
Apr
12
12
2010
12:53 PM
12
12
53
PM
PDT}

And once again I repeat, WE ARE, for all practical purposes, "geocentrically" located in the universe! For all those who are holding that we are not geocentrically located in the universe,,,, The Known Universe (The Centrality Of Earth In The Universe To The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation) – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJrm21M2h4g ,,,,Please explain the 3-D centrality of the earth in the preceding video, in mathematical detail, using solely the space-time of general relativity as a tool, from radically different points of observation in the universe. The truth is that the 4-D space-time of general relativity is grossly insufficient to explain such 3-D centrality, and the correct solution for the mystery as to why we are central, is found in the phenomena of wave collapse of Quantum Mechanics, in that each individual observer is central to the universe from their own unique perspective of observation in the universe. Universal wave collapse is the only solution that will produce a consistent result of 3-D centrality within the 4-D space-time of the universe from radically different points of observation in the universe! "It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness." Eugene Wigner (1902 -1995) laid the foundation for the theory of symmetries in quantum mechanics, for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1963 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Wigner http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness_causes_collapsebornagain77_{April 12, 2010
April
04
Apr
12
12
2010
12:10 PM
12
12
10
PM
PDT}

Ted (41):
The more I follow the modern origins controversy (which I’ve followed for more than 30 years), the more I am convinced of the ongoing relevance–and great importance–of taking Galileo very seriously. His “Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina,” (partly available in illegal forms on the internet but entirely available in Stillman Drake’s translation in print) is IMO the single most important text on biblical interpretation, relative to science, that has ever been written. (I realize that’s a strong claim, but I often make it.)
So can you elaborate on how Galileo's message would help us with evolutionary thought? For instance when evolutionists, from Charles Darwin to Ken Miller, make metaphysical claims about God and creation that mandate evolution, what would Galileo say about this?Cornelius Hunter_{April 12, 2010
April
04
Apr
12
12
2010
11:02 AM
11
11
02
AM
PDT}

scordova: The PCA is not (in the present tense) allowing geocentrists any voice, to the best of my knowledge. The events I wrote about took place in the early 1990s. The similarities in approach to the biblical text, however, were starkly similar to the ones I have mentioned above. I think my points are now stated clearly enough. I don't plan to say more here, but I do recommend that anyone interested in reading my commentary on Galileo, accommodation, and his critics (both early modern and modern) be in touch with me privately. Blogging takes far too much time for me to do it regularly, but these incidents are simply so disturbing to me that I felt compelled to issue some cautions.Ted Davis_{April 12, 2010
April
04
Apr
12
12
2010
11:00 AM
11
11
00
AM
PDT}

Timeaus quotes one of my favorite passages from Calvin (his commentary on Genesis) in #29, and in #30 he then asks this: "So the question is: at what point is it reasonable to say that such a conservative is wrong-headed, and that the Bible can be read more flexibly, in order to accommodate what appear to be truths about the order of nature?" This is precisely what I talk about in the essay mentioned above. Needless to say, answers vary a great deal. I review those offered by Bouw, Paul Nelson (who is well known here), Terry Mortenson (who is well known at AIG), David Tyler, and others. The abstract is as follows: "Creationists regard the Bible as the only fully reliable source of truth about origins. All information from the sciences must conform to, or be made to conform to, their particular interpretation of early Genesis and other texts. This paper uncovers and examines creationist hermeneutical principles against the historical background of the Galileo affair, using a comparative method in three parts. First, we study what Galileo himself said about the Bible and natural science, comparing this with what Roberto, Cardinal Bellarmine said on the same topic. Next, we see how members of a creationist subgroup, the modern geocentrists, approach the same issue, comparing their hermeneutical principles with those of Galileo and Bellarmine. Finally, we study what other creationists say about their geocentrist colleagues and about Galileo’s hermeneutical strategy."Ted Davis_{April 12, 2010
April
04
Apr
12
12
2010
10:51 AM
10
10
51
AM
PDT}

Ted, I hope I've expressed that I share your concerns of what is going on in reformed Seminary. However, for students of science, or professional scientists, or science hobbiests like myself, it's distasteful to hear theologians make decisions about what we should or should not believe about science. That goes for Waltke saying:
“if the data is overwhelmingly in favor of evolution, to deny that reality will make us a cult.”
This is a bit disturbing as much as Westminster's behavior or the geocentrists in the PCA. Perhaps I'd be more receptive if theologians simply said: "I have opinions, but no expertise to say one way or the other." The thought of trying to use Hermenuitics to adjudicate questions of electromagnetism and quantum mechanics (and that's what one is doing if one is using Genesis to claim the world is young) seems illogical. The Bible commends people who search things out to see that certain things were really so. I think there should be some freedom for believers who are in the scientists to come to the scientific conclusions their conscience dictates. Waltke is insinuating that science students who reject Darwinism are a cult. That's insulting. I'm sorry, however, the PCA is letting geocentrists have much of a say. That's scary, especially since the PCA has respected physicists like Dave Snoke and others. If the geocentrists had their way, Dave Snoke and I would be out of the church. Scary!scordova_{April 12, 2010
April
04
Apr
12
12
2010
10:37 AM
10
10
37
AM
PDT}

George, the point I am making is about biblical hermeneutics and how a particular hermeneutic is seen in this particular community, not about the relative merits of the scientific claims themselves (geocentrism, heliocentrism, "young" or "old" earth, evolution or creationism). Here is my point, in a nutshell: the kind of rigid orthodoxy evident in the 3 cases I mentioned (Waltke, Enns, and Longman) reminds me disturbingly of the kind of rigid orthodoxy that confronted Galileo. (And, for similar reasons: Galileo's use of Augustine's principle of accommodation resonates with Enns' views on biblical inspiration, Longman's views on an historical Adam, and Waltke's understanding of inerrancy, insofar as I can tell). The more I follow the modern origins controversy (which I've followed for more than 30 years), the more I am convinced of the ongoing relevance--and great importance--of taking Galileo very seriously. His "Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina," (partly available in illegal forms on the internet but entirely available in Stillman Drake's translation in print) is IMO the single most important text on biblical interpretation, relative to science, that has ever been written. (I realize that's a strong claim, but I often make it.)Ted Davis_{April 12, 2010
April
04
Apr
12
12
2010
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT}

Dr. Hunter, Sorry for the off topics on my part. Just venting some frustration when I heard about the geocentrists in my denomination. I agree with these sentiments:
I hope we can all agree with Dreher's opposition to bullying. But what about Dreher's and Waltke's high regard for "current scientific orthodoxy"?
We should have resepect for scientific ideas, but not religious allegiance to them. Skepticism is to be valued in science, not creedal commitment.
The important thing is never to stop questioning. Einstein
and
Science commits suicide when it adopts a creed. Thomas Huxley
Creeds are for church goers to assemble under a common confession, not for scientists to do science. Science should reluctantly be used to help guide theological ideas, but that should be done with some care and qualification. I do believe, in the end, nature will help show us which theological ideas are closer to the truth, whether it be Darwin or Design.scordova_{April 12, 2010
April
04
Apr
12
12
2010
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PDT}

Ted Davis (33 & 37): In your discussion of Waltke, you seem to be creating a tag team matchup of (i) evolution and heliocentrism versus (ii) YEC and geocentrism. Do you think evolution is a fact, or at least reasonably well supported by the evidence to the degree of, say, heliocentrism?Cornelius Hunter_{April 12, 2010
April
04
Apr
12
12
2010
09:48 AM
9
09
48
AM
PDT}

The link in #37 came through incorrectly. It should be http://www.contra-mundum.org/cm_articles.htmlTed Davis_{April 12, 2010
April
04
Apr
12
12
2010
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT}

I see where most of "Contra Mundum" is now available on the web (http://www.contra-mundum.org/cm_articles.html), but you will note that the articles by James Jordan ("The Geocentricity Question"), issue no. 7 (spring 1993) and Gerardus Bouw ("What is Geocentricity?"), issue no. 6 (winter 1993) are not linked at that otherwise, apparently complete, site. I don't think this is an accident (an intelligent agent has apparently acted). It isn't very hard to verify, however, that such articles were actually published. Also, you can find the text of a similar article by Jordan elsewhere. This stuff was, needless to say, serious nonsense--but the reformed connection it once had was also serious, at least to some in that circle.Ted Davis_{April 12, 2010
April
04
Apr
12
12
2010
09:35 AM
9
09
35
AM
PDT}

Timaeus:
at what point does it become reasonable and sensibly empirical, rather than “liberal”, “rationalistic”, “naturalistic”, “importing hidden metaphysical premises”, etc., to suggest that an apparently literal statement in the Bible cannot be taken literally, and that the Biblical passage in question must be given some other interpretation? Are there *any* circumstances under which you would deem this reasonable, and not accuse the Biblical re-interpreter of selling out to the Enlightenment?
Just to be clear, I wouldn't accuse anyone of "selling out" theologically speaking. In fact, I suspect you have interpreted my words quite differently than they were intended. I don't take issue with how folks want to do their religion.
In my example, if “Schwarzert” *did* say: “The evidence is that the earth is round, so I believe the earth is round, and I’ll adjust my reading of the Bible to that, whatever the consequences may be” — surely you could say that he is making a metaphysical or religious assumption — i.e., he is assuming that there cannot exist the kind of God who could rightly ask us to believe his written revelation against reason and experience.
But Schwarzert has made no such assumption. He has simply adjusted his reading.
You would (or could) say, how can we know that such a God does not exist, and therefore, without employing a hidden metaphysical premise, how can we be sure the earth is round? It follows, you would argue (or could argue, given your usual line), that the roundness of the earth is not a firm, reliable result of science, but a rests on the theology of the person who rejects the Biblical revelation in favor of a proud assertion of the autonomy of human reason and experience.
I don't recognize my "usual line" here. What I have pointed out is that evolutionists see empirical evidence through a metaphysical filter, leading them away from the obvious conclusion. The result is a theory that is contra indicated by empirical science. Your example here has Schwarzert doing the opposite.
So Schwarzert can’t win with you. If he goes all the way, and says: “The earth is round”, you can just tell him that’s a theological conclusion, not a scientific one; and if he stops at a conditional statement, “If the best evidence shows that the earth is round …” you will lambaste him for his use of the conditional, as you lambasted Dr. Waltke. Schwartzert is damned if he does, and damned if he doesn’t.
Lambaste? I guess these days suggesting that we allow the empirical evidence to speak for itself constitutes harsh criticism.
I notice that you did not discuss the passage I quoted. Pretty disgusting naturalism and rationalism, wouldn’t you say?
One finds non scientific assumptions making their way into conclusions about the natural world in all kinds of nooks and crannies.Cornelius Hunter_{April 12, 2010
April
04
Apr
12
12
2010
09:33 AM
9
09
33
AM
PDT}

in reply to this: "Calvin and Luther believed that geocentricity was required by Scripture." I don't know how accurate that view is from scripture, but if it is true that geocentricity is required, then Calvin and Luther have now been vindicated in spades: Earth As The Center Of The Universe - image http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AYmaSrBPNEmGZGM4ejY3d3pfOXQydzV2OGhz The Known Universe (The Centrality Of Earth In The Universe To The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJrm21M2h4g --------------- I found this video of you Dr. Dembski with the Muslim creation group adding comment to it: William Dembski demonstrates the impossibility of evolution myth (A single protein molecule). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0S-RloieWoMbornagain77_{April 12, 2010
April
04
Apr
12
12
2010
09:32 AM
9
09
32
AM
PDT}

The particular context in which his ideas were being evaluated (RTS in Orlando) is closely related to the PCA–a denomination which a few years ago gave very serious consideration to requiring the YEC view on the part of elders (including teaching elders, i.e., pastors).
Yup. Totally Scary. We had a spat here in Virginia between Potomac Presbytery and Westminster Presbytery. I'm a member of Potomac, and the Westminster Presbytery was ousting anyone who wasn't a YEC. SCARY! I believe Westminster seceeded from the PCA. Here is my presybtery (Potomac) response to Westminster: Potomac Contra West. Demonization of non-YECs is scary. I'm sympathetic to YEC and many in Potomac are YECs, but they don't see it as a cause for division.
6. Finally, we are dismayed by what appear to us to be the implications of your concluding declaration: that we will not tolerate these views in any teaching elder seeking admittance to this Presbytery, or any other man seeking to be licensed or to become a candidate for the ministry under care of this Presbytery. Furthermore, Westminster Presbytery considers that any view which departs from the confessional doctrine of creation in six 24 hour days strikes at the fundamentals of the system of doctrine set forth in the Holy Scriptures. What would you have us make of this? Your assertion that there is nothing in the text to even hint at the views you condemn is surely too strong. "Strikes at the fundamentals"? How can this be so? Surely we can distinguish between faithfulness to the broad historicity of the text essential to the Gospel and the difficulty of construing certain Scripture texts in relation to statements of scientific cosmology. Are you really declaring that men such as C. Hodge, Shedd, Beattie, Adger, A.A. Hodge, Warfield, Bavinck, Machen, Schaeffer, and Gerstner, as well as many lesser but faithful servants here in Potomac, are not fit to be ministers of the Gospel in the PCA? (See, e.g., the attached statements of Shedd and Bavinck.) ... Your "Declaration" appears to us to suggest that you believe we cannot live together in the same ecclesiastical fellowship--that you would have those of us who hold the views you disagree with defrocked. We may also ask, And what of those of us who share your view of Genesis 1, but do not agree that other views deny the fundamentals of our system. Is this a denial of a fundamental as well? Must we go too? Must we all be put out of office, or would you have us resign? Is this what you intend? Our brothers, we plead with you to reconsider. Please reflect upon what appears to us to be the godly wisdom of Carl Henry, one of the chief defenders of the inerrancy of God's Word in our time. After nearly 100 pages summarizing in detail and comparing the arguments and counter-arguments of creationists, theistic evolutionists, gap and multiple gap theorists, big-bangers, naturalists, humanists, etc., Henry concludes: "It would be a strategic and theological blunder of the first magnitude were evangelicals to elevate the current dispute over dating to credal status, or to consider one or another of the scientific options a test of theological fidelity. Faith in an inerrant Bible does not rest on a commitment to the recency or antiquity of the earth or even to only a 6000-year antiquity for man; the Genesis account does not fix the precise antiquity of either the earth or of man. Exodus 20:11, to which scientific creationists appeal when insisting that biblical inerrancy requires recent creation, is not decisive; while God's seventh-day rest sanctions the sabbath day, Genesis hardly limits God's rest to a 24-hour period. The Bible does not require belief in six literal 24-hour creation days on the basis of Genesis 1-2 nor does it require belief in successive ages corresponding to modern geological periods. . . ."
If pastors want to attack non-YECs fine. Let them go to physics classes like some of us do, and let them redo Electrodynamcis and Quantum Mechanics, and maybe more of us will feel they have something more useful to do than bullying science students from the pulpit. Surely there is more to believing something than just being coerced to recite a creed.
Ted Davis wrote: Furthermore, some of the people who were pushing that view had also been involved in advancing geocentrism a few years earlier.
I didn't know it was getting to be that bad.scordova_{April 12, 2010
April
04
Apr
12
12
2010
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply