The BioLogos Forum, a website which features moderate evangelicals' attempts to harmonize the Bible and science, has created quite a stir among fundamentalist evangelicals. Albert Mohler, the President of the Southern Baptist Seminary, has blogged against their attempts. John MacArthur, the President of the Master's Seminary, has said that this is an issue over which Christians must "draw a line in the sand." These fundamentalist evangelicals are afraid that if one accepts the findings of science, then it will no longer be possible to believe that the Bible is a divine revelation. They maintain that one must accept whatever the Bible says as the ultimate authority and if science disagrees, then science is wrong. This type of thinking is not new among conservative Christians. It is interesting that the Reformers of the 16th century violently opposed the findings of Copernicus regarding the fact that the earth revolves around the sun. They saw this as blatantly contradicting Scripture.
Martin Luther said:
People gave ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the very best. This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still and not the earth (Luther's Works [Walsch 1743 edition], vol. 22:2260 cited in Andrew Dickson White,A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology [1901], vol. 1: 126)
Luther's protégé, Phillip Melancthon wrote:
The eyes are witnesses that the heavens revolve in the space of twenty-four hours. But certain men, either from the love of novelty, or to make a display of ingenuity, have concluded that the earth moves; and they maintain that neither the eighth sphere nor the sun revolves. ... Now, it is a want of honesty and decency to assert such notions publicly, and the example is pernicious. It is the part of a good mind to accept the truth as revealed by God and to acquiesce in it (Elements of Physics [1549] cited in White, 1:126-27).
John Calvin had the following to say about those who advocated heliocentrism:
... those dreamers who have a spirit of bitterness and contradiction, who reprove everything and pervert the order of nature. We will see some who are so deranged, not only in religion but who in all things reveal their monstrous nature, that they will say that the sun does not move, and that it is the earth which shifts and turns. When we see such minds we must indeed confess that the devil possesses them, and that God sets them before us as mirrors, in order to keep us in his fear ("Sermon on 1 Corinthinas 10:19-24," in the Corpus Reformatorum, vol. 49:677 translated by Robert White in "Calvin and Copernicus: The Problem Reconsidered," Calvin Theological Journal 15 [1980]: 236-37).
Of course, the Roman Catholic Church also opposed Copernicus. At the trial of Galileo, Cardinal Bellarmine is reported to have said:
To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus Christ was not born of a virgin (cited in Sean Kelly, Rosemary Rogers, Saints Preserve Us [1993] p. 243).
Conservative Christians have been opposing the advancements of science ever since Copernicus (see this prior post). What I find interesting is that these same Christians will utilize the benefits of science while denying the theories that brought about the advancements. If they continue to bury their heads in the sands and pretend that an ancient book written by late Bronze Age tribes is superior to modern science, they will have fewer and fewer adherents.
An article in the The Telegraph today by Laura Roberts reports that renowned physicist Stephen Hawking has now concluded that no supernatual agent was necessary for our universe to come to be.
In his latest book, The Grand Design, an extract of which is published in Eureka magazine in The Times, Hawking said: “Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist.” He added: “It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going.”
[T]he new Darwinism in the sense that it finishes off God. Darwin kicked him out of biology, but physics remained more uncertain. Hawking is now administering the coup de grace.
I think it is important to note that Hawking is not saying that he has proven that a god or gods do not exist. He is saying that is it not necessary to postulate one in order to explain the origin of the universe. As the English would say, he has made God "redundant."
Some people have termed me a "fundamentalist atheist." When I first heard the term a couple of years ago, I thought it a clear oxymoron. As one said:
"Atheist fundamentalism" is essentially meaningless as a label because atheism is not a religion (no more than baldness is a hair color). A fundamentalist is somebody who adheres strictly to the fundamental tenets of a religion, philosophy or any other prescribed thought or dogma - and will have no room for change or deviation from these ideas and practices, such as Biblical literalism and creationism. Atheism, by the definition accepted by most atheists, has no positive beliefs intrinsic to it. It is only defined as a lack of belief in any of the many gods found in holy books throughout the world. There is no set of people who can be considered "more atheist" than the mainstream or moderate belief and hence there is no distinction between a "fundamentalist" and any other kind of atheist.
Dawkins simply offers the atheist equivalent of slick hellfire preaching, substituting turbocharged rhetoric and highly selective manipulation of facts for careful, evidence-based thinking. . . . Dawkins preaches to his god-hating choirs, who are clearly expected to relish his rhetorical salvoes and raise their hands high in adulation. Those who think biological evolution can be reconciled with religion are dishonest! Amen! They belong to the "Neville Chamberlain school" of evolutionists! They are appeasers! Amen! Real scientists reject belief in God! Halleujah! The God that Jews believed in back in Old Testament times is a psychotic child abuser! Amen! You tell them brother (pp. 11-12)!
McGrath continues: The total dogmatic conviction of correctness which pervades some sections of Western atheism today . . . immediately aligns it with a religious fundamentalism that refuses to allow its ideas to be examined or challenged (p. 14). For McGrath, apparently, one is a "fundamentalist atheist" if one holds to his non-belief in god(s) with such dogmatism that he refuses to consider any evidence to the contrary.
An evangelical Christian (albeit a left-wing evangelical), Pete Enns, sees a similarity between Christian fundamentalists and Atheist fundamentalists, he states:
I've read enough of the New Atheists to see a pattern in their thinking about the Bible, and it is disturbingly similar to what you see in the Southern Baptist Convention or Bob Jones University. Conservative Christians and New Atheists share naïve views of what the Bible "ought" to be, namely the notion that if the Bible is really the "Word of God," it will provide accurate historical and scientific information.
Conservative Christians are very clear about this assumption, and it is just under the surface for New Atheists. This shared assumption is taken in polar opposite conclusions.
New Atheists point out that Genesis is wholly out of sync with scientific reality. This is true, but they assume that this sort of thing is sufficient grounds to declare the Bible a stupid book, Christianity a stupid religion, and Christians stupid people. "See how sloppy the Bible is with basic facts known to every middle schooler? And you call this the 'Word of God!' Get over it."
Lack of elementary scientific credibility renders the Bible suspect. Oddly enough, conservative Christians hold the same assumption. If the Bible is not historically, even scientifically, accurate, then God is a "liar" and there is no reason to trust him. The Word of God cannot make such huge factual errors. Based on this assumption, the scientific evidence is either ignored, marginalized, selectively appealed to, or re-interpreted to ease the tension.
New Atheists and conservative Christians have all sorts of reasons to be at odds, and their shared naïveté about the Bible is certainly one of them. Both have false expectation of what the Bible ought to deliver, and this sets them on a collision course. Both sides have some homework to do ("Does God Talk to Us Through Fiction? Unpacking a Non-Literal Interpretation of the Bible").
So, for Enns, "fundamentalism" has to do with how one approaches the Bible. If one expects it to be inerrant and show obvious internal markers that it is of divine origin, then one is a fundamentalist. The difference between Christian fundamentalists and Atheist fundamentalists is that they come to different conclusion regarding whether the Bible shows such evidence of divine origin. He claims that they both are naive in how they approach the Bible. He and his left-wing evangelical brethren believe that the Bible reflects the mindset of the times and the culture in which it was written and may contain some errors and still be the Word of God.
According to this definition, I would acknowledge being a "fundamentalist Atheist." I think that if the Bible is really the divine Word of God, it ought to reflect a different mindset than the times and culture in which it was written. It should be markedly different than other books written during the time. If it reflects the same kinds of ideas as found in the writings of other civilizations at the time, I see no reason to think the Bible is special. For example, Enns admits that the Genesis creation story is not much different than the other creation stories told in other cultures at the time. He writes:
Beginning in the middle of the nineteenth century, archaeologists unearthed other creations stories from the ancient Mesopotamian world, the same environment that produced the Bible. These discoveries have helped us understand a lot about how creation stories worked in the ancient world.
Ancient peoples did not investigate how things came to be; they assumed that there was a "beginning" when the gods formed the earth, people, animals, trees, etc., as you see them now. You can hardly blame them for making this assumption. The "how" question of creation was settled. They were interested in the "who" question: which of the gods is responsible for all of this? Each society had its own answer to this question, which they told in story form. The biblical story cannot claim a scientific higher ground. It, too, works with ancient themes and categories to tell Israel's distinct story.
So for people like Enns, the fact that the Bible reflects a cosmology which we all know is erroneous is okay. One shouldn't expect the Bible to teach anything different than what the peoples of that time believed. But if that is the case, then why should I think there is anything special about the Bible? Why should I think that it is the Word of God? In addition, how can I know what parts of it are true and accurate and what parts are not? Harold Lindsell, many years ago spoke of the problem faced by those who believe the Bible contains error, he said they have to find a "canon within the canon" (The Battle for the Bible). Moises Silva, in a Presidential address to the Evangelical Theological Society (which makes belief in inerrancy a requirement for membership) states:
The doctrine of Biblical infallibility is not a piece of abstract theorizing but an immensely practical conviction. For if the Scriptures are characterized by errors such as are found in any other book, then it is up to my less-than-reliable mind and moral judgment to determine what in the Bible is truth or error. And thus the notion of the Bible as a reliable disclosure of the divine will loses any distinctive meaning (“Can Two Walk Together Unless They Be Agreed?”: Evangelical Theology And Biblical Scholarship, 1998).
I agree with Silva, Lindsell, and the historic Evangelical position that divine inspiration demands inerrancy. If the Bible is God-breathed (2 Tim. 3:16) which all evangelicals believe, then its origin is God and if God cannot err, then the Bible cannot err. B. B. Warfield of Princeton laid this argument out clearly over 100 years ago in The Inspiration And Authority Of The Bible . One's understanding of what it means and how it should be interpreted might err but the text itself cannot err. Left-wing evangelicals such as Enns would say that the problem in Genesis that it is be interpreted wrongly by fundamentalists. It should be interpreted as the kind of literature that it is, i.e., creation myth and then one can properly understand what the message from God is in the text. To me, there is no reason to believe that the text is from God if its format and its teaching are essentially the same as other creation myths of the time. Why should I believe this one is a message from God but the others are not? So, I guess I am a fundamentalist after all. I expect much more from a divine book than liberal and left-wing Evangelical Christians do.
On ExChristian.net, I found an excellent letter to the editor written by Galen Rose. She says that teaching children superstitious beliefs and especially fear-based superstitious beliefs is harmful. I agree with her. She writes:
Some recent letters on these pages and elsewhere have brought my attention to an important issue which is too often ignored or swept under a rug. It needs to be recognized that in some religious sects, the emphasis is clearly on fear. One is preached at to do whatever he’s told by the “sacred” texts or he will be very, very sorry. Imagine how frightening this world must be to those who believe that every word in those texts is the literal truth, who believe there are witches, demons and devils lurking in every dark corner, with the sole purpose of leading them astray and/or making their lives miserable. (I mean the kind of witches who allegedly suspend the laws of nature with incantations, potions, etc.) Clearly, for these people, life is a frightening passage over the knife edge of obedience to supernatural powers. One misstep can bring on the punishment of everlasting pain. This is indeed a very scary way to live.
This is the world that some churches and Sunday schools are teaching the children. Now, if the world really is like this, full of witches, demons and devils, then it would certainly be helpful to know this. But, if we are not certain this is true, does it make sense to send the kids down this fearful path? Life can be difficult enough for children, with all the insecurities they must deal with concerning fitting in with others, dealing with the opposite sex, deciding on a career path, and all the rest. Does it make sense to add the fear of an assortment of malevolent, supernatural creatures to their lives?
In the entire history of modern science, no claim of any type of supernatural phenomena has ever been replicated under strictly controlled conditions. I suggest that it makes sense for parents to do some research on this issue. Many people think the Bible has all the answers to how the world really works even though nothing in that book has changed for nearly 2,000 years. Would you consult a 2,000 year-old medical book on how to treat a cancer? The past few hundred years have seen an explosion of scientific knowledge and we are surrounded by the fruits of the scientific method. Science works. There’s really no reasonable argument on this issue. Consider the printing press this newspaper was printed on, and the automobile, airplane, computers, TV, vaccines, surgical procedures, Velcro, and the zipper in your pants. The fruits of successful science surround us.
Now, consider that supernatural causes were once attributed to thousands of things which we now can explain using only the laws of nature. These things include everything from thunder and lightning to volcanoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, childbirth and disease. Science works. Now, can you name just one thing that used to be explained by the laws of nature but has since been discovered to be supernaturally caused? Anything at all? No? Neither can anyone else. Do you see a pattern here?
In the entire history of modern science, no claim of any type of supernatural phenomena has ever been replicated under strictly controlled conditions.
Science doesn’t have all the answers and it never will, but it works; it continually expands and refines our knowledge of how the world actually works. Now, consider if you will that mainstream science has never uncovered any evidence whatsoever of witches, demons, or devils. If these things existed and had effects on our world, those interactions would be there for us to detect and measure.
Think about this: electrons are so tiny they are invisible to even the strongest microscopes and have never been seen. Yet, we have detected and measured their interactions with other objects and fields, written equations describing them, and can predict with great accuracy how they will act in various experiments. We know enough about them that we can design electronic circuits which give us the HDTV, the microwave oven, the computer and hundreds of other gadgets, plus those same electrons power our homes, giving us heat and light and the means to power dozens of other devices. Science works. Science is dependable.
Should you or your church and Sunday school be teaching your children about witches, demons, and devils when the only “evidence” for them consists of anecdotal claims and ancient texts written by people who thought the earth was flat (Matthew 4:8)? As Carl Sagan said, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” This is why mainstream science has rejected these creatures.
Do you know what your kids are “learning” in Sunday school? Have you asked? Could it be that putting the fear of such creatures into children without very good cause is as immoral as threatening them with the boogeyman? Is there anything more important than the mental health of your children? Please think about it. Maybe your children will thank you some day, as mine have thanked me.
I think many people who went to evangelical Christian churches or Sunday Schools as children can relate to the fear of hell. Many churches capitalize on the fears of children in order to "get them saved." And then child evangelists and even adult evangelists come through and make it their goal to instill fear in the hearts of the children. How many children have gotten "saved" over and over again as another preacher came through with a terrifying story of hell or the devil. Does all of this constitute a form of child abuse? I think it does in some cases.
In a book published this year, The Brain and the Meaning of Life (Princeton University Press), he argues that evidence-based thinking leads us to believe that the mind and the brain are the same entity and that this realization, as it catches on, will revolutionize the way we think about the meaning of life. He writes:
Suppose physics is right that our universe began about fourteen billion years ago in a big bang that produced billions of stars; and suppose biology is right that human beings are just a kind of highly evolved ape. Then our lives cannot have the special, central place in the universe promised by religion based on faith, and by philosophy based on a priori reasoning. Hence it is unsurprising that the Brain Revolution encounters opposition from those who fear its practical as well as its intellectual consequences.
This book aims to show that neural naturalism can serve to satisfy wonder about the nature of mind and reality, and also to alleviate anxiety about the difficulty of life in a vast and apparently purposeless universe. Philosophy and neuropsychology can do little to remove the hardships that people face as their lives develop, with inevitable bouts of failure, rejection, disease, and eventually death. But together philosophy and science can paint a plausible picture of how minds, even ones that are merely brains, can apprehend reality, decide effectively, act morally, and lead meaningful lives enriched by worthwhile goals in the realms of love, work, and play (p. 12).
While most religious people and many nonreligious people hold that the mind (or soul) and the brain are different entities,
most psychologists and neuroscientists are materialists and believe that minds are brains: the mind is what the brain does. General acceptance of this view would amount to the most radical conceptual revolution in the history of human thinking (emphasis mine). Previously, the two most sweeping scientific revolutions were Copernicus's rejection of Ptolemy's view that the earth is the center of the universe, and Darwin's rejection of the religious view that humans were specially created by God. . . . The Brain Revolution now in progress is even more threatening to human's natural desire to think of ourselves as special, for it implies that our treasured thoughts and feelings are just another biological process. Unsurprisingly, even some nonreligious thinkers find disturbing the view that minds are brains, despite the mounting evidence for such identification. Not only immortality but also the highly compelling doctrines of free will and moral responsibility have been tied to the idea of minds as souls. The lure of dualism is powerful (p. 42).
Religion, and especially conservative religion such as Evangelical Christianity, will no doubt oppose the findings of neuroscience on this point as they are still opposing the current findings of geology, physics, and biology as it relates to the age of the earth and the evolution of species. Eventually, though, they will have to surrender and then readjust their theology to deal with the evidence. And the evidence is mounting. Thagard states:
Mind-brain identification follows a long line of theoretical identifications that have marked scientific progress: sounds are waves; combustion is chemical combination with oxygen; water is H2O; heat is motion of molecules; lightning is electrical discharge; light is electromagnetic energy; influenza is a viral infection; and so on (p. 43).
The clever maneuvering, reinterpretation of biblical texts, and adjusting of doctrine by evangelicals to deal with the findings of neuroscience will be interesting to watch.
In response to a prior post , dealing with the Hebrew verb Bara'
(ברא), I had a couple of comments that seemed to say that no knowledgable person would ever argue that Bara' (ברא) demands creation ex nihilo . However, listen to the apologist Hugh Ross, in an article entitled: Big Bang - The Bible Taught It First!: The Hebrew verb translated “created” in Isaiah 42:5 is bara’ which has as its primary definition “bringing into existence something new, something that did not exist before.”7 His footnote cites: 7. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer, and Bruce K. Waltke, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament 1 (Chicago: Moody, 1980), 127.
Ross argues:
The first direct scientific evidence for a big bang universe dates back to 1916. . . . All these scientists, however, were upstaged by 2500 years and more by Job, Moses, David, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and other Bible authors. The Bible’s prophets and apostles stated explicitly and repeatedly the two most fundamental properties of the big bang, a transcendent cosmic beginning a finite time period ago and a universe undergoing a general, continual expansion. In Isaiah 42:5 both properties were declared, “This is what the Lord says—He who created the heavens and stretched them out.”
The worldwide flood described in Genesis 6-9 is not historical, but rather a combination of at least two flood stories, both of which descended from earlier Mesopotamian flood narratives. . . .
Most biblical and ancient Near Eastern scholars argue that the flood is a mythical story adopted from earlier Mesopotamian flood accounts. These earlier accounts include the 17th century BCE Sumerian flood myth Eridu Genesis, the 18th century BCE Akkadian Atra-Hasis Epic, and the Epic of Gilgamesh, which are some of the earliest known examples of a literary style of writing. The most complete version of the Epic of Gilgamesh known today is preserved on 12 clay tablets from the library of Assyrian king Ashurbanipal (685-627 BCE). This extant Akkadian version is derived from earlier Sumerian versions. In the story, Gilgamesh and his companion, a wild man-beast named Enkidu, travel the world on a number of quests that ultimately displease the gods. After the death of Enkidu, Gilgamesh embarks on a journey to learn the secret of eternal life by visiting the immortal flood hero, Utnapishtim. Utnapishtim tells Gilgamesh how the god Ea (equivalent to the Sumerian god Enki) revealed the gods’ plan to destroy all life with a great flood, and how they instructed him to build a vessel in which he could save his family, friends, and livestock. After the flood, the gods repented for destroying the world and made Utnapishtim immortal.
These flood stories appear to have been transmitted to the Israelites early in Israel’s history. Contact between the Assyrians and the Israelites is known from the conquest of Israel and its capitol, Samaria, in 721 BCE by Assyrian King Shalmaneser V (727-722 BCE), and from the attempted conquest of Jerusalem by the Assyrian King Sennacherib (704-681 BCE). These stories were apparently modified to conform to a monotheistic faith, but retained characteristics such as the destruction of nearly all living things via a flood, the salvation of a select few people and animals by the construction of a boat, and the regret of the deity for the flood, prompting a promise not to do so again. Thus, like many of the early stories in Israel’s primordial history, the flood story appears to be an adaptation and integration of a previously known myth into the theology of Israel (emphasis mine).
Cargill concludes his article thusly:
Some claims like the flood and the six-day creation are neither historical nor factual; they were written to communicate in an pre-scientific literary form that god is responsible for the earth. It is time Christians conceded that there was no flood. It is time for Reformed Theological Seminary to concede that Bruce Waltke has a point. It is time for groups of evangelical amateurs to stop making sensational claims about discoveries they did not really make. And it is time for people to stop looking for Noah’s ark.
If Evangelicals, such as John MacArthur, and other conservative Christians, continue to insist that the earth was created in six literal days and that Noah's flood was a global flood, and that if either one is forsaken, Christianity crumbles; then, they are setting themselves up for disaster. As they bury their heads deeper and deeper in the sand, they are becoming less and less relevant to the real world. I see that as a good thing.
Does the Hebrew word ברא ( bara' ) mean creation out of nothing (ex nihilo)? The word could mean that in some cases but the question is: does the word always indicate creation ex nihilo? The answer is clearly no.
Some have argued that the word must mean creation ex nihilo because God is always the subject of the verb ברא ( bara' ). It is true that God is the subject when the verb occurs in the Qal stem and in the Niphal stem. However, when it occurs in the Piel stem (Joshua 17:15, 18, Ezekiel 21:19, and Ezekiel 23:47) or the Hiphil stem (1 Sam. 2:29), it has a human subject. Obviously, with a human as the subject it cannot mean creation out of nothing.
What about the majority of cases where it has God for its subject (Qal and Niphal forms)? Even here it is used in ways that clearly cannot mean creation out of nothing. For example, Genesis 1:27 refers to the creation of man and woman. Was this from nothing? Not if Genesis 2 is considered to be accurate. There it says that God formed Adam from the dust of the earth and that he fashioned Eve from a rib taken from Adam's side. In Genesis 5:1, 2 and 6:7, the verb bara' is used to refer to the creation of all the men and women then alive (see also Deut. 4:32; Psa. 89:47; Isa. 45:12). Did God create all of the subsequent generations of man ex nihilo?
In Isaiah 43:11 and 15, Yahweh is said to have created ברא ( bara' ) the nation of Israel (see also Mal. 2:10). Did he create them out of nothing? No. He created them out of the loins of Abraham who was from the Ur of the Chaldees, if the Genesis account is to be believed.
In Isaiah 65:18, the prophecy is given that God will "create ברא ( bara' ) Jerusalem as a rejoicing and her people as a joy." Does this mean that God will create a new Jewish people out of nothing? In Psalm 51:10, the Psalmist prays for God to create a new heart within him. Is this to be understood as creation out of nothing? I don't think so, I think it's a prayer for God to renew and refashion the Psalmist's heart.
Furthermore, the fact that bara' (ברא), is used in synonymous parallelism with other Hebrew words meaning, "to make," (עשה,) `asah) or "to form" (יצר, yatsar) indicates that all three words have a shared semantic range. For example, Genesis 1:26-27 reads:
Then God said, "Let us make (עשה,`asah) man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." So God created (ברא, bara' ) man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them (NIV).
All through the Genesis creation account the verbs create, make, and form are used interchangeably to refer to origin of the world and its creatures (Also see Isaiah 45:12--I made (עשה,`asah) the earth and created (ברא, bara' ) man on it; it was my hands that stretched out the heavens, and I commanded all their host ).
In Isaiah 45:7, all three words occur together in one verse in synonymous parallelism:
I form (יצר, yatsar)light and create (ברא, bara' ) darkness, I make ((עשה,`asah) well-bing and create ((ברא, bara' )calamity; I am the Lord who does ((עשה,`asah) all these things.(ESV)
Maimonides a medieval Jewish scholar contended that the understanding that the world was created from absolutely nothing is the foundation of Jewish belief. However, careful historical study seems to indicate that the Jews did not have a fully developed philosophical understanding of creation until they were forced to do so in the Middle Ages. Gerhard May writes:
To rabbinic Judaism the questions raised by Greek ontology were relatively remote. But the chief reason why it did not come to the formation of a specific doctrine of "creatio ex nihilo" is to be seen in the fact that it was not demanded by the text of the Bible. The mention of chaos in Genesis 1:1 could also support the view that an eternal material existed, which God had merely ordered in creating the world. Jewish thought is in its entire essence undogmatic; in the question of the creation of the world it did not find itself tied down by statements in the Bible and so possessed wide room for manoeuvre for highly variant speculations on creation. It was left for the Jewish philosophers of the Middle Ages to develop in controversy with Arabic neoplatonism and Aristotelianism a specific doctrine of "creatio ex nihilo." But even this did not achieve sole validity, but the biblical statements about creation continued to be interpreted in various ways (Creatio Ex Nihilo, pp. 24-25).
Another great Jewish thinker who came after Maimonides was Gersonides (1288-1344 AD) Gersonides asked some probing questions like "When were the waters created?" Because there was no mention in Genesis of the creation of water, he rejected the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo (Stephen Meyer, Institute for Biblical Scientific Studies).
So, it seems that Jewish thought on the creation reflected the same ambiguity as the Hebrew Scriptures relative to whether God created out of nothing or used preexisting materials. During the late middle ages in response to a revival of Greek philosophy, certain Jewish scholars developed a philosophical doctrine of creation ex nihilo and then claimed that had been the Jewish understanding from the very beginning.
In conclusion, did God (if he exists) create the universe out of nothing? Maybe. Does the word bara' demand it? No. Have Jews always believed that their God created the world out of nothing? No.
William Craig and other apologists claim that the veracity of the Bible has been verified by science in that the big bang is described in Genesis 1 (see Creation and Big Bang Cosmology ). Craig maintains that for centuries Christians held that the universe had a definite time in which it began even though science seemed to say otherwise. In the 20th century, with the rise of the big bang cosmology, the Christian view of origins, was validated by science.
But does Genesis 1 really teach that the universe was created ex nihilo (out of nothing)? Craig maintains that it does and since an effect must have a cause, the universe must have been caused by a necessary and uncaused being, namely God.
Genesis 1:1-2 states: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters (NIV).
The opening paragraph of Genesis depicts the situation before creation begins in verse 3. It does not tell us the ultimate origin of the darkness or the abyss. I think Delitzsch is correct in the meaning of the first verse when he says, "His point is not that heaven and earth had a beginning, but that the creation of the heaven and the earth was the beginning of all history"
(Claus Westermann, Genesis 1-11, 1994, p. 98).Meyer maintains that creation ex nihilo was not taught until the 2nd century CE. He writes:
The first mention of "out of nothing" is in 2 Maccabees 7:28 which says, "look upon heaven and earth and all that is in them: and consider that God made them out of nothing, and mankind also" (Douay Version, or DV). The Greek is "ex ouk onton." This phrase "out of nothing" is best understood as "out of non-being" or "out of invisible matter" because at that time they still believed in the preexistence of matter. Matter was consider eternal (Goldstein, 1983, pp. 307-10). The Wisdom of Solomon 11:17 states, "For thy almighty hand which made the world of matter without form" (DV). This verse teaches that God made the world out of formless (eternal) matter (Winston, 1971-2, 185-202; Goldstein, 1984, 127-35). In chapter 7:25 wisdom is seen as a "pure emanation of the glory of the almighty God" (DV). Philo sees Genesis 1:1-3 through platonic eyes. This is the creation of the invisible world of ideas (On the Creation, 26-37, compare Plato’s Timaeus 29E). The book of Hebrews also seems to follow platonic ideas. The visible world comes from invisible matter (Heb. 11:3). Philo sees preexistent matter alongside of God at the beginning. This invisible matter was eternal (On the Creation, 12). God is the active principle, the formless matter is the passive principle (May, 10). Philo even uses the phrase "ek mh ontwn," meaning "out of non-being," and not "out of nothing" (Allegorical Interpretation III. 10). Clearly, there is no ex nihilo creation in Philo. . . . May concludes, "a firm, unambiguously formulated doctrine of creatio ex nihilo is not worked out in ancient Jewry" (1994, 23).
Another great Jewish thinker who came after Maimonides was Gersonides (1288-1344 AD) Gersonides asked some probing questions like "When were the waters created?" Because there was no mention in Genesis of the creation of water, he rejected the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo (Burrell and McGinn, 6; Staub, 1982). The early church fathers seem to believe the platonic idea of eternal matter from which God fashioned the world. Justin Martyr is an example. In The First Apology of Justin he says, "He in the beginning did of His goodness, for man’s sake, created all things out of unformed matter" (Chapter 10). Justin and Plato in Timaeus both agree that everything came into being through God (Apology I:20, 4). Justin says that Plato took his ideas about God making the world out of unformed matter from Genesis. Justin states, "Plato borrowed his statement that God, having altered matter which was shapeless, made the world (Apology I:59). The world was made out of preexistent matter. The successor of Justin Martyr was Athenagoras who was an Athenian philosopher who became a Christian. His Apology or Embassy was presented to Emperors Aurelius and Commodus about 177 AD. He explicitly believed in the pre-existence of matter (Chadwick 1966, 12, 47). Clement of Alexandria three times "declares that the world is made 'out of nothing', but in each case the phrase he employs is "ek me ontos," not "ex ouk ontos;" that is to say, it is made not from that which is absolutely non-existent, but from relative non-being or unformed matter" (Chadwick 1966, 46). May in his book Creatio ex Nihilo argues very persuasively for the second century AD development of the doctrine of "creation out of nothing" (1994). It was not until the second century AD that the church fathers saw a theological problem with eternal matter. It was their conflict with the Gnostic and middle platonists that developed the idea of God creating "out of nothing."
Meyer maintains that it is misguided to try to find scientific information in the Genesis account. He says:
I see Genesis one as a polemic against the surrounding heathen nations, who worshipped many gods. It also seems to be etiologically in nature, explaining the Sabbath as a day of rest. One must understand the ancient Near Eastern background in order to properly interpret Genesis. The genre of Genesis one seems to be half way between poetry and prose. Cassuto argues that Genesis one goes back to an original poetic prototype (1961, 8, 10). Genesis two seems to reflect an earlier tradition than Genesis one. Genesis one demythologizes ancient creation stories. I see it as wrong to try to draw out scientific data about the creation of the universe from Genesis one. Both young-earth creationists and old-earth creationists are guilty of pouring modern scientific terms back into Genesis. God could have written in scientific terms like E=Mc2, but He did not. I believe God had to accommodate himself to our limited knowledge, and limited language to communicate with us. God did not choose to use technical scientific terms to communicate with us. God used the common language, and familiar phrases of their day. God could have told us that the sun does not rise nor set, but that the earth is spinning around the sun. God instead used the common language of sunrise and sunset which was literal to the writers back then, but which modern concordists excuse as phenomenal language that we still use today. God is trying to communicate absolute spiritual truths, not shifting scientific theories.
Meyer maintains that Genesis 1:1 can be seen as a dependent clause or an independent clause. If it is an independent clause then it is a summary statement or heading for the story contained in Genesis 1:1-2:3. If it is a dependent clause, then it is modifying verses two and would be rendered something like this: Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters in the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth.
As a dependent clause, it would lend no credence to the idea of creation ex nihilo and as an independent clause, it doesn't have to indicate creation ex nihilo. Whether one takes Genesis 1:1 as a dependent or independent clause, one thing is certain, creation does not start until verse 3 with light .
Meyer further claims that the Hebrew word translated "create" (ברא, bara) does not demand creation ex nihilo as some have argued. He says the word
may come from the root which originally meant "to cut, or separate." Most of creating involved a separation of things. "bara" does not imply ex nihilo creation since it is used in parallel to "make" (New International Dictionary of OT Theology, 1997, Vol. 1, 731). . . . Van Leeuwen states, "This root begins in the OT with a theologically rich wordplay. But it also, in a punning way, accents the manner in which God gives order to his creation: he divides its various cosmic components from one another through a series of 'cuts or separation'" (Ibid., p. 732).
John Walton, Professor of OT at Wheaton College, agrees:
In the ancient world and in the Bible, something existed not when it had physical properties, but when it had been separated from other things, given a name and a role within an ordered system. This is a functional ontology rather than a material ontology. In this view, when something does not exist, it is lacking role, not lacking matter. Consequently, to create something (cause it to exist) means to give it a function, not material properties.
The Hebrew word translated “create” should be understood within a functional ontology—i.e., it means to assign a role or function. This is evident through a word study of the usage of the biblical term itself where the direct object of the verb is always a functional entity not a material object. Theologians of the past have concluded that since materials were never mentioned that it must mean manufacture of objects out of nothing. Alternatively, and preferably, it does not mention materials because it does not refer to manufacturing. Bara’ deals with functional origins, not material origins.
In Genesis 1:2 the “before” picture, as throughout the ancient Near East, is portrayed in non-functional, non-productive terms ("tohu" and "bohu") in which matter already exists. If this were an account of material origins, it would start with no matter. As an account of functional origins, it starts with no functions.
("Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology," The Bible and Interpretation).
If the word bara refers to cutting or separating, then Genesis 1:1-2 is saying that in the beginning God divided the heavens and the earth and darkness was over the face of the water . The first act of creating was in v. 3 when God said: Let there be light. Nothing is said in the passage about the ultimate origin of the heaven and the earth.
Thus, it seems that Craig is wrong in his assessment of the data. Genesis does not teach creation ex nihilo and therefore the big bang cosmology does nothing to validate the accuracy of the Bible.
News spread across the world on Tuesday April 27th that a team of archaeologists (probably should be called arkaeologists) have discovered Noah's ark on Mt. Ararat in Turkey. Many Christians hope this is the evidence they have been looking for to finally confirm the global flood of Genesis and silence all the critics. Interestingly enough, though, the biggest defenders of the global flood and a literal six day creation of the universe, the Institute of Creation Research, is dubious about the find.
Dr. Randall Price, a professor at Liberty University and a former member of the Chinese-led team that announced this week’s finding, says the latest purported finding may not withstand closer scrutiny.
He says: If the world wants to think this is a wonderful discovery, that’s fine. My problem is that, in the end, proper analysis may show this to be a hoax and negatively reflect how gullible Christians can be .
Price, who was on the Chinese led team in 2008 when the discovery was first made says he has difficulties with a number of issues related to the evidence at hand.
Price declined to elaborate. However, a leaked email from Price, which he confirms that he wrote, shows that he has reason to believe that a group of local Kurdish men trucked wood up to the mountain and staged an elaborate hoax for the Chinese team.
A group of Kurdish workers are said to have planted large wood beams taken from an old structure in the Black Sea area (where the photos were originally taken) at the Mt. Ararat site. During the summer of 2009 more wood was planted inside a cave at the site. The Chinese team went in the late summer of 2009 (I was there at the time and knew about the hoax) and was shown the cave with the wood and made their film.
John Morris, son of Henry Morris, the founder of the Institute for Creation Research and the father of modern "scientific" creationism, is also dubious about the find. He says that a lot of additional research is required. But in the final analysis, according to Morris, it doesn't matter whether the ark or any other evidence confirming the Bible is found because Christians believe out of faith, not evidence .
With regard to the last post, someone raised the question, and it is a legitimate one: "Do I think that science can be used to disprove God?" My answer is: "No, I don't think it can." However, my point in the post is that Christians can no longer claim that their religious experience is proof that God really does exist. The same experience can be duplicated by drugs, electrodes on the brain, or by meditation in other religions. Their experience is not unique to Christianity. Of course, they could argue that their experience is really produced by the divine and the others are artificially induced. So, the point remains that science cannot disprove nor can it prove the presence of supernatural forces at work.
Why can't science prove or disprove the supernatural? Because by definition, science deals with the natural world. It does not have the tools nor the ability to deal with the supernatural world, assuming one really exists. David Eller explains:
However, when religious entities really are outside the scope of nature (supernatural or transnatural), they are also undetectable. But what can we possibly do with the undetectable? How can we study it? How can we know about it--or even know if it exists? We cannot. It is a null category as far as human knowledge is concerned. Science, therefore, limits itself to the detectable because that is the only thing we as humans have access to and can know (Atheism Advanced,
p. 211). This is why movements like the Intelligent Design movement are not really science. ID is a philosophical inference based on data drawn from science but it is not science. Eller continues:
But, a religionist can respond, gods or spirits or forces are detectable, in the design of nature, or the curing of illness, or the manifestation in oracles and divination, etc. The problem with such detections is that there are other possible interpretations of them. Some illnesses respond to medical treatment, and sometimes the body fights them off. In other words, there are natural explanations too. The "design" of nature can come about through natural processes, like natural selection--and few religionists detect in the organization of a hurricane a divine hand at work (and certainly not a benevolent divine hand) (pp. 211-12).
Furthermore, supernatural explanations are typically inserted where there is not yet a natural explanation ("god of the gaps"). Man is impatient. He wants an explanation and he wants it now. Religion provides a quick and easy answer for the unexplainable. The problem for religionists is that their supernatural explanations have been shown time and time again to be premature because a natural explanation later surfaced. What is a believer to do at that stage? Well, they retreat to the idea that their god is actually working through the "natural" means. For example, with regard to evolution, you have the theistic evolutionists who say that God uses natural processes to bring about the universe. How can one disprove that? He can't. Its a fool proof argument that provides the believer with a safe house for his faith. The question, of course becomes, as even the fundamentalist argues: "Why does anyone need a god if it all can be explained through natural processes"? This is why fundamentalists are so adamant in their rejection of evolution. If the ultimate mystery of how we got here can be explained without a god, then there is nothing left for a god to explain. They sense the cruciality of this issue and have drawn a line in the sand (see "Why We Fight About This" by Peter Enns).
The reason that science cannot employ supernatural explanations is because it would mean an end to science. The scientific method is based on observability and repeatability, neither of which can be said about supernatural forces. The essential element in all religions is that there is a non-human personal agency at work behind the scenes causing various phenomena in the physical world. Once again I turn to Eller for further elaboration:
Science rejects or dismisses the element of agency in nature because agency makes science impossible and paralyzes all human knowledge. It has this unavoidable effect for two critical reasons. First, the entire project of science depends on the regularity and predictability of nature, and agency makes events irregular and unpredictable. By definition, agency or will is not completely determined by pre-existing conditions; it establishes a certain zone of freedom for agents. They have their own desires or interests or wills independent of conditions. Therefore, we never know quite what they will do. The exact same situation can lead to completely opposite results if the agents so choose; there is no connection between cause and effects. This frustrates and precludes the possibility of ever knowing with any degree of confidence what will happen next
(p. 214).
To summarize: Religion functions on the personal premise, that some or all natural events are the results of the reasons of agents. Science functions on the impersonal premise, that all natural events are the effects of antecedent and non-agentive causes (p. 215).
Christians will often argue that science is just biased against the supernatural and has ruled out God a priori . The truth is that science has to rule out supernatural explanations because it is based on observable phenomena and the supernatural cannot be detected or observed; and, furthermore, if personal agency is the cause of natural events, it is totally up to the will of that supernatural person as to when and where he will intervene, and there can be no repeatability or controlled conditions which is essential for science. Finally, if one accepts a supernatural explanation, then the research ends, science has no more work to do on that problem. It would mean the end of any advancement in knowledge.
The fifth chapter in The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails(ed. John Loftus) is entitled: "The Cosmology of the Bible," by Edward T. Babinski. Ed is a former evangelical Christian and a former believer in young earth creationism. He has been studying and critiquing creation "science" for many years. He is the author of Leaving The Fold: Testimonies Of Former Fundamentalists in which he documents the stories of over 30 former evangelical believers who have left conservative Christianity. He also has an interesting blog where he discusses issues relevant to creationism and science.
In his chapter in The Christian Delusion, Ed makes the point that the cosmology presented in the Hebrew Scriptures is no different than the one held by Israel's neighbors. Typically, ancient Near Eastern cosmological writings depict heaven (or sky) and earth (dry, flat land) as the two halves of creation, and they describe ways in which the sky came to be held securely above the earth (p. 110). In Egyptian cosmology, heaven was represented as the underbelly of a star-studded celestial cow whose legs were planted firmly on the earth below (p. 111). In another image, it was depicted as an inverted pan with stars on it--and there is an image of a divine Egyptian king holding up the inverted pan of heaven (p. 111). Other images were similar but they all pictured the earth as flat with the sky being held above it by four legs or pillars. The Egyptian accounts of creation sound very similar to Genesis 1. They begin with divinities of water, darkness, formlessness, and emptiness, as well as air and wind. Creation takes place via a regal command . . . (p. 112).
In Mesopotamian cultures, the same kind of descriptions are found. A Sumerian myth depicts a single mountain rising out of a primeval sea and an air-god dividing the mountain in two to form heaven and earth, lifting heaven on high. In a Hittite version of the separation of heaven and earth, a saw, or divine cleaver, does the dividing. In Phoenician cosmology, a "world egg" cracks into two equal halves, heaven above and earth below. And in Babylonian and Hebrew versions waters are divided (p. 113). According to the Sumerians, the heavens and earth were created by the "word" of their god, Enki. For the Babylonians, it was Marduk who was Creator of the earth above the waters, establisher of things on high and who made mankind . . . . creatures with the breath of life (p. 117). The cosmologies of the all the ANE peoples, including the Hebrews imagined the cosmos as requiring divine support, especially the heavens/sky above a flat earth. They also shared the concept of a cosmic ocean that existed before creation (p. 119).
So anyone who thinks that the portrait of creation presented in Genesis was unique to the Hebrews is uninformed on ANE mythology. The parallels are unmistakable. In addition, even as these other cultures had multiple "creation stories," the Hebrews did as well. Virtually all scholars recognize that the story in Genesis 1 is different than the story in Genesis 2. There are also creation stories or myths to be found in the Psalms (74:12-17; 89:11-13) and the book of Job (26:7-13; 38:1-11) which probably predate the Genesis stories. All of these bear strong resemblance to the stories told by other ANE cultures.
The Hebrews viewed the universe has having three levels: 1) heaven, 2) earth, and 3) sheol or the place of the dead, under the earth. The first level was the abode of God, the stars and the moon, the second was the abode of man, and the third was the abode of the dead. God was not light years away but just above us as if in a balcony. That is why at the tower of Babel (Gen. 11), ancient man thought he could climb his way to God. The earth was seen as flat with four corners. This view continued into the New Testament and was no doubt the view of Jesus himself. He spoke of the whole earth seeing the Son of Man when he comes on the clouds (Matt. 24:30-31). Below the earth is the netherworld where the dead go (Gen. 37:35, 1 Sam. 2:6, Job 7:9, Isa. 14:11, etc.). In the book of Revelation, this is seen to be like a bottomless pit (Rev. 9) where demons, the damned and even Satan himself sometimes abides. The writer of 1 Peter envisioned Jesus as going down into this region at his death and preaching (1 Pet. 3:19). Paul seems to indicate that he took some of these souls with him back to heaven (Eph. 4:8), thus leaving only the eternally damned there.
Thus, it should be obvious to any informed observer that the Bible simply presents the view of the universe as commonly held by the peoples of the ANE. There is no reason to believe that the Hebrews' version of the story came from a divine being any more than it is to believe that the Babylonian stories came from Marduk or the Sumerian stories came from Enki. Amazingly enough, though, there are many Christians who continue to believe these myths to be literally true simply because they have made a prior faith commitment to the God of the Bible and have presupposed that everything in it must be true. No matter what science says, they will cling to this ancient mythology. A prime example is Kurt Wise who has a Ph.D. in geology from Harvard University and studied under the famed Stephen Jay Gould. Wise said:
Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand (In Six Days : Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation, p. 355).
Yesterday's post described the current controversy in evangelicalism over the statements by Bruce Waltke to the effect that unless the church embraces evolution it will be reduced to the status of a cult that is completely out of touch with the world around it. One might suppose that this conflict between science and Christianity is something recent but it actually has been going on for centuries. In 1905, a book was published by Andrew White tracing the conflict. The book is entitled: A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom.
In 1248, the Church (Council of Le Mans) forbade surgery on the grounds, oddly enough, that Christianity was opposed to the "shedding of blood." Later in the same century, Pope Boniface VII decreed that any dissection of the human body was a "sacrilege." (White, p. 317). The Medieval Church continued to oppose any advances in medical science (which was left up to the Jews and Muslims) because the Church supposed herself in possession of something far better that scientific methods in medicine. . . . (for example) water in which St. Remy's ring had been dipped cured fevers, wine in which the bones of a saint had been dipped cured lunacy, oil from a lamp buring before the tomb of St. Gall cured tumors, St. Valentine cured epilepsy, and so on. (pp. 324-25). It was generally believed then and still is today by some Christian groups that to seek help from physicians is to demonstrate a lack of trust in God. 2 Chronicles 16:12 condemned King Asa because, in his disease he sought not to the LORD, but to the physicians .
In 1722 Edmund Massey preached a sermon in his London church, entitled: A sermon against the dangerous and sinful practice of inoculation. His rationale? Disease is God's righteous judgment. This reminds one of the 20th century proclamations by Christians such as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson that HIV Aids was a divine punishment. Some of the hesitation to fund research on this in the Reagan administration might have been due to this kind of thinking. In 1798 in Boston the Anti-vaccination Society was formed by several ministers. They likewise maintained that vaccination was an attempt to defy God's will.
Christian leaders also opposed the use of anesthesia for women during childbirth because it was an attempt to override the "primeval curse on woman" as pronounced in the Garden after the Fall. According to James Tayloe Gwathmey:
the use of anesthetics in obstetrical cases by James Young Simpson met with a vigorous storm of protest. The hostility of the Scotch ecclesiastical authorities to the alleviation of pain in childbirth had its source in an old belief in Scotland. In 1591, for example, a lady of rank, one Eufame Macalyane, was charged with seeking the assistance of Agnes Sampson for the relief of pain at the time of the birth of her two sons, and was accordingly burned alive on the castle hill of Edinburgh; and this view, which stood for nothing kind, merciful, or humane, persisted even to the middle of the nineteenth century (Anesthesia [1918], p. 21).
Furthermore, as David Eller points out:
It was religion that arrested Galileo in 1633 for promoting teachings contrary to authority in works like "Dialogue on the Two Chief World Systems" in which he defended the theory that the earth revolves around the sun. And it was religion that executed Giordano Bruno by burning at the stake on Februrary 17, 1600 for publishing his ideas about the movement of planets, the relativity of space, and the possiblity of multiple worlds . . . (Atheism Advanced, pp. 200-01).
Christianity has a long track record of opposing science. Even in the 21st century, we have Christians organizing to oppose stem-cell research and to promote the teaching of creationism in public schools. It seems obvious that when a group holds that a book written over 2000 years ago is the epitome of all knowledge, that group is going to oppose any advances it perceives as being contradictory to that holy book.
Dr. Bruce Waltke is perhaps the dean of evangelical OT scholars. He has a Th.D. from Dallas Seminary and a Ph.D. from Harvard University. He has taught at some of the most prestigious evangelical schools including: Dallas Seminary, Regent College (Vancouver, BC), Westminster Seminary and Reformed Seminary. In the last week, he has been the subject of a huge controversy related to a video he did for the BioLogos Foundation in which he said that Christianity risks being reduced to the status of a cult unless it embraces the theory of evolution. Even though, Waltke had advocated theistic evolution for years in his books, this video and it's widespread dissemination over the internet resulted in his being asked to resign from the Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando.
Some have speculated that while these ideas could be tossed about in academia and scholarly treatises, once it reached the laypeople, who actually fund evangelical enterprises, the "party was over."
The President of Reformed Seminary, Michael Milton, according to a USA Today report, said that while the Seminary allows a diversity of views on creation and Genesis (essentially around whether the 6 days of creation are 24 hours each or long periods of time), he acknowledged that Darwinian views, and any suggestion that humans didn't arrive on earth directly from being created by God (as opposed to having evolved from other forms of life) are not allowed, he said, and faculty members know this.
The evangelical blogosphere has been ablaze with discussion on this issue. Some agree with Waltke and think that conservative Christianity cannot survive if it refuses to accept and then harmonize the findings of science with their faith, while others say it is sacrificing the authority of Bible on the altar of modern science. A sharp distinction is being draw in evangelical circles that could lead to a major realignment within evangelicalism.
On the left are those evangelicals who agree with Waltke. For example, on the BioLogos website, there is an article by Darrel Falk, a biology professor at Point Loma Nazarene University, entitled On the Courage of Bruce Waltke, in which he says:
Decades from now, when the Evangelical Church has come to terms with the reality of evolution, we hope she will look back at those who were the pioneers on its journey toward a fuller understanding of the manner by which God has created. I could list other pioneers, a number of whom are good friends and colleagues. Right there alongside them will be Dr. Bruce Waltke who, in the latter phase of an extremely distinguished career, had the courage to tell the Church what it needed to hear.
Falk laments the fact that the majority of evangelicals refuse to embrace evolution. He cites a Pew Forum poll from 2008 which concluded that only about 25% of evangelicals believe in evolution, and only 10% believe that evolution occurred through natural selection. As a professor of biology and an evangelical, he finds this appalling.
it is all but incomprehensible that in 2010, any American scholar, particularly one of his academic distinction, could be so harshly bullied for stating an opinion consonant with current scientific orthodoxy.
On the right, the majority of evangelicals have applauded the decision and warned about the implications of accepting evolution. For example, Rick Phillips of The Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, says that theistic evolution is the trojan horse in the camp of the evangelicals. He says Waltke and those who hold to it represent the conviction that where secular science speaks to history, it must be accorded a superior authority to the Bible. The Bible must be "reconciled" to accommodate the claims of secular science and archaeology. Any biblical reflection is offered after the history has been decided by secular orthodoxy. He continues that once science is given supremacy, all the major doctrines of evangelicalism will be "up for grabs." He writes:
Do they think they can restrict the hegemony of science over Scripture to the realm of creation issues? What will science make of the virgin birth, the miracles of Jesus, and the resurrection? The 20th Century gives us the answer. Moreover, do they think they can avoid worldly scorn merely by jettisoning biblical creation, while still holding to even more obnoxious doctrines like substitutionary atonement? The hermeneutics behind theistic evolution are a Trojan horse that, once inside our gates, must cause the entire fortress of Christian belief to fall under the humanistic sword.
For Jeff Straub of Central Baptist Theological Seminary its very simple.
If God did not mean what he said in Genesis 1, why didn’t he just say what he meant? Pardon my rather simplistic read (or as Longman disparages it, “a very literalistic way”) of Genesis, but if God had wanted to tell us that he created the world in six literal 24 hour days, what more could he have said to convince us? ”Hey humans, I really, really mean this!” The Bible taken without evolutionary thinking leads to creationism. Evolution is only necessary as a mechanism of explaining origins in a world where God does not exist. At its root historically, evolutionary thought is atheistic. Evangelicals who pander to it do God and the Bible a great disservice.
John MacArthur, of The Master's College and Seminary, has had a series of audio posts on his blog over the last week on this issue. He maintains that the subject of origins is a watershed issue, that if one accepts Darwinian evolution then one must conclude there is nothing special about the human race and certainly man is not made in the image of God. In typical fundamentalist fashion, he argues:
Evolution was devised to explain away the God of the Bible—not because evolutionists really believed a Creator was unnecessary to explain how things began, but because they did not want the God of Scripture as their Judge.. . . To put it simply, evolution was invented in order to eliminate the God of Genesis and thereby to oust the Lawgiver and obliterate the inviolability of His law. Evolution is simply the latest means our fallen race has devised in order to suppress our innate knowledge and the biblical testimony that there is a God and that we are accountable to Him (cf. Romans 1:28). By embracing evolution, modern society aims to do away with morality, responsibility, and guilt. Society has embraced evolution with such enthusiasm because people imagine that it eliminates the Judge and leaves them free to do whatever they want without guilt and without consequences.
Note that evolution was "devised" and "invented." It was not a genuine discovery of science but rather a grand conspiracy hatched by Satan himself to drive people away from the Bible. This kind of preaching may be popular in the pulpit and among the crowds that gather to hear John MacArthur and other leading evangelicals but, as Waltke implies, it makes them a laughingstock among those who are not blinded by faith. What amazes me is that evangelicals will accept the findings of modern science in every area except where it contradicts their interpretation of the Bible. If they get sick, they go to the doctor and follow what medical science prescribes. If they need to travel somewhere quickly, they board a plane and trust in aeronautical science to get them there safely. If they have outdoor plans, they will listen to a meteorologist to guide their activities. But when it comes to the common descent of life through evolution, they don't care what science may say. If they continue with this obscurantist attitude, they will, as Waltke says, become more and more marginalized.
So, evangelicalism is on the horns of a dilemma. Acknowledge the findings of science and admit that the Genesis story really is a myth including the fall of Adam and Eve (which effectively eliminates the need for redemption and the coming of Jesus) or pretend that science is wrong and continue to claim that their holy book is the supreme authority. It will be interesting to see how this develops.
Here are three fundamentalists (R. C. Sproul, Al Mohler, Ravi Zacharias) discussing evolution:
Contrast that with Michael Specter on the Dangers of Denying Science
