Classic iMonk Post
by Michael Spencer
Originally posted Oct 4, 2009
A year ago, this Michael Spencer piece really got people talking.
FIRST: Read “Evangelicals and Science†at Tim Stafford’s blog.
SECOND: Niki is fictionalized, but not much. I am hoping this post will make one point: the Gospel combined with anything- a view of science, political opinions, convictions on gender, etc.- becomes a non-Gospel. Let the Gospel be what Paul describes in I Cor 15!
Her name is Niki. (Not her real name.) She’s a Japanese student who lived with an American family for a year and attended a Christian school. She took a year of Bible. She attended worship and heard lots of preaching. The Gospel was explained to her many times. She was well liked and sociable.
A very smart girl. A great student, much advanced over the average American student. She made A’s in everything, including Bible.
She left America after graduation and went back to Japan.
She came to America an atheist and she returned to Japan an atheist, and very aware that she had rejected Christianity.
Before she left, she talked with one of her teachers.
“I am an atheist because I believe in evolution. When people here explained to me what they must believe as Christians, I always ask them about evolution, and they say “You cannot be a Christian and believe in evolution.†So I cannot be a Christian, because I believe that evolution is true.â€
No doubt, Niki has met many Christians who told her that she could not be a Christian and “believe†in evolution. No doubt, few, if any, of those Christians took the time to explain what they meant by evolution. Most probably meant that the Bible teaches that the earth is 10,000 years young, that no biological death of any kind happened before sin and the major Creationist ministries such as AIG have all the answers to the hard questions of physics, astronomy and science. (“Were you there?â€)
No doubt, Niki was told that science is mostly an arrogant attempt to explain questions without reference to the Bible and should be approached with great caution. Christians, she was probably told, are quick to refuse to believe the phony “evidence†science is so good at making up.
No doubt, Niki was told that the same Bible that tells us Jesus is the one who saves a broken world and sinful people is also the Bible that tells us a completely scientific picture of the origin of the universe, the earth and human beings; a view that depends, ironically, on rejecting most of what science says about those origins. No doubt, Niki was told that since both these things- the Gospel and real scientific answers- are from the same Bible, we cannot reject one without rejecting the other.
So she heard it: you cannot be a Christian and “believe in†evolution.
Niki heard, as a matter of routine, that the phrase “big bang†means “there is no God and the universe is an accident. (I’ve been listening to that reaction to the term Bib Bang for almost 20 years, despite being able to recite the names of 25 evangelical Christians who accept the old universe and the Big Bang.)
Was Niki ever told about the the thousands of Christians in the sciences who believe the “Big Bang†is evidence for creation by God? No, she wasn’t. Was she told of the many conversions to Christianity among scientists who have been moved by the evidence for God as creator now available in astrophysics? No, because that would complicate the views of Creationism she was told were non-negotiable.
Was Niki ever told that the vast majority of Christians on planet earth don’t believe now and haven’t ever believed science and Christianity answer the same questions in the same way? No, she wasn’t.
Was Niki told that millions of Christians believe in some form of evolution? (For Catholics, it’s in the Catechism!) Some form of an old earth? That millions of Christians do not accept the claims of the Creationist ministries as representing the Bible accurately or correctly? No, she wasn’t.
Was Niki told that even atheists are largely agreed that evolution does not equal atheism, and atheists like Dawkins are wrong to claim that is the case?
So Niki, who heard the Gospel message of God’s love, life and forgiveness in Jesus, also heard that non-Christian science mostly can’t be believed, most scientists are atheistic conspirators in a plot to eliminate God from our culture and real Christians renounce any belief in the conclusions of secular scientists and embrace Creationism.
Niki, who heard about Jesus for weeks and weeks in her Bible class, could not bring herself to believe in creationism, so she cannot be a Christian.
Did Niki meet anyone who believes the Bible is true, but didn’t believe that science is a vast conspiracy? That the answers aren’t all to be found in the Creationist movement? That you are not forced into the “either/or†choices between Jesus and science that so many Christians insist on? No one knows, but if she did, they were few.
Did Niki receive any encouragement from someone who had managed to answer these questions and still survive as a scientist in the evangelical community? Did she meet anyone in the sciences who still believed in Jesus and the Gospel? Did she meet anyone who was a professing Christian and also a person who worked in mainstream scientific fields of research or academics?
So Niki has gone back to Japan as an atheist. The seeds were sown and perhaps they will take root and bear fruit. Perhaps one day Niki will write and say that she has placed her faith in Jesus and has abandoned her confidence in the usual scientific models of the origin of the earth and human beings. Perhaps Niki will tell us she found a church and has given up her beliefs in science so she could embrace believing in Jesus.
If Niki goes to MIT, or works for NASA or cures cancer or AIDS, will she remember her journey among evangelical Christians as an encouragement to be a great scientist?
Or perhaps Niki will go on being an atheist.
For many Christians, that will continue to be an acceptable outcome.
The Internet Monk Archives 
James the Mad was talking about how do we help the Nikki’s that we know.
It’s a hard situation because I suspect that most of us have fled the kind of church where the YEC , the Rapture, etc. thinking predominates. I would hope we are able to share with the younger ones, not necessarily in church, but elsewhere in the world. (For me, a conversation with my boss helped bouth of us. He had a greater understanding of how evangelicals think, and I had talked seriously to my first Catholic )
I don’t have any answers. Wish I did, though. I hate the idea of someone having to choose between reason and science and faith in Jesus.
LikeLike
Great reminder about being the faith as opposed to intellectualizing the faith. Still makes me sad because I see this battle if you will as one where there are all losers – on the one hand you have the strict views, which Niki had to bear, and on the other you have those who take the stance that holding to anything less than wholehearted acceptance places your intellectual acumen in question. So the sadness is that this issue cuts both camps – reverse sides of the same coin.
LikeLike
Interesting article InternetMonk. Personally I started not really caring about evolution, until today it has not been a major issue, I’m studying for the Biological Sciences and I’ve learned evolution. The only difference is that throughout the years I have turned quite agnostic on evolution, age of the earth, etc. It was mainly due to the metaphysical implications such as biological reductionism and philosophy.
LikeLike
Hmm, let’s see – #1, #2, definitely #4, #6, #7 big time, and of course, #8 is the basis of the entire creation/theistic evolution debate that’s at the heart of this discussion, so…
Hope you don’t mind if I join you for that popcorn and soda. 🙂
LikeLike
The biggest “hedge” that I have encountered is that one must be a conservative Republican. Oh, and don’t watch PBS. Never mind that I’ve seen favorable news about musicians who are Christians on public tv – it is evil and must be avoided. Same goes for politically liberal Christians.
One thing that Ken Ham said that I absolutely concur with is that Jesus never told us to change our culture. He told us to preach the gospel. Once the gospel is preached, culture change will come – eventually. I’ve become worn out with all of the extra requirements tagged onto Christianity. At times, involvement in the church simply isn’t worth it.
LikeLike
Evolution has not been an issue for me per say. But this “either” or “thinking” is one of the contributing factors to making me into an agnostic. The approach evangelicals take to evolution is taken toward a whole number of issues. Consider…
1. Pre-tribulation rapture (I heard a pastor in the DC area that said if you were going to be an evangelical you had to believe this point…..)
2. Social Justice related issues
3. Dress, personal entertainment
4. Church activities, the “If you believe in God you will volunteer in kids ministry to show you are a Christian…)
5. Sin. Christians take an either or approach and as a result take someone having a hard time with something and drive them into it due ot their black and white thinking.
6. Politics, I heard the wife of my pastor in Wisconsin tell me that if you are a Christian you had to support George W Bush (this was in 2004…)
7. Homosexuality. I had a freiend of mine who is gay and felt the church put me in a situation where I had to choose between my freind and the church.
8. The Bible..(If your going to be a Christian you have to take the most literal translation of the Bible to show you believe in it) Thus the Bible is worshipped and made an idol.
9. Church itself…(If you believed in God you would go to this non-denominational/Baptist/AOG/Community, etc.. and avoid that Methodist, Presyberterian, UCC, Lutheran or Catholic church)
10. Certain Pastors/Leaders…(If you were a true Christian you would listen to the likes of John Piper, D James Kennedy, Lon Solomon, Bill Bright, etc..) God help you if you find some sense in what Brian McLaren or Tony Compello is saying…becuase you obviosuly aren’t a true Christian.
I think this issue of evolution highlights the problem of fundementalist Christianity. And that issue is black and white thinking in a gray world. Personally as an agnostic I’m going to buy popcorn and soft drinks when sceince finds life on another planet and pull up a chair and watch the fundys debate the isuse in the context of strict Biblical intrepretation. Did God create just us on Planet earth? Or did he also create those people/creatures living on planet “xyz”. Did God just send his son to save this world alone? What about those sinners on that planet? Man that will be entertainment!!! 😀 😀 😀
LikeLike
Just letting you know I’ll be stealing a couple of these. 🙂
LikeLike
Sorry Chaplain Mike,
I don’t know how I missed your paragraph a few comments up…
“One of Michael’s main points in the post, with which I heartily agree, is that far too many Christians are fighting far too many needless battles about these matters when a little humility and grace and willingness to admit we don’t have all the answers could go a long way toward showing people that we care more about them than we do about winning arguments and defending our lists of non-negotiables.”
Well put!
LikeLike
Headless Unicorn Guy,
Where are the flying Anathemas and Denunciations?
LikeLike
Sarah,
Excellent points.
I would only add one comment. It is a sentence you wrote that I took three words from and added one.
But if a person enters this profession for the specific purpose of proving evolution, he is shrinking God to a size that can be examined through human-established techniques.
LikeLike
Quakers believe that Jesus is the Word of God and the Bible is true. It’s a subtle but significant difference. So, while I absolutely believe that the Word of God (Jesus) is inerrant, I do not believe the scripture is. Although I do not think errors in the scripture are numerous enough or significant enough to say, “Well, I’m just going to chuck this….”
LikeLike
Another way to think of it, when they say “Bible” this, or “Bible” that, is (as N.T. Wright says) that they are using “shorthand” for stating God’s authority is found in it. It is not authoritative, or inerrant, etc… on its own, but because of whose authority it represents.
LikeLike
H.U.G… I can only imagine having never been straight or lived in CA.
LikeLike
“For I came that you might have Young Earth Creationism Uber Alles, and have it more abundantly.”
“For I came that you might have Perfectly Parsed Theology, and have it more abundantly.”
“For I came that you might have Verbal Plenary Inspiration, and have it more abundantly…”
LikeLike
Chaplain Mike:
And so it begins.
The word-for-word theological parsing of Genesis 1 and the flying Anathemas and Denunciations.
Both proving the point the Original Internet Monk made with this posting.
LikeLike
I found my religious home elsewhere within Christianity, and if you want to know where. Look for the one that has their Observatory in Arizona.
NOBODY EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!!!!!!
— Monty Python’s Flying Circus
LikeLike
Biologos has been mentioned and linked to several times from IM.
They’ve even attracted a couple YEC Uber Alles trolls from this blog.
LikeLike
Being raised southern baptist doesn’t make it easy for a kid to come to terms with being gay.
Growing up in Post-Sexual Revolution California also doesn’t make it easy for a kid to come to terms with being straight and waiting for marriage, either.
LikeLike
We should make a distinction between the scientist who is also a person of faith and the scientist who uses faith to further an agenda. Whether the agenda is political, religious or some other obsession, if the goal is to advance the agenda above other knowledge, it usually becomes junk science.
A person of faith may work in some area of science and with every new discovery feel greater appreciation for the Creator. But if a person enters this profession for the specific purpose of proving God as Creator, he is shrinking God to a size that can be examined through human-established techniques. He is manipulating science to further an agenda. I see no reason why I should respect the work of this person when both faith and science have been compromised for the sake of an agenda.
Let us say a geologist sets out to prove that a certain rock formation reveals that a certain event took place in earth’s distant past. Now in studying the rock formation it becomes apparent that the rocks show something quite different and far more exciting. Would you respect the work of this geologist if she were so wedded to her theory that she refused to consider these new possibilities?
LikeLike
Understood. I apologize if I took it the wrong way. I really do appreciate the fact that you’re trying to keep everything respectful, and that you’re being explicit in mentioning it. It’s a courtesy that I don’t see very often – especially online!
LikeLike
Phil,
I wasn’t trying to use the creeds or the scriptures as a proof for my literal views.
I was responding to Tom’s comments.
I understand your view.
I disagree, respectfully, with it.
LikeLike
Chris,
The way I see it, believing in “one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible” doesn’t put any constraints on the methods that He may have used in the act of Creation. I kind of think of it as the work an architect does in designing a building. After a building is up, it’s not uncommon for people say something like, “Wright’s building represented an extreme level of detail and integration in its surrounding”. It’s not uncommon to even say an architect built a building. We all know, however, that putting a building involves a lot more than simply designing something and willing it into being. There is all sorts of work between the design and fruition.
So I guess I don’t have a problem with God creating through a process such as evolution. I even think that true randomness can have a role in Creation. I don’t see how it steals any glory from God or makes Him less of a Creator.
LikeLike
also sent from my phone, so please pardon the multiple typos. Tiniest keyboards on these things.
LikeLike
Scizzard….I can relate to your statements. Being raised southern baptist doesn’t make it easy for a kid to come to terms with being gay. There is no room for science on that subject either. It’s a choice and that’s all there is. They say “the bible says it I believe it and that settles it.” frustrating beyond words, the militant ignorance. Whatsaved my life was shutting out all the noise and getting akone with God. If you allow for it, you may find that the bible is indeed living and breathing in this 21st cebtury. You can’t let anyone else tell you what it is saying to you though. I trusted my heart and the Spirit of God living there and found peace in Him. I say the words gay christian and people get upset, but there is no power in their words anymore. What can man do to me? I have veen embraced by the Almighty and all is well. I wish you peace and love in your life.
LikeLike
I’m convinced that fundamentalist Christianity + PhD in the sciences is a recipe for disaster. If you make it out of college, eventually, the crisis will hit, because you can’t live a double life forever. As a fellow skeptic, I’m sorry for your experiences, and I’m glad you have left the fundamentalism behind. I did too. Finding your way back in the “post-evangelical” wilderness is a nightmare. I’m still doing that. This poor Niki in the story will have a hard time finding her way back too – we’ve set up so many barriers for outsiders to join at the table.
LikeLike
As for a test for orthodoxy, I couldn’t say because the Church fathers believed in a literal creation as Darwinian evolution was an idea not around at the time.
As far as historical confessions of faith. I was raised a Lutheran (LCMS) so I remember and appreciate the creeds. They, like the Bible, speak of creation.
I’m sure you are aware of these two creeds, but do you remember how they start?
Apostles’ Creed – Traditional English Version:
I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.
The Nicene Creed
We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father by whom all things were made…
I was reading in Hebrews 11 yesterday – the “faith” chapter.
Verse 3 states: “By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.” (NASB)
The subject of creation is found all over the Bible. I was reading Hebrews 11 for another reason, and happened to read the verse.
Apart from these items from important Christian sources, I don’t understand why we can discuss many other kinds of issues, but we must remain silent on this one.
LikeLike
130 comment in one day about….CREATIONISM!!
Good to see some Christians can set their priorities right!!
After all, it’s not because the issue is not adressed in any historical confession of faith of the Church that it should not be seen as a test for orthodoxy…
LikeLike
I might as well throw out cosmicfingerprints.com for you. As a fellow engineer, Perry Marshall’s certainly made sense to me, maybe they’ll help you. God bless.
LikeLike
Fish, you’re right. The bible is made an idol, and that idol is identified using a particular interpretation of what it looks like, and then that image of the idol is exalted above the living God under the pretext that we cannot know God except by seeing the image of the idol.
LikeLike
Wait,wait,wait,wait,wait! You went to Jesus Lifehouse?! Well, the world is a small place after all! I tried to go to Japan last year and, while those plans fell through, I found Jesus Lifehouse Osaka to be a really great church that would have been close had I actually been able to go. I’ve kept up with the blogs of some of the people connected with it and I’ve grown really attached to that church. Which is actually kind of awkward since I haven’t actually gone to it. It’s really the reason that I’ve become interested in missions work in Japan, it just seemed very alive.
LikeLike
Fish,
You’ve mentioned this school before. It must be the only one like it in the U.S.
Very unfortunate.
.
LikeLike
FWIW, the ministry that my friend is involved in specifically focuses on college students, for many of the reasons that you mentioned.
LikeLike
This is as good a place as any for my example. My daughter’s friend, who goes to a Bible-centered school, doesn’t believe in dinosaurs. They’re non-Biblical and at any rate the world isn’t that old, of course.
She’s bright and has a fine future in front of her, but it’s going to be difficult for her to make it in any scientific field. I wouldn’t want to work on a project with her, because who knows at what point she’s going to disregard a body of knowledge and replace it with verses and chapters?
LikeLike
Summa Elvetica by Theodore Beale, aka Vox Day? I thought it was terrific even though I don’t really care for sword-and-sorcery fantasy. I find his blog to be one of the best on the web, though you clearly feel differently.
And I think that on the subject of the soul, you put it rather well.
LikeLike
Aaron, I understand your concern about this subject, but I don’t think it’s justified to say that accepting evolution leads to the watering down of Christianity. All too often Christians treat the Bible as one homogeneous whole, when it’s composed of books written over hundreds of years, by different authors, in different genres, to different audiences – sometimes in the same book!
The reason why this is important is because even if someone thinks the first few chapters of Genesis are a sort of divine metaphor or allegorical depiction, this doesn’t mean that the Gospels, which are of a totally different literary genre, written by different authors, in a different language to boot – should also be seen as metaphor.
LikeLike
Jesus may also have been speaking within the context of how his culture understood these matters. Think about teaching a child math; if your young daughter asks if you can subtract 9 from 4, you might say, ‘no, you can’t do that,’ even though it is possible with negative numbers. She’s just not yet ready to learn about that yet. It may be a similar situation with Jesus in such verses.
For the record, I do think Adam was a historical person, though I don’t think it’s as big a deal as everyone makes of it.
LikeLike
Personally I don’t think the debate about evolution is worth it. However, I would like to address the idea that missionaries ‘spend years laboring to see even the smallest amount of fruit, due to various social and cultural factors.’ This has been the case in the past but Japanese society is changing rapidly, moreso than most westerners realize, due to a variety of cultural and social factors. The result is that young people are more open to the Gospel, with fewer obstacles to belief, than ever before in Japan’s history. And that’s why churches like Jesus Lifehouse (the one I attended in Japan) which specifically focus on the high school/college/young adult demographic have expanded so rapidly (the first one, in Tokyo, has over a thousand people, overwhelmingly new Japanese converts, in attendance in their various services – it was started only about eight years ago.)
Christianity has a bright future in Japan, unfortunately old missionary organizations and their methods don’t effectively engage the culture and generally completely ignore young people, like a farmer deciding to plant his seeds in a barren, rocky patch when there’s fertile soil right next to it.
LikeLike
CM;
I saw your comment, and I agree wholeheartedly. I just find it disturbing that the discussion so far is little more than a rehash of the creation week debates. We’re so interested in discussing YEC vs. evolution that we don’t have time for the Nikis of the world; we simply don’t seem to care that we share the blame for Niki’s decision.
CR;
You are correct – my comments are an attempt to focus in on the topic of the OP, which is not YEC vs. evolution, but rather evangelicalism’s culpability in contributing to Niki’s decision to remain an atheist. My fear is that we have become so focused on secondary issues that we no longer care that we are driving people away from the church by teaching Jesus +.
LikeLike
I’m not sure that any explanation is required for these verses. Perhaps they might make us re-examine some preconceptions, though. There are other verses that indicate that Jesus may have put aside his infinite knowledge–like his amazement at the centurion’s faith or his pleading in the garden for the removal of the cup, if there were any other way.
LikeLike
Neither Niki’s treatment nor this one R acceptable in my view.
LikeLike
James, in an earlier comment, I stated how I would have a conversation with someone like NIki:
I am willing to say to any inquirer who asks of me, “You know, I’m not sure I know how the Bible fits with everything we’re learning in nature. I tend to think the Bible and science are addressing different concerns. The Bible tells us Who we came from and Why we are here, and it teaches us that by telling stories and conveying truth through many different kinds of literature. Science on the other hand examines the processes at work in the universe, tries to explain how they work, and helps us use natural principles to improve our lives. We can have both.â€
LikeLike
James,
Maybe I’ve figured it out. You are referring to the story and not this discussion. You must be.
Nowhere in this conversation do I see anyone insisting on Jesus +, and not Jesus alone.
LikeLike
Phil,
I understand your position.
LikeLike
Sarah,
“Personally, I would prefer to see as many Christians as possible working in every profession – including scientific communities.”
I couldn’t agree more with this statement.
Someone who believes that evolutionary thought and the Bible are reconcilable will find it easy to work in today’s scientific communities.
How does a YEC fit into a scientific community that holds almost exclusively to one view?
My understanding is that it isn’t easy.
What if a bright student goes to college and their creationist view, learned from a pastor or not, doesn’t change? Or maybe after listening to the status quo, the student doesn’t agree; kind of like what happened to Niki around certain Christians.
I’ll use Dr. Robert Gentry as an example again.
He went to college when young people hadn’t been as exposed to as much evolutionary thought as they are today. Now, evolutionary theory, taught much of the time as fact, is taught in 100% of public science classrooms nationwide.
Mr. Gentry became an evolutionist.
After coming across evidence to the contrary, he became a creationist.
After many years, he has remained a creationist. It is where he believes the facts lead.
I think the Nikis of the world should be allowed to express their thoughts and questions freely. I think they should be allowed to hear all sides of the issue and that they should be allowed to make up their own minds. I think it is the fair thing.
Many in this conversation have found a way to fit evolutionary thought together with an a Biblical view. I disagree strongly but I would never, as an educator, put a person down for their views.
It seems to me that the creationists and Intelligent design folks get the same treatment in academic circles that Niki received in religious ones.
Neither Niki’s treatment nor this one is acceptable in my view.
LikeLike
“It seems to me that we would have done what we could to keep Niki out of the gutter.
Will we give up preaching Jesus + YEC?
As you noted elsewhere, yes, this has been a civil enough discussion. But in rehashing creation week we have totally missed the point of the OP, which is that we helped her in her decision to remain an atheist because we insisted on Jesus +, not Jesus alone.
LikeLike
“I think James is talking about all the Nikis to come.”
Absolutely. We helped chase Niki off because she was taught Jesus + YEC. Jesus + anything is false, and needs to be dealt with.
LikeLike
Let’s look at a quote from the original post:
“I am an atheist because I believe in evolution. When people here explained to me what they must believe as Christians, I always ask them about evolution, and they say “You cannot be a Christian and believe in evolution.†So I cannot be a Christian, because I believe that evolution is true.â€
Niki was clearly taught Jesus + YEC. But rather than addressing the error of Jesus + anything all we are doing is rehashing creation week. Yes, this has been a civil enough discussion. But in going back over creation week we have completely missed the point of the post. We, that is, evangelical Christians who teach that you can’t be a Christian and still believe in evolution, contributed to this.
LikeLike
I think James is talking about all the Nikis to come.
There are very bright young people who plan to pursue science-related careers. They sit in congregations listening to pastors preaching young earth creationism. What happens when they come home from college and dare to mention that their views are changing? How will they be received by their home churches? Will they be ostracized? Will the church conclude that they have been corrupted by an evil scientific education?
Would the churches prefer to drive away the Nikis rather than permit other points of view?
Personally, I would prefer to see as many Christians as possible working in every profession – including scientific communities. Traditionally, Christians have contributed much to our understanding of science. And, I might add, they contribute still.
You cannot demonize science to your congregations in one breath and in the next complain that science attracts too many atheists. Churches that insist their interpretation is the only interpretation are helping to grow more atheists. If you say you must believe A, B and C to be a Christian, and the young person concludes she cannot accept B, then what have you done?
This is tragic and unnecessary.
God is infinite, eternal. God needs nothing from us. All that is given to us is given in generosity and love. Yet there seems to be some level of fear in some quarters that if we don’t help God turn things around, God somehow loses.
LikeLike
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with these discussions necessarily. I just don’t think that the YEC, Intelligent Design, etc. debates are that useful as an apologetics tool. I think that is why groups like AiG are going down a wrong path. I don’t think convincing someone of the age of the earth is going to do much in the way of introducing them to Christ as Lord. If that’s the case, it becomes more of an intramural debate among Christians, and I just don’t find much value in that when it comes this particular issue.
LikeLike
Maybe it’s Scizzard with whom we should be concerned with at this point in the conversation.
LikeLike
I thought my previous statement made my thoughts clear on this question.
LikeLike
Phil,
You have restated what my friend has and I’m not surprised. I’m sure he got most of his information from the scientific literature you’ve mentioned. However, I don’t think things are as harmonious within scientific circles as you make them sound. I quoted something from Mr. Dawkins to my friend. He knew of the statement and he disagreed strongly with Dawkins’ thoughts.
You mentioned that scientists no longer want to get into debates. I’m still waiting for serious debates to begin.
I also think that the main question of Scripture is, “who is Christ?â€
Once we deal with that question, is it not o.k. to discuss other subjects that we think are important? It seems to me that’s what happens on this forum daily.
LikeLike
James the Mad,
I haven’t seen anyone here declare (without sarcasm) that you must believe “YEC” to be a Christian. Most of us are trying to give evidence that it doesn’t have to be that way.
If it does, then heaven is going to be pretty empty.
LikeLike
My point, based on the way this discussion has gone so far, is that nothing has changed. Many of “us,” finding ourselves in a similar situation, would do the same things that were done to the original Niki.
What we have totally failed to do is address how Niki was treated, and that, in essence, we are chasing people off by teaching “Jesus and YEC.”
LikeLike
I’m in the UK & I’d say it isn’t a big deal here- most Christians I know who are YEC’s have just sucked up publicity for Ken Ham- or haven’t really given it much thought, not being interested in the science & taking Genesis at ‘face value’…
The church I am part of (New Frontiers affiliated) is influenced at some levels by Ken Ham etc, but no-one has a problem with people with differing views…
LikeLike
Can’t say that I don’t have the same struggle.
Every day, the small section of a favorite verse “lean not on your own understanding” is necessary to keep me in line.
God’s blessings…
LikeLike
Has anyone defended how Niki was treated? Who is culpable?
LikeLike
If my assumption is correct, that none of us are happy about what happened to Niki, I think we would have handled the situation differently.
It seems to me that we would have done what we could to keep Niki out of the gutter. If I’m misspeaking for anyone else, please correct me.
LikeLike
Perhaps. But Michael’s point was our culpability in the matter, an issue we seem to be totally unwilling to address.
LikeLike
Nonetheless we’re essentially ignoring her as we continue to squabble over the issue of YEC vs. evolution. She can die in that gutter, for all we seem to care; we don’t have the time to be distracted from our arguing.
LikeLike
Cool Chris, blessings in Jesus! I’m glad you’re good with trusting God in the details; I say it because it is a real struggle for me. I want to know it all and, because I take after the old man, I’m not very patient about it. Can’t wait to discuss the hidden things with you on the other side! Oh, and thanks for stopping by and commenting, hope you were built up. I’ll check those comments out.
LikeLike
James,
I finally agree with one of your statements, mostly.
LikeLike
Maybe I’m reading the discussion wrongly, but it seems to me that no one in this conversation, with the exception of Scizzard, is happy about what happened with Niki.
LikeLike
Amen Dr. Vern. I teach anatomy and physiology to pre-nursing students: there was an intentional, providential plan behind our fearfully and wonderfully made frames, weak as they are! Of that I am convinced. To get intention unintentionally is absurd on the face of it.
LikeLike
Perhaps, for starters, by reassuring her she doesn’t have to check her brains at the door to become a follower of Jesus?
LikeLike
Thomas,
The Mark verse is one of the verses that I thought you meant. My guess is that Jesus has a very intimate knowledge of the universe since “apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.”
The other verse is almost the only information we have between the time Jesus was 12 and when He began His ministry.
Not being a Bible scholar, your comment “That’s part of the mystery of him being fully God and fully human” is a close to an explanation I can come up with.
LikeLike
I think your friend is largely correct, Chris when it comes to evolution being taken as a fact in scientific circles. There really isn’t any serious debate over it in scientific literature. My wife is a post-doctoral researcher at one of the biggest research universities in the country, and really, no one is interested in debating evolution any more. I just think that scientists for the most part see it as almost a non-issue that’s not worth their time to debate. I think they would tend to see skeptics either as simply ignorant or perhaps as propagandists. There may be a handful of scientists who will get into debates, but I simply think most of them don’t want to any longer.
I also don’t think scientists make a distinction between micro and macro evolution. They simply see big changes as a collection of small changes over long periods of time. So I guess in some sense because many modern scientific methods are based on “micro” changes that are observable, they simply take it as a given that macro evolution happens.
As a Christian, I tend align with Francis Collins’ view. I don’t really see any real conflict between Scripture and evolutionary theory. To me the main question of Scripture is who is Christ? To focus on issues like evolution simply obscures this question.
LikeLike
“Just so you know, you are alone.”
LOL. I’m going to assume you didn’t mean that the way you typed it.
Thanks for the kind thoughts. I am who I am, and I’ve decided I can’t make myself believe or disbelieve anything. And *trying* to believe or disbelieve feels wrong. So whatever will happen to me will happen.
LikeLike
Maybe I should have asked:
WHY ARE WE IGNORING NIKI???
The point of the OP was our (i.e. evangelicalism’s) culpability in throwing Niki under the bus with our “Jesus plus YEC” teachings. And, as Michael so succinctly stated: “For many Christians, that will continue to be an acceptable outcome.”
So why are we rehashing creation week, rather than dealing with the issue Michael raised? Are we really satisfied to leave Niki lying in the gutter bleeding while we argue among ourselves?
LikeLike
Sorry Aaron, that’s a dodge. You’re the one who excluded the middle with your statement.
LikeLike
Interesting. So how do we as the Church handle this. How do get her to come back to the Joy of the Lord?
LikeLike
Why do anything for her? Perhaps she’s happier now.
LikeLike
Garrett,
“…be careful of being too sure of yourself on all the details.”
That’s one thing I don’t think you’ll have to worry about in my case. There are too many things that we’ll never know, this side of heaven, for me to ever think I’ve got it down.
By the way, I’ve checked out your blog site and even made a comment some time back.
I agree completely with your last two sentences.
LikeLike
Do you really think that the case of Niki, who rejected Christianity based solely on a non-essential issue, is really the same as Mr. Gentry? One person loses salvation; the other loses prestige.
LikeLike
Luke 2:52 “And Jesus grew in wisdom and in stature.”
Mark 13:32 “No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.”
LikeLike
What you call a raging debate I call a civil discourse. I enjoyed reading the comments and opinions of the differing views.
Above your comment, I see a discussion where no one has been called an ugly name and it appears to me that replies have been handled respectfully.
How else are Christians supposed to discuss these matters? This has been one of the most civil “discussions” I’ve seen here at imonk, and on a topic on which many have strong feelings.
“For all we know Niki is headed straight to hell, and all we’re doing is fighting over how we’re going to grease the slide for her, and for those like her.”
What????????
LikeLike
Thomas,
I can see that your comment about the term “macro-evolution” is probably true.
Would you share the scripture that you are referring to when you state that Jesus’ knowledge on earth wasn’t infinite? The only verse I can think of relates to the end of days, but says nothing about an understanding of the cosmos.
I don’t see how your question would be considered blasphemous.
LikeLike
Scizzard,
This is an issue where even orthodox Christians can disagree (and hopefully with love!). Genesis answers the who and the why, and not the when and the how. My faith has nothing to do with how old rocks are, but it has everything to do with a God who created us, who loves us so much that he would die for us and conquer death for us. God speaks to us through science, through people, through history, etc.
We have a lot of scientists from CERN who attend our church. They are strong in faith and brainy in science, and the good news is that God’s kingdom is big enough for all of us. Hang in there.
LikeLike
Enjoyed your article. Still can’t figure out how to leave you a comment though.
LikeLike
Not too long ago I read an essay on Darwin and his, well, evolution away from the creationism of his day (Frank J. Sulloway’s essay “Why Darwin Rejected Intelligent Design” in Intelligent Thought: Science versus the Intelligent Design Movement, John Brockman, ed.)
There’s an interesting parallel to this post because Darwin rejected the prevalent creationist theories deduced from available physical evidence, including something called “centers of creation,” a plausible creationist theory, but IMO mostly speculation without clear authority from the biblical text.
In other words, because the dominant creationist theory didn’t hold up in the face of evidence, he rejected divine creation per se. I don’t think he had to, but the weight of creationist opinion apparently was against any other theory at the time.
My summary on this:
http://disjournal.blogspot.com/2010/09/that-is-not-my-faith.html
LikeLike
Michael didn’t tell us, and this is a Classic Posting.
For her sake, I hope that she does some research into the history of Christianity in Japan. It’s not always pretty, because the European rivalry between countries and religious orders came too, but interesting.
LikeLike
Umm, guys? Gals?
WHAT HAPPENED TO NIKI???
Are we just going to throw her under the bus while we rehash creation week, and leave her for the Good Samaritan to take care of as we walk past her lying bleeding in the gutter?
LikeLike
Garrett, good post. Being a retired M.D. in my journey I went from fundamentalist to agnostic then back to a Follower of Jesus. Theintracacy of the human body is beyond haphazzard evolution. By faith we believe in Jesus Christ as our savior. We will find the answers when we get to heaven and will be surprized by the fact that we are there ,.
LikeLike
To Aaron, Chris, etc.: Don Carson has some truly wise words for this debate which have been deeply helpful to me (this comes from his latest book “The God Who is There”):
“There is more ambiguity in the interpretation of these chapters than some Christians recognize” (p.13).
“I hold that the Genesis account is a mixed genre that feels like history and really does give us some historical particulars. At the same time, however, it is full of demonstrable symbolism.” (p.14).
“There is more ambiguity in the claims of science than some scientists recognize” (p.15).
“And yet I personally know many front-rank scientists who are Christians. I have spoken at many universities, and one of the interesting things I discover is that if I attend nearby local churches and meet some of the faculty in the universities who belong to these local churches and who are committed believers, their numbers tend to be made up of more science and math professors and the like than arts, psychology, and English literature professors. It is simply not the case that anyone who is a scientist cannot be a Christian” (p.15).
I go to a “life group” at my church. It’s a meeting of young adults and grad students. First night, I meet two other former biology majors, each working in the private sector. The leader of the group was a physics major at Carnegie Mellon and now studies engineering. I ask him, “So, how old is the universe” and without hesitation he replies “13 billion. I get asked that a lot by my Christian friends, but it’s 13 billion.” And then we discussed why the big bang ought to be a source of wonder for Christians who believe in a finite, created cosmos.
If I could say one thing to both of you it would be this: be careful of being too sure of yourself on all the details. There is more ambiguity in the text than most young-earth creationists will admit. And there is more ambiguity in the data than Richard Dawkins is willing to admit. These discussions can’t simply fall back into talking points. To be really honest, I too am weary of many of the proposed syntheses between evolution and the bible. I don’t find any of the explanations of Adam particularly convincing. But, I also happen to think evolution is a generally helpful theory, when stripped of its metaphysical baggage. So, what to do? Listen, talk, learn, and try to stay humble in light of my ignorance before an infinite God who really does have the answers. It’s hard and I struggle with trusting God on these thorny issues, but it’s the right thing to do.
LikeLike
Your original claim:
In the Mohler article you cite, Mohler cites only one scientist, Steven Pinker as being critical of Collin’s religious beliefs, and Pinker hardly characterizes Collins as a “clown.” Mohler mentiones that some nameless “others” that have said “far worse”, but fails to give any supporting evidence. In all, not much support for you claim re Collins and his peers.
BTW, I really like Al Mohler, his staunch Calvinism notwithstanding. I read his blog every day, and gave one of his books, Culture Shift, a favoriable review in a magazine. Ever though I often disagree with him, I appreciate his level headed reasoning and clear thinking. But he does have a blind spot when it comes to evolution. Its not that he discards his usual clear thinking; it that he starts from faulty premises and doesn’t recognize the fact.
Weikart’s book was received very well in Intelligent Design circles, which is not surprising given that Weikart is a Discovery Institute fellow and the book was written with the specific intent of bolstering the DI’s “Wedge Strategy.” The book hasn’t fared so well among historians without Weikart’s a priori ideological commitments. A telling quote:
And it’s your turn for the excluded middle. 🙂 One can pursue investigation without reference to special revelation, neither affirming nor denying its existence. Special revelation may simply have no bearing on the investigation at hand.
Then we all function as atheists every day. When your car beaks down, do you consult special revelation, or do you call a mechanic? If the latter, why do you eliminate a supernatural cause from consideration?
I don’t know much about your background, but, given what you’ve written here, I’m betting that your higher education was at a Southern Baptist institution. The books and evidence you cite and the lines of reasoning you use sound like the ones I learned and used when I was a Southern Baptist. Maybe you have already, but if you haven’t, some reading and study of theology, science, and history outside of your tradition is good for the mind and the soul. At least I found that to be true in my case.
LikeLike
Oops, bad editing on that last note – was that supposed to be “I recall picking up because it was recommended here,” or “I recall having been recommended here?”
Anyway, check out Belcher’s book. The whole centered set/bounded set/relational set thing helps define much of the evangelical/post-evangelical/emerging debate, a portion of which we see raging above.
LikeLike
You partially correct. Many don’t know about the various nuances of hermeneuitcs. But that does not mean they idolize the Bible. It simply means they believe that is how God inspired it/how He speaks through it.
LikeLike
Looking at the debate that continues to rage above? Not happenin’. We’re too busy defending our bounded set/rules & regs/gotta have your theology right to be admitted to the club mindset to actually acknowledge the centered set/grace/Christ-shaped spirituality that was the basis of the OP, as well as being Michael’s heart. For all we know Niki is headed straight to hell, and all we’re doing is fighting over how we’re going to grease the slide for her, and for those like her.
(For those not familiar with bounded set/centered set, check out Jim Belcher’s Deep Church, which I recall picking having been recommended here.)
LikeLike
“All the problems” is a strawman, but I can appreciate that view to a certain extent.
On the other hand, around here the big churches have “Bible” in their name, the private school curriculums are “Bible-centric,” and “Bible-believing Christian” is a proudly used self-identifier.
I can’t think of a church with “Jesus” in its name, haven’t heard of a “Jesus-centric” curriculum, and “Jesus-follower” is code word for underground liberal.
The blogosphere and the physical world are two different places. Here, there’s a lot of biblical interpretation; on the street, the average Christian here probably hasn’t even heard of hermeneutics. The Bible says what it means and it means what it says, and it is the literal inerrant Word of God to be obeyed, not questioned…. “You’re not supposed to ask questions like that.” That is the environment I live in. Your mileage may be different.
LikeLike
Chris, I think it’s more that the term “macro-evolution” was invented by YECers.
Aaron, God doesn’t have to directly create a male and female out of nothing for the statement “male and female he made them” to be true. He can just as well use a long process. I will teach my children that God made them and that he made them unique; that statement is not negated by the long process that began with sperm and egg.
It is also possible that Paul was speaking from his current understanding about human origins. I don’t expect God to just eliminate all the scientific errors of his worldview before moving him to write his letters. The theological truth still stands.
Last, and this may seem blasphemous to some, but do you think that Jesus as a human being had a perfect understanding of the cosmos? Remember that even the Bible tells us that his knowledge on earth wasn’t infinite. That’s part of the mystery of him being fully God and fully human. Then again, maybe he was accomodating the views of his audience.
LikeLike
Good point. I need not be near as concerned for Mr. Gentry as I need to be for atheists like Niki.
LikeLike
Scizzard, I hope you don’t give up and instead truely encounter God, who is good, kind, merciful, and patiient with our questions.
LikeLike
Danielle,
I also find the current state of dialog troubling on several levels. It’s why I very much appreciate the civil tone of your comments.
In the story about Niki, where was the Christian who presents my view in a non-dogmatic or condescending manner? “Niki†is apparently a very bright person and would be able to handle such a Christian.
When I use the word fact, I’m saying that the “debate†is finished. I’m saying that the question has already been answered in the mind of the evolutionist. There is no need for debate. There is no need for questioning. They may not have all of the dots connected yet, but “yet†is something that will eventually be solved. This is contrary to the curious nature of the inquirer. It is the same thing that is done to Niki in the story.
I know that not all evolutionists have put it into the “fact†category, but the large majority have. I have heard in interviews the evolutionist you’ve named; Mr. Gould, and I think he could be placed in this group.
You wrote:
The data you speak off is all over the scientific lit. Those who generally interested in the science of it should read the more accessible books for sheer delight in wanting to understand the physical world better.
I agree with this statement except for the “more accessible books†statement. Mr. Gentry’s book is very accessible and because it is less known doesn’t make it less valuable to this subject. There’s no question that his book is less known and less popular.
I read his book for the exact reason you’ve noted and was not disappointed, except for the part of the story where politics seem enter the story.
You wrote that Mr. Gentry’s story is not very significant because he is only one person. Please correct me if I have misunderstood you. Galileo was one person, but his contribution was a great one. There are so many more “scientists†today, of course, but that doesn’t mean that a voice should be relegated to the back page because he is in the minority.
I used Galileo because Professor Morrow stated in the same preface, “Robert V. Gentry is a scientist in the tradition of Galileo. I don’t know exactly what Professor Morrow means by that but it sounds complimentary, and particularly worth noting because it comes from a scientist who is an agnostic.
I have been influenced by others besides Mr. Gentry, I must add. He is not the only brilliant creationist or ID scientist out there.
On debates, I think you have made a good point. Why is it that it is rare to see a debate that focuses on evidence instead of philosophy? Why, as you have stated, is it that scientific debate doesn’t happen at public debates? Maybe it’s because the topic is large in scope. I don’t know.
I don’t understand why no evolutionary biologist will discuss the discoveries of Dr. Gentry with him in public. Yes, a few have responded in certain literature and Mr. Gentry has answered back.
Most of the public will not take the time to read such things. And herein lays a large part of the problem. It is not the fault of evolutionists or creationists that most people need to have all of their questions answered in a neat, one or two hour package.
I actually think that a great deal could be accomplished if debates occurred between scientists in certain disciplines. An intelligent design biologist could discuss his views with and evolutionary biologist. An evolutionary geologist could discuss his views with a creationist geologist.
Because this topic seems to be so important to so many, and since both sides seem to think they have a great deal of evidence, it seems to me that civil debates on the subject would be a very common event.
The few debates I’ve seen have focused more on philosophy than on data.
And Mr. Dawkins…I don’t have his book but I heard him read a part of it on a You-tube video. He made a statement about the God of the Old Testament that might wake up a few Christians and Jews.
God’s blessings…
LikeLike
Chris, a story like this one is much more significant than examples of the exclusion of young earth creationists because in the former case, someone is being kept from the kingdom over a non-essential issue. In the latter case, someone is being kept from a human institution.
LikeLike
This may be straying into territory that I am not in a solid position to address, but I’m going to try anyway. I’ve always thought the biggest difficulty for accepting a scientific view of the universe is the question of when and how did humans acquire souls? The best answer that I’ve heard is that a soul is what makes it possible for a human to be human, to be self aware, to be logical, to believe. That the first being to have those capacities was human and thus had a soul. After all, self awareness is not something you can have part of- you either know that you, as an individual exist, or you are simply reacting to pain and pleasure on instinct.
I hesitate to mention this book, because I find the views of the author incredibly odious, but there was a book that, from what I can see in the reviews is at least half well written (and sounds interesting enough that if I see it used, I’ll pick it up), about a fantasy world in which there is an argument on whether elves have souls. It’s set in the middle ages, so it’s a Catholic controversy, but by the idea of the soul that I’ve given above, they would.
For me, the story of Phineas Gage is what makes me doubt the existence of the soul. That we, as humans are no more than manifestations of the electricity and chemicals moving throughout our brains that can be radically altered by changes to the brain. Science can make non-believers of us, but it’s not always the usual suspects.
LikeLike
A mustard seed is smaller than a flame or ember. And a real journey in this life wouldn’t be much without some darkness. What you describe is real faith, which has real doubt.
Jesuits do encourage free thought and openness to new ideas : life elsewhere in our enormous universe and my exposure to them made me an agnostic for many years. But real, living faith involves understanding that God is not who you thought He was or is. And the journey back to faith involves other small seemingly insignificant events, which if examined later often have the significance and the power of a Ziegler-Nata Catalyst. It is much easier to label the complex as random.
LikeLike
Scizzard,
While my science is chemistry, formulating polymers to be exact, I can certainly understand your journey. I had a rough time with evolution etc. while growing up, and even went as far as being a member of the Creation Research Society for a while. (I dropped out because the articles were either in a science where I couldn’t judge the quality or “Look at this, how could that have evolved”
I found my religious home elsewhere within Christianity, and if you want to know where. Look for the one that has their Observatory in Arizona. GRIN
LikeLike
No worries Aaron
I didn’t see your post as alienating, judging or rejecting me for my view. I am strong in my faith. As i said in my post and as I see it relating to the post about Niki, this is an issue that if not put in proper perspective does put at risk weaker, and especially new Christians. I suspect it even repels many non-Christians.
I am also posting from the position that the Word was there at the foundations and as such I don’t worry too much about the security of the Gospel. Every sin that is has always been. None are new and I am not commissioned to prevent them. I am confident that neither our Father, nor the Gospel need human assistance or protection. What does concern me though is collateral damage. Each soul saved is a celebrated miracle. I would not like knowing that the millstone around my neck would have been preferable. To see anyone walk away from their fledgling faith because they see no love in the body of the Saviour is a tragedy on a heavenly scale.
LikeLike
Also, sorry for the typos. I am in Newark Airport after an all night flight, tryping on a cell phone. 🙂
LikeLike
BTW, I just want to add that I am not chasing you specifically — you just bring up some rellevant and commmon ideas, so it seemed like a good way to comment on the topic.
I appreciate your charity alongside your passion. I am actually not dogmatic either, although I know I sound very adament. I just find the current state of dialog troubling, both intellectually and practically. So much could be gained if the conversation were less dogmatic, more tenative, and more curious and wonder-filled. If we really believe theology reflects on truth, knowing more truths (or possible ones) can only renrich is in the long run.
LikeLike
I am tempted yet again to urge you to understand the definitions of these words as scientists understand use them. Hypothesis, theory, etc have meanings and the terms are very sloppily used in conversations like this — I think mainly brecause creationist literature often misues them. You introduced the term “fact,” and I am not sure what you mean by it. I suspect you use the term fact to refer to what scientists call theories. But I am not sure.
As to evidence. I t s impossible to summarize in a few sentences and it will tempt someone to parece what I have said, which won’t get us anywhere. The data you speak off is all over the scientific lit. Those who generally interested in the science of it should read the more accessible books for sheer delight in wanting to understand the physical world better. Then see what you think. Ilve akways enjoyed Stephen Jay Gould, for those need more accessible stuff (thatLs me, since I am not a biologist.)
I have not read the prefece or introduction you cite, but … you do realize you are discussing one briliant sscientist and one preface, right? This is not very significant.
The reason there is not currently a debate on this issue really isn’t that evolutionary biologists are scared or ignoring some huge body of schoarship. There really isn’t that much of it right now. They’re ignoring it it because (1) they don’t think the other side is worthdebating and (2) if they did honor it with a debate, creationist will ite the fact as proof that their positions are worthy of debate.
And most important!!! Scientific debate doesn’t happen at publicity events like public debates. It happens in peer reviewed scientific litrature and conference paperes. A debate is about two people arging about general points — not research, which is the real deal. And they do so before a genreal public, who are listening to the rhetoric and pithy catch phrases moree than the nitty gritty. How can it be otherwise? Scientific literacy is fairly poor. So, yout idea isnLt a bad one, but it would accomplish much less than you think.
And it isn’t the case that evolutionary biologists are ignoring you entirely. There’s a huge literature out these offering responses to creationist claims. And Dawkins has debated on occasion, albeit on the more philosophical end of things. I can find the link later on.
As I said, if the evidence shifts, I will be fascinates to read it. And I am not dogmatically an evolutionist. I am simply saying that creationist perceptions of the current state of things can be really muddled, and its important that current conditions are understood.
LikeLike
Chaplain Mike,
I am finding that you are right. When did that happen?
LikeLike
Aaron,
I agree with your assessments.
Yes there are Christians who have no idea of how to talk to the Nikis of the world, but I have also seen how brilliant scientists who hold to an ID view are treated with disrespect.
Sadly, the Darwinian evolutionist I had a discussion with just today, voiced his clear support of abortion. He was the one who brought up the subject, not me.
LikeLike
Chris, not to open another can of worms, but most scientists would find the very word “macro-evolution” and any distinction between it and “micro-evolution” meaningless.
LikeLike
Aaron, of course scientists “eliminate the supernatural from methodological consideration.” Science is the analysis of natural processes. Even if a scientist is a believer, he/she does not posit or analyze what God does or include consideration of his (invisible) work in the process when following the scientific method. That doesn’t mean all science is anti-God, any more than mathematics is.
All in all, I find your analysis of history, philosophy, and science to be elementary, shallow, and unconvincing. You may find mine naive and overly accommodating to other views. The facts remain: (1) we disagree, and (2) we are both believers in Jesus Christ. I think we are talking past each other, so I’m going to back out now.
One of Michael’s main points in the post, with which I heartily agree, is that far too many Christians are fighting far too many needless battles about these matters when a little humility and grace and willingness to admit we don’t have all the answers could go a long way toward showing people that we care more about them than we do about winning arguments and defending our lists of non-negotiables.
LikeLike
Chaplain Mike,
I agree with Aaron that macro-evolution has consequences. For me that is why it is an issue.
Your wrote:
“We’re talking about the seeming incompatibility between what the Bible teaches and what we have been learning for the past few hundred years from our study of general revelation in nature.”
I’m so glad you used the word “seeming.” It is a necessary word.
LikeLike
Oh, I’m trying! Being a poor college student is a bit of a barrier, but I’m looking in to a bunch of different opportunities.
LikeLike
Note that I said the modern doctrine of inerrancy, i.e. that formulated by the Princeton theologians (B.B. Warfield, etc.) in the late 1800s. The modern doctrine of inerrancy not only claimed that the Bible was without error, but also included an explanation of in what way it was without error: namely that the Bible could be treated as a set of propositions, and those propositions must be scientifically and historically true. Indeed, this conception of inerrancy would have been impossible in pre-modern times; pre-moderists didn’t have the categories and assumptions used in the modern doctrine.
LikeLike
I’m going to have to conclude here and head off to bed, but this has been fun. Thanks for an interesting conversation.
Before I go, I will try to answer some of your queries.
Regarding Francis Collins:
http://www.albertmohler.com/2010/09/03/the-predicament-francis-collins-human-enbryos-and-the-sanctity-of-human-life/
Regarding the consequences of evolution, there have been several books published about it. One of them you can find here:
And regarding the methodological assumptions of Darwinism, it appears that you are trying to argue that Darwinism comes to the table from a neutral, agnostic standpoint. But I would argue that there is no neutrality. Either one pursues the investigation of general revelation in the light of special revelation, or one rejects special revelation and pursues general revelation on the basis of autonomous reason. To eliminate the supernatural from methodological consideration (that is, to argue that evolution must occur by an undirected process) is to function as an atheist.
And with that, have a good night.
LikeLike
Catherine,
How do you define what a theory is to a scientist?
LikeLike
“None of those passages require that Paul or Jesus believe adam to be historical for the message they were conveying to be true. Mythical adam as exemplar works just as well as literal historical Adam.”
I’m afraid not. If God did not really create Adam and Eve as male and female, then Jesus’ argument crumbles, for his argument is predicated on the Creator’s design as expressed in that particular, historical act of creation.
And if Adam did not plunge the human race into sin through a historical act, then why is this world fallen? And how can an act in history by Christ be parallel to it?
Inerrancy is not a modernist doctrine. It has been the confession of the church for 2,000 years. This has been well-documented by John Woodbridge and others.
LikeLike
Touche. Methinks you’re equivocating, but I have to way to prove it, so I’ll take you at your word. But you’re still wrong. 🙂
LikeLike
Danielle,
You commented:
“Your conversation partner is right:
A theory is NOT a belief or a guess. Scientific theories are based on large amounts of evidence.”
How can he be right when he states that macro-evolution is a fact?
Facts and theories are different things.
I am well aware of the percentages of scientists who adhere to evolutionary theory.
I am also aware of an agnostic professor of Chemistry Emeritus at Wofford College, W. Scot Morrow, Ph.D., who wrote a forward in creationist scientist Robert V. Gentry’s book named “Creation’s Tiny Mystery.”
He writes, “What are we to think of the chairman of the physics department who urged Gentry to follow a “more conventional thesis problem” that would not lead to and “embarrassment” to the university.
Mr. Gentry was working on a scientific study that related to origins.
As professor Morrow puts it, “Perhaps it is intellectually inconvenient to recognize the potential merit of Gentry’s measurements…?”
Having recently had my Bible questioned because it wasn’t KJV, I am well aware of the patience required for handling many of today’s “Christians.”
The discussion I had with the macro-evolutionist found him more red faced than I. I’ll chalk it up to a hot day and not because of anything I said because he did most of the talking.
I was happy that you included the sentence “this might change.”
Personally, I don’t believe it will. There are already brilliant scientists who challenge macro-evolutionary scientists to debate them at almost any time. Why, if the evidence is so great on the evolutionary side, do the debates happen so infrequently?
I must add, I am not one of those who think that because someone views Genesis differently than I do that they are unsaved. I only think they are wrong.
LikeLike
Now you have committed the fallacy of the excluded middle. What if I meant “non-negotiable for the Christian faith” in a global, rather than an individual, sense?
In other words, what if I am saying (as I am) that a commitment to the historicity of Adam is a watershed issue that will lead the church down a path toward retaining the gospel or toward a path of losing it?
LikeLike
Excellent point. I hope all are listening.
LikeLike
Of course they are linked. They are always linked. The theory of evolution could not have come along before the philosophical furniture had been put in place (via the Enlightenment). Without a Descartes, there could have been no Darwin. Science cannot be done apart from philosophy. Scientists are not neutral observers. They are frail, sinful, creatures of dust like you and me, laced with presuppositions.
One reason the evidence for evolution seems so compelling to scientists today is because, basically, they have nowhere else to turn as long as they are eliminating the supernatural from methodological consideration. Darwinists are already stuck with the problem of explaining where life came from in the first place (they can’t do it). It had to be some kind of highly, highly unusual event. And if they had to explain the existence of the various life forms with so many highly, highly unusual events, they would be stuck with an idea that would be astronomically improbable. If they can’t explain how a single-celled organism spontaneously appeared, how are they possibly going to explain how the fish, the antelope, and the elephant spontaneously appeared?
So along comes Darwinian evolution to tie all life forms together, thereby minimizing the problem and requiring naturalistic scientists to only have to explain one occurrence of the spontaneous appearance of life. Evolution is the only possible explanation for life’s diversity, if you are a naturalist. Therefore, it becomes a presupposition that is read into all of the evidence rather than a conclusion that arises from it. It’s like the man who went to the doctor convinced that he was dead. After trying in multiple ways to convince that he was not dead, the doctor finally asked, “Do dead men bleed?” And the man replied, “Of course not.” So the doctor pricked his finger with a needle. As the blood started oozing out, the man said, “Well, what do you know! Dead men bleed after all!”
But I’m not a naturalist, so the diversity of life forms does not present itself as a problem to me. And if there is no problem, why should I go looking for a solution?
LikeLike
None of those passages require that Paul or Jesus believe adam to be historical for the message they were conveying to be true. Mythical adam as exemplar works just as well as literal historical Adam.
a
Another possibility (though one I deem not as likely): Jesus and Paul believed Adam was historical, but they were mistaken.
Neither solution will satisfy someone who holds to the modern (and I might add, modernist) doctrine of inerrancy. But the modern doctrine of inerrancy is something imposed on the Bible, not derived from it.
LikeLike
I was recently talking with a friend of mine who is a missionary in Japan, and they’re in a situation like this. They have a Japanese friend who is very open and interested in Christianity, and yet, firmly believes in and accepts evolution. So my friend’s question was, can this Japanese individual be a Christian? Can they take Communion, recite the Apostle’s Creed, etc?
Based on various conversations with friends in Japan, I suspect this could be a significant stumbling-block for those working in Japan. They spend years laboring to see even the smallest amount of fruit, due to various social and cultural factors. Is the debate over evolution, as important an issue as it is, worth losing that progress over?
And Cipher, you should make every effort to go to Japan ASAP. It’s a wonderful country. Admittedly, my family and I had a slightly different experience than your average tourist — we stayed with friends who had lived there for years, knew the language, took us everywhere, etc. Even so, we were blown away by the beauty of the country and even moreso, the hospitality of the Japanese people.
LikeLike
Excellent response. One of the biggest problems that I find in talking to people who aren’t comfortable with an old earth or biological evolution is that they don’t understand what a theory is to a scientist. And that’s quite disturbing because it is yet one more sign of how poorly scientifically educated our population is.
I’m not a biblical literalist, but I do believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God. Unfortunately, I don’t talk about evolution or origins much at my Evangelical church because of the controversy it causes.
I love Jesus and I know that his death paid for my sin and his resurrection displayed that he was God. That’s what matters.
LikeLike
No, Darwinian evolution is, as is all science, agnostic on the subject of God. It neither asserts or denies the existence of God.
ID is anathema to the scientific community because it has produced no science. Judge Jones’s decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover neatly sums up the problems with ID as science.
I have seen nothing but respect for Collins in the scientific community. Can you share any evidence that he is widely considered a “clown”.
Asserting something over an over does not make it true. 😦
That’s a pretty big assertion. Evidence, please, linking these things? Please try to avoid the Post Hoc fallacy.
And, even if what you say is true, that is not an argument against the truth of evolution, only the fact that you dislike the consequences of that truth.
LikeLike
Melanie,
I hope you understand that it is not my intention to alienate, judge, and reject you for your view. Nor would I consider an honest discussion of these issues on my part to constitute persecution of other Christians.
I am setting forth my ideas and explaining to fellow brothers and sisters why I think we should be cautious about the theory of evolution. As a theologian, I see theological ramifications from this theory that I consider to be dangerous. It is not that I believe any Christian who believes in evolution is a heretic. It is, rather, that I see the acceptance of evolution as one more step along a path that leads eventually to a loss of the gospel. It may not happen in this generation, but ideas always have consequences.
LikeLike
I’m not “splitting” them, Aaron. I’m saying the “connections” you say are inevitable are not so.
LikeLike
Non Sequitur (also, slippery slope fallacy). There is no necessary logical connection between not believing in a historical Adam and relegating Christ to mythic status.
But you try to artfully dodge. You claim that belief in a historical Adam is a non-negotiable for the Christian faith. I claim Adam was ahistorical. You now have two, and only two, choices:
1. Assert that I am not a Christian.
2. Retract your statement re belief in a historical Adam is non-negotiable.
Which will it be?
LikeLike
I don’t think you can split apart science from philosophy so easily. The two will always go together. Philosophy provides the framework within which scientific evidence is interpreted, and that in turn provides further development to the philosophical assumptions by which a society functions.
General revelation must always be interpreted through Scripture, for Scripture is the lens that gives clarity to our sin-tainted perspective.
LikeLike
Aaron, come on. I’m not talking about “evolution is an idea that has consequences.” That’s evading the issue. We’re talking about the seeming incompatibility between what the Bible teaches and what we have been learning for the past few hundred years from our study of general revelation in nature.
I’m talking about evolution as a scientific model that the vast majority of scientists have accepted at this current time in history as the best model to explain the evidence they see in nature. It is constantly being tested, constantly being debated, constantly being adjusted to fit new evidence as it emerges. Sure, some people claim that acceptance of the evolutionary model necessarily entails a naturalistic view of origins and the nature of life, but that claim is patently false. The number of brilliant Christian thinkers who accept the evolutionary model puts the lie to that. The fact that someone like you and I might be able to make seemingly logical connections between a scientific theory and philosophical consequences in society proves nothing, other than the fact that we are thinking too simplistically and making connections where there need be none.
By the way, you are aware that Christians don’t have a lot of credibility when it comes to advocating that “ideas have consequences,” aren’t you? All one has to do is look at the history of the church to see why. More than a few people have decided that the horrific consequences of “Christian” ideas over the centuries put the lie to our claims. (Not saying they are right—they are a further example of inadequate analysis.)
Back to the question at hand, evolution is not the only scientific model that threatens the accepted interpretations of some Biblical Christians. Astronomy and geology challenge some views of the age of the universe. Physics challenges our understandings of the nature of space and time and our ideas about determinism and freedom. The Bible says God sends the rain and snow, but when we watch the weather at night, Christians generally don’t object if the weatherman fails to mention that and attributes precipitation to other causes.
The enemy is naturalism, not the evolutionary model. And I am willing to say to any inquirer who asks of me, “You know, I’m not sure I know how the Bible fits with everything we’re learning in nature. I tend to think the Bible and science are addressing different concerns. The Bible tells us Who we came from and Why we are here, and it teaches us that by telling stories and conveying truth through many different kinds of literature. Science on the other hand examines the processes at work in the universe, tries to explain how they work, and helps us use natural principles to improve our lives. We can have both.”
LikeLike
Okay, then. Off the top of my head, I can think of three important New Testament references to Adam (there are certainly more, but these are the three I’ll settle on here).
– Jesus refers to the creation of male and female in Matthew 19 as a basis for his teaching on the permanence of marriage.
– Paul refers to Adam in Romans 5:12-21 in his argument about the entrance of sin, the reign of death, and the work of Christ that has brought justification.
– Paul also refers to Adam in 1 Corinthians 15 in a similar parallel, although his focus there is more on categories of death and resurrection rather than condemnation and justification (though the ideas are interconnected).
Show me evidence from these three passages that Jesus and Paul did not consider Adam to be a historical figure. And then explain to me how their arguments still hold in spite of the fact that God did not create Adam and Eve in the beginning and in spite of the fact that Adam did not plunge the human race into sin and death.
LikeLike
One of my most intensely hated pet peeves is when some liberal/mainline no-it-all says that all the problems cause by modern-day Christianity is due to conservative evangelicals who have turned the Bible into an idol. Sorry, sir, but we do not make an idol of the Bible. Like Rick said, this is a matter of interpretation not idolatry (you know, hermeneutics).
LikeLike
1Cor: 2:2, as taught to Niki:
“For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified, and Young Earth Creationism.”
‘Nuf said. 😦
LikeLike
But ideas have consequences. How long will it be before Christ himself becomes a mythical figure, or his death and resurrection becomes a mere metaphor for an ideal? In fact, Liberalism (spurred on by its evolutionary worldview) did exactly that with Jesus.
LikeLike
Beautifully put.
LikeLike
Darwinian evolution is explicitly atheistic in its assumptions. This has become evident in recent debates over intelligent design. Darwinists are adamant that science must remain committed to the principle that life evolves by an undirected process, and that is why ID is anathema to the mainline scientific community today. Theistic evolution is a contradiction in terms to the scientific establishment. Even great Christian scientists who embrace evolution (like Francis Collins) are regarded as clowns by their peers because of their Christian faith.
Evolution is certainly a worldview. It tells us who we are and where we came from (whereas gravity does not). It has led to the deprivileging of humanity and the resultant culture of death that we are now living in. Not all Darwinists are pro-death, but I can say quite confidently that our culture’s embrace of abortion, its flirting with euthanasia, and (in the early part of the 20th century), its toying with eugenics, never could have happened without a Darwinian foundation.
LikeLike
Just so you know, you are alone.
I understand your feeling. But … f you don’t find this outcome *entirely* satisfactory, you might really spend some time in another set of the churches (there are a fair number of evangelicals who accept evolution). Or you might spend time in another tradition — almost no one else has the kind of trouble with this issue that evangelicals have. There are very thoughtful people out there with whom these conversations are possible; perhaps you would find this to be a relief? (Or at least interesting?)
Cheers and best wishes.
LikeLike
Well, whether you find them plausible has no bearing on their accuracy: see the argument from incredulity.
I mean, I find it implausible that 40% of the American population believes in YEC, but they go right on doing it in utter defiance of my incredulity. 🙂
LikeLike
“If we accept a view of humanity that has been handed to us by unbelieving scientists (simply because we want to appear intellectually respectable), namely, that human beings exist on a continuum with all other forms of life, have we not begun to whittle away at the Bible’s teaching on the uniqueness of humanity and its consequent implications of our dominion over the earth?”
As a Christian that who accepts evolution (is it a belief system?) I can see so many assumptions in this statement, apart from evolution. First, can the position that the evolutionary perspective of life (including humanity) comes from unbelieving scientists? No. There are many Christian scientists that do work in fields that support evolution. Secondly, is having some intellectual basis for believing in anything at all, but particularly evolution about being seen as intellectually respectable? Using our intellectual capacity to contemplate our faith and Jesus (as the Logos, the One through which all was created and upheld) can be an act of worship. Thinking and the desire for intellectual respectability are not inevitably linked. Thirdly, are we not on a continuum with other creatures? We are from the same ‘dust and stuff’, we live in the same space and time, our origins are the same (our Creator). In fact take a look at Genesis. We are not the first. Creation was not one moment in time. God chose to create in and over time. Everything about the Bible screams continuum. This leads to the last point, the uniqueness of humanity. In what way are we unique? Is it spiritual or physical? What is in God’s image? It would be a very difficult position to take that we are physically unique in the universe. If our spiritual nature is our point of uniqueness, this is from God. Despite the statements from ‘Ditchens’ and the like, science has little to say about this.
I don’t have a problem with Christians accepting or rejecting evolution. What I do have a problem with is the alienation, judgement and rejection that Christians are subjected to because of positions they hold. I have seen more than a few newer Christians walk away from their faith crushed under response of others. Persecution from non-Christians is to be expected and tolerated. From brothers and sister in Christ it is not.
On a personal level, accepting evolution has enriched my faith in my God who I see is involved, creative, loving and giving.
LikeLike
With respect, this belief — which creationist repeat over and over — is simply not the case.
Your conversation partner is right:
A theory is NOT a belief or a guess. Scientific theories are based on large amounts of evidence. At this point in time, virtually all biologists agree that the evidence for evolution is vast and convincing. Could they be wrong? Sure. But in terms of scientists asking scientific questions and answering those questions, it makes evolution the only kid on the block right now.
Creationists are essentially arguing, desperately and with red faces, that it is conceivable creation as described in Genesis (whatever you mean by this) happened. OK. That’s kind of interesting, if you are religious or interested in certain philosophical questions. Its totally irrelevant if you are speaking solely in scientific terms. Right now, in the lab, the creationist model does not explain the evidence better … it doesn’t pose any interesting questions … it really doesn’t do anything.
This might change. Might. If creationism’s main proponants are one day brilliant, ground-breaking researchers rather than ex-engineers, ex-secondary ed teachers, and lawyers.
But right now, at this moment, this is what an outsider to the movement who is educated in the sciences is likely to see. And thus, the dilemma the above essay points out is very relevant.
This issue, among others, has forced me to the liberal end of the movement. (Although I began as a faithful Henry Morris-touting firebrand). My dear friend who understands science better than me, and who studied physical anthropology, left evangelicalism permanently. They were agnostic for some time, and returned to faith as a Roman Catholic. They only place they won’t go, now, is back to an evangelical church.
Perhaps this should not matter. But then, perhaps it should.
LikeLike
(FWIW, I don’t have a strong opinion on the historicity of Adam, though I probably lean toward ahistorical).
Well, color me chagrined. And here I was thinking that all I had to do was repent and believe on the name of the Jesus. Guess I’ve been deluded in thinking I’ve been a Christian for 35 years. Somebody should probably tell my pastor. 🙂
LikeLike
And not all hermeneutical frameworks strike me as plausible. Just because there are varying interpretations does not mean they are all equal.
LikeLike
Suggested correction: particular (usually literal) interpretations of scripture demand a historical Adam. Not all hermeneutical frameworks entail this demand.
LikeLike
It’s not a big deal here in Australia and isn’t on the agenda at all. many at my previous church (Sydney Anglican ie evangelical) were 6 day creationists but had no problem if you believed otherwise. I have been at my present chrch almost 3 years and I had heard no teaching in favour of a specific approach to Genesis. Nor have i discussed it with anyone. It really isn’t an issue here.
LikeLike
A couple of faulty assumptions in this statment:
Evolution is not promulgated solely, or even primarily, by “unbelieving” scientists. (Even if it were, that fact would not be evidence for or against the truth of evolution. See argumentum ad hominem)
I’d bet the number of people who accepts evolution simply to “appear intellectually respectable” is in the low single digit percentage. People generally accept evolution for the same reason they accept any scientific theory: it’s where the evidence leads and is the currently best explanation of observed phenomena.
No, evolution is both a fact and a theory that explains that fact; no more, no less. (Just as gravity is a fact, and the theory of relativity is a theory that explains the fact.) Theism and Atheism are worldviews. I understand how you would have this misconception (I shared it in my days as a YEC), given that those at the Christian and Atheist extremes make this claim.
I’ve spent 20+ years studying the creation evolution issue from the perspectives of the Bible, science, and history. I think I’ve pretty well worked out any inconsistencies I may have been harboring in the matter. 🙂 Of course, I may have missed one or two, and I’d be happy to consider them if someone pointed them out to me.
LikeLike
Fair enough point on the history of geocentrism. But I think we have much more extensive biblical teaching on the nature of humanity than we do on the solar system, and I think we are wise to be cautious about accommodating the faith to the latest scientific claims, especially when the narrative of Scripture itself demands a historical Adam.
Granted, belief in evolution does not require a non-historical Adam, but they do often go together.
Mike, we may not have all the answers as to how these things fit together, but the wiser person is the one who can see more connections and therefore can predict what the consequences of certain ideas will be. Evolution is an idea that has consequences, and we see them all over our society. And they are not consequences I am eager to embrace.
LikeLike
Scizzard,
I think I understand clearly where you are, I’ve too spent my career in the natural sciences. It was always such a contrast to go to a church meeting, conference etc. and experience extreme social coercion to believe certain things without question (dogma) . . . then I would go to a research conference (like I just got back from an hour ago) and there I would find an insatiable and humble desire for truth (but sometimes getting it wrong). In the scientific community, I always found a strong willingness to challenge the status quo while in the so-called Christian community, an ugly confrontation awaited you if you didn’t conform.
But eventually, I created a wall between the (Christian) God, that I think is really there, and the messy, sometimes ugly, religious quagmire that sometimes goes by the name “Christianity.”
But at least you are still in the conversation.
LikeLike
“If we accept a view of humanity that has been handed to us by unbelieving scientists (simply because we want to appear intellectually respectable), namely, that human beings exist on a continuum with all other forms of life, have we not begun to whittle away at the Bible’s teaching on the uniqueness of humanity and its consequent implications of our dominion over the earth?”
Many believing scientists, in the present and past, have supported evolution, so I don’t think it’s accurate to imply that only unbelieving scientists have advanced evolutionary science. Also, I don’t believe anybody is calling for acceptance of evolution solely for the sake of intellectual respectability, but rather for the sake of being honest with the evidence.
Futhermore, one can accept evolution and still believe that humankind is unique (as the image bearers of God). BTW, the uniqueness of creation was used to support geocentrism (because shouldn’t God’s most unique creation occupy the center of the universe?).
LikeLike
Thanks for commenting on that. I’ve been wanting to go to Japan for a long time now and I’ve been wondering about this issue. The evolution-creation debate has struck me as a mostly an American thing. I’d even guess that outside of America, most Christians simply don’t care either way.
LikeLike
Have you visited BioLogos? http://biologos.org/ They do some great work. Of course there have been many good posts on the topic here at IM.
LikeLike
Why can’t we simply say that, at this point, we don’t have all the answers to these questions about how things fit together?
We are in no different position today than believers in the days of Copernicus and Galileo or in any era when scientific knowledge has advanced. Believers have had to adapt their understanding of the Bible often over the course of history. Many concepts we take for granted now would have seemed supremely “inconsistent” with Biblical faith at one time or another.
That’s not to say we automatically give away the farm. But to disallow inquiry and discussion because we imagine we have a grasp on the “unchangeable” truth of the Bible is not a legitimate stance.
LikeLike
I’m not too fond of some of the interpretations of the “christian god” either. My suggestion to all who feel like Niki, go back and read The Sermon on The Mount.
Ask yourself, does Jesus’ Father sound like the god I was taught about? If the answer is no, then consider that the problem is with the interpretation. I do not care for some of the christian gods either, but I sure do want to know Jesus’ Father better.
LikeLike
I appreciate Michael’s heart in this post. It is unfortunately not uncommon for churches to tie the gospel too closely to other things that are not the gospel (political positions, patriotism, etc.).
But I think there are some deeper dimensions to the question of evolution. Can one be a Christian and believe in evolution? Sure. But doesn’t an evolutionary view of humanity have implications for our understanding of who we are that would ultimately affect our understanding of the gospel? If we accept a view of humanity that has been handed to us by unbelieving scientists (simply because we want to appear intellectually respectable), namely, that human beings exist on a continuum with all other forms of life, have we not begun to whittle away at the Bible’s teaching on the uniqueness of humanity and its consequent implications of our dominion over the earth? And then have we not broached the subject of Christology and what it means for our Lord to be “very God and very man,” which in turn determines the shape of our gospel?
And, quite often, an evolutionary view of humanity is tied to a denial of the historicity of Adam and of the fall. The fact that Adam is paralleled to Christ in Romans 5 and that Adam stands at the head of a genealogy that leads to Christ in Luke 3 causes me to conclude that the historicity of Adam and of the Fall is non-negotiable for the Christian faith.
Evolution is more than a convenient explanation for autonomous human reason of the origin of species. It is an entire worldview.
If I had been able to talk to Niki, I would have told her that some Christians do believe in evolution, and that she should not allow her belief in evolution to keep her from Christ. But I would also tell her that I think those Christians have some inconsistencies in their thought, and I would hope that over time she would begin to see how interconnected all of these things are so that she could work through the issues taking the Bible as her starting point.
LikeLike
like I said, I find that outcome satisfactory.
LikeLike
Christianity is like a flame. If you don’t work at keeping it going you might soon find yourself cold and in the dark…
LikeLike
frankly, I find myself moving more and more in Niki’s direction. I grew up in the
church, attended a fundamentalist school (which was a nightmare). Eventually got a Ph.D. in the biological sciences, and have moved farther and farther from a “traditional” faith. I’d be an atheist if I could. I’d prefer it, really, as I don’t much like Christianity and not too fond of its God. However, some shreds of me still “believe”, I guess. Some days I encourage them, but mostly I find myself wishing them away, and I expect their faint embers will burn out soon.
I find that outcome largely satisfactory.
LikeLike
By the way, the atheist I was talking to knew his Bible better than most American Christians. He knew the traditional view that we believe we are saved by grace (better than 70% of American Christians according to Barna).
I also asked him if he could name the four gospels. No problem for him as it is for 55% of Americans according to the recent Pew study.
LikeLike
How many times have I heard a story like this one?
What about the stories of young scientists, like Robert V. Gentry, who take a stand for where the facts lead them?
Do we ever hear their stories and how they have been treated?
Not all creationists are in lock step with AIG. I’ll admit that I haven’t read much of their literature. I do like it that they publish a daily devotion by Charles Spurgeon.
I’m a creationist because I don’t see room for macro-evolution in scripture. I have also read literature, almost all of it outside of AIG, that gives evidence that seems to defy macro-evolution.
I happened into a lengthy conversation with an atheist/macro-evolutionist today. The discussion ended in a friendly fashion. Honestly, all of the name calling came from his side of the conversation.
He told me that macro-evolution has become a fact in recent years.
I always thought it was a theory, but it seems to be treated as fact in so many circles. I don’t think that’s right.
LikeLike
Good post. Just as the pharasees build a hedge around the torah, so the modern fundamentalists and uber-conservative evangelicals build a hedge around the gospel. Believing in Jesus just isn’t enough; one must accept numerous other nonessentials as a prerequisite to consideration.
In the end it become more about preserving the existing group than in taking the gospel to the world.
Sad beyond words.
LikeLike
This is more of an interpretation issue than it is an idolatry issue.
LikeLike
Great article. As someone involved with various churches/ministries to Japanese in the US and Japan, I’m glad to say that I’ve never heard of something like this happening before. The terrific church I attended in Osaka never said a single word about the creation/evolution debate.
I haven’t actually been to any churches where they made bible-or-evolution as clear-cut as this, but there’s always been a subtle atmosphere of ‘if you aren’t a young earth creationist, you’re a bad person and must be shunned.’ For my part, though, I’m essentially an agnostic on the creation/evolution debate. It just bothers me when YECers dogmatically assert that they’re right and all the other interpretations of Genesis are ‘evil.’
LikeLike
This is what happens when we make an idol of the Bible and treat it as if it were God. I guess the temptation to do that is so strong because it makes life so easy.
LikeLike