"Our supposedly eminent Bible scholars are now going on record to say that we must subordinate the authority of Scripture to the higher and more objective standard of secular science."

[RPittman] I am familiar with Gap Theory, Progressive Creationism, Day-Age Theory, Theistic Evolution, etc. along with a thousand-and-one permutations. My statement was in reference to these. With the possible exception of the Gap Theory, I have considered extra-Biblical data to be the motivating factors behind each. IMHO, the supposed Biblical argument was developed after the hypothesis was formed.

Now, are you referring to the aforementioned or something different? Or, can you substantiate an antiquity for the underlying age of the earth? I would be interested to know. Although I may disagree with you, I am not trying to trap you into a corner. Please give me sources for reference. I may have missed something here. I try to be so broad that I sometimes miss what seems esoteric knowledge to me. It’s hard to be Renaissance man in the twenty-first century. ;-) Thanks for your consideration.

Thanks and I appreciate the clarification. I personally do not have a problem with extra-Biblical data being a motivating factor with respect to biblical propositions if the propositions themselves are based in an orthodox hermeneutic. But if the motivating factor is also the constructive or narrative factor, that is that it alters orthodox textual approaches, then I certainly agree with you that a wrong turn has been made. And at times with some teachers this is the case but with others it is not.

I don’t feel you are trying to trap me in a corner since I have been clear I am not conclusive myself and am confident you accept this and that I am advocating the validity of others views and not necessarily those views themselves.

When you ask about substantiating an antiquity for the underlying age of the earth, I am not sure if you are asking me can I substantiate it with biblical arguments or scientific arguments? My guess is you mean biblical since the scientific arguments abound or am I missing the question altogether?

RPittman… we’re still missing eachother, I think. Let me put it this way, then: should we return to a belief in geocentrism? If not, why not?

[RP] But, Aaron, remember that you and I play by different rules. You’re asking for a scientific proof but with me it is an art.

Interesting. When did I ask for scientific proof?

[RPittman]

[Aaron Blumer]
1. What exactly is that road and how does it differ from the idea that observations from science can legitimately expose our errors of interpretation?

Aaron, isn’t it obvious that the idea doesn’t work. It’s very simple. If scientific observations are consistently used to correct theological interpretations, then you must deny every miracle in Scripture because they are scientifically impossible.

I’m curious how the lack of observation of something proves that thing to be impossible. That goes contrary to any true science I’m aware of.

RPittman, I can see I’m not going to get you to acknowledge the differences I believe are important. I’m just going to summarize them one more time here for whatever that might be worth.

On Modernism as a system
Modernism: what we observe is real in the fullest sense and is the only thing we can know to be real (I’m simplifying. This is empiricism, but Modernism generally also highly values rationalism which says we can identify reality as well by reasoning from what empirical study reveals)

My view: what we observe is real but not in the ultimate sense and what we observe is not even remotely close to all there is. (Because we are finite and fallen creatures we can’t even do the observing without messing up in all sorts of ways. As for rationalism, what we reason accurately to is also real but subject to the same limitations as what we observe. As finite and fallen creatures, we conduct reasoning even less effectively than we conduct observation!)

On the relationship of Scripture and theology to science

Modernism: since observation and reasoning are the only ways we know anything, science determines what religion in general, theology in particular, and the Bible finally, are able to tell us. So science reveals where Scripture is in error and where theology has exceeded its usefulness.

My view: since we are finite sinners, we make errors in understanding and interpreting what God has inerrantly revealed to us in Scripture. These errors may come to our attention in a variety of ways, including science. But Scripture and sound theology define the limits of science, not vice versa.

(Where Waltke and Enns et. al. fit into these distinctions I don’t know…. I’m not really sure any of us here do. In regard to them, that’s my only point.)

As the old saying goes, things that are different are not the same.

No, I do not equate Modernism with science. They are not the same thing. (See post 29)

As to addressing “specific points,” which ones have I not answered? I thought I was pretty specific in posts 15, 22 and 29.
I could try to hit some high points again.

1. I’m not saying Waltke and Enns are right.
2. I am not a Modernist in any meaningful sense
3. Drawing conclusions about immanent reality by observation and reasoning is not “Modernist methodology”
4. It isn’t right to use claims of science to deny anything the Bible teaches
5. The theologians of Galileo’s day were not ignorant hicks that brilliant secular scientists straightened out. That’s a myth (they were flawed students of the Bible that were helped to see one of their errors by another student of the Bible (Galileo himself) who saw the error because of his studies in astronomy)
6. Once you make science the authority over Scripture, you are on a road that can only lead to disaster.
7. Using observations from science to expose errors in interpretation where we’ve made them is not Modernism, nor does exposing errors of interpretation ever lead to denying what the Bible actually says (that would be committing rather than exposing errors)

What have I left out?

I can reach a reasoned conclusion

… are you sure you believe in doing that?

[Aaron Blumer] On the relationship of Scripture and theology to science
…My view: since we are finite sinners, we make errors in understanding and interpreting what God has inerrantly revealed to us in Scripture. These errors may come to our attention in a variety of ways, including science. But Scripture and sound theology define the limits of science, not vice versa.

I don’t want to interrupt the flow of the fascinating discussion between you and RPittman, but I wish to observe that the converse of your statement is also true: Since we are finite sinners, we make errors in understanding and interpreting scientific data. These errors may come to our attention in a variety of ways, including Scripture. But there is no mechanism in the scientific method for scientists to receive correction from Scripture.

Do not the two, then, to some extent, cancel each other out for we believers? If my analysis of Scripture says 6 literal days, and my analysis of, say, the fossil record says billions of years, I am still stuck with the fact that I am a finite sinner. It seems safer to assume that I have misconstrued a complex set of data like the fossil record than a few simple passages of Scripture.

Yet another danger of letting science guide my hermeneutic.

[Mike] the converse of your statement is also true: Since we are finite sinners, we make errors in understanding and interpreting scientific data.

Absolutely.
This was my point here…

[Aaron] (Because we are finite and fallen creatures we can’t even do the observing without messing up in all sorts of ways. As for rationalism, what we reason accurately to is also real but subject to the same limitations as what we observe. As finite and fallen creatures, we conduct reasoning even less effectively than we conduct observation!)

[RP] My bottom line is that science or the scientific method is not a valid means of solving theological difficulties because it has no verifiable, replicable, and observable (preferably measurable) data.

My bottom line is that it can have a role in solving them. As I’ve explained repeatedly, we err in interpretation and those errors can be discovered in lots of ways. There is no reason to exclude the work of observation and reasoning from the list of ways.

On science as a body of ideas: in popular media, we use the word “science” this way all the time. “Scientists know that…” or “Science tells us…” what follows are always supposed conclusions. But the activity of science is just drawing conclusions from observations. We do it all the time. We have no choice. Science as a formal discipline only takes the same method (observe, conclude, observe, reject/adjust conclusions, etc.) and makes it more disciplined. Science existed before modernism. They are “related” yes. And I used them in a related way. But please note the nature of the relationship, which I spelled out in the same post.

To elaborate on that relationship, science—even as a formal discipline—predates modernism. Modernism came along and reframed science, giving it an entirely new context. Before, it was about discovering what is discoverable in immanent reality, the created world as we know it. After modernism it was (for those who embrace modernism) the only true way to know anything, and what it knows, it knows fully. There is no reality beyond the reality of observation and reasoning.
In short, Modernism takes the toolbox of science and makes the tools the master.

It’s not the toolbox’s fault, nor is there anything inherently suspicious or dangerous about the toolbox. Nor should it be blamed for what some have used it to construct (such as the evolution of species). The tools are one thing. The furniture is another thing. It’s just unfortunate that in the English speaking world, we use the same word for both.

[RP] Well, you’re entitled to your opinion but it seems to lack support. How do you verify theological issues? replicate? observe (e.g. the working of the Holy Spirit or the creativity acts of God)? You’ve stated your contradictory opinion without addressing my reasons.

This statement, among others, shows that you’re still not understanding what I’m saying. When we understand what science is and do science within biblical/theological constraints, it does not change how we do theology. There is no verifying of theological issues. They require no verification. This is not what I’m advocating. At best, science can produce a healthy tension that can send us back to Scripture with the question, “Have I really understood this correctly?” But if this isn’t done in the proper context (i.e. if theology is not king over science… or maybe queen, in the more traditional expression of the idea), it does tend to lead to an inversion (this is because Modernism wants science to be king and pressure to do that is immense in our day).

[RP]

[Aaron] As I’ve explained repeatedly, we err in interpretation and those errors can be discovered in lots of ways. There is no reason to exclude the work of observation and reasoning from the list of ways.

This is an oversimplification. It is not simple observation that we’re discussing but it is the validity of the scientific method as a means of arbitrating between theological differences.

I don’t think it’s likely that I’m oversimplifying my own point! Maybe this is why we’re missing eachother. I have not been discussing science “arbitrating between theological differences” except to say that it should not be permitted to do that.
But I’ve argued above, quite a few posts ago now, that “simple observation” is the same thing as “scientific method” only less disciplined. It is still arriving at conclusions about immanent reality based on observation and reasoning.
But I have not advocated anywhere here that this process may be permitted to act as judge over theology.

Rather, there is an important third option between “science should have nothing to do with interpretation” and “science should judge when the Bible is true or what our theology should be.” These are not the only two options. My concern is that we react to folks like Waltke & Enns, we tend to reject “science should judge” (quite properly) and then immediately embrace “science should contribute nothing.” But that posture has all sorts of problems.

[RPittman]
Let’s try a test case. What about the parting of the Red Sea. Modernist/Liberals have speculated on this for decades. Some say it was a shallow narrows that the Children of Israel waded across. Others say it is allegorical. No one has ever recorded the observation of such a natural phenomenon. So, do we accommodate our interpretation of Scripture to accord with our conclusions based on observation and application of scientific methodology?

Not to get between you and Aaron, but this goes exactly to what I stated in my last post. Lack of observation of a similar event to the parting of the Red Sea does NOT mean or even imply that such an event is impossible (or possible, for that matter). Any conclusions drawn as you draw them above are not based on observation, but the lack of it, which is invalid even for the scientists in question. They might say something like “if I don’t see it (or evidence that convinces me it could happen), I won’t believe it,” but that is very different from being able to use “science” to declare such an event impossible.

Dave… so you’re saying that the scientific method itself has more built in limitations than many scientists acknowledge? (Because it cannot reject what it has merely failed to observe?) I’m not sure how well that works because what they’ll say is that when you observe a pattern of cause and effect and you’ve tested the pattern a whole bunch of ways, then you have have a strong theory or maybe eventually a “law,” and propositions that do not conform to it and cannot be observed are declared to be contrary to science or just false.
I think, insofar as we’re dealing with immanent reality and also not denying Scripture, they’re right about that. It’s why, for example, I don’t believe drinking aloe juice prevents allergic reactions. It has “not been observed” to work (in double blind placebo controlled testing) and what it’s made of doesn’t suggest it would work either. So sometimes failing to observe a result is positive evidence that a cause “does not work.” See what I mean?
Ultimately it has to be Scripture and theology that says “science may not claim A” because one or the other makes the rules and in a Christian worldview it cannot be science that does that.

To use the Red Sea example, science at best could move us to take a closer look at what the text says and what grammatical historical interpretation would indicate it means. In this case, for a boatload of reasons, it just isn’t possible to dismiss it as allegory, nor do the details of the text allow for things like a shallow ford or wading across etc. If they did not cross a fairly deep body of water parted for them, they did not leave Egypt either. The two are described in the same matter of fact way in the text.

To use the Red Sea example, science at best could move us to take a closer look at what the text says and what grammatical historical interpretation would indicate it means. In this case, for a boatload of reasons, it just isn’t possible to dismiss it as allegory, nor do the details of the text allow for things like a shallow ford or wading across etc. If they did not cross a fairly deep body of water parted for them, they did not leave Egypt either. The two are described in the same matter of fact way in the text.

And then you’d be left with the miracle of an entire army drowning in mud puddle.

[Aaron Blumer] Dave… so you’re saying that the scientific method itself has more built in limitations than many scientists acknowledge? (Because it cannot reject what it has merely failed to observe?) I’m not sure how well that works because what they’ll say is that when you observe a pattern of cause and effect and you’ve tested the pattern a whole bunch of ways, then you have have a strong theory or maybe eventually a “law,” and propositions that do not conform to it and cannot be observed are declared to be contrary to science or just false.

Yes, that’s what I’m saying. Lack of experimental evidence may lead to a strong theory, but does not constitute proof. It was drilled into me in science classes, by both believing and unbelieving teachers. It was always expressed as “Science cannot prove things like ‘There are no …’” and similar formulations. Yes, the fact that other than what happened to Moses and the Israelites, humans haven’t observed water dividing and leaving a dry strip of land in the fashion described, would definitely lead us to believe that it doesn’t normally (naturally?) happen. However, that lack of observation does not prove it could not happen.

For example, you have probably read about the particle collider in Switzerland. Physicists hope to explain more of the forces behind the atom and physics at the quantum level. They even expect to find something like the so-called “God-particle,” otherwise known as the Higgs boson. But others have speculated that they might find something else. There are lots of theories, but without *observation* they are simply speculating as to what might be there. That is a drastic oversimplification, but is more or less equivalent to the press releases from CERN. Lack of observation of this Higgs boson does not mean it exists or doesn’t exist. That’s why billions was spent to enable observation.

I think that what we forget is that for God, miracles are not really miraculous. For an all-powerful God, nothing is really “supernatural,” just natural. The miracles observed during Bible times are outside of what *we* call natural, because they don’t operate according to laws we currently understand (and since we are finite, maybe are not capable of understanding in our current state). The miracle where the earth stopped rotation (“the sun stood still”), or even better, the one where the sun went backwards an hour, is far outside anything we have observed about motions of bodies in space. But we simply have no ground for saying that such an event couldn’t happen, simply because we haven’t observed it. It may be “unlikely” from a scientific point of view, but even scientists would admit, even if reluctantly, that it does not constitute “proof.”

I think, insofar as we’re dealing with immanent reality and also not denying Scripture, they’re right about that. It’s why, for example, I don’t believe drinking aloe juice prevents allergic reactions. It has “not been observed” to work (in double blind placebo controlled testing) and what it’s made of doesn’t suggest it would work either. So sometimes failing to observe a result is positive evidence that a cause “does not work.” See what I mean?

Yes, I do see, but what has been proven is that only for the individuals on which it has been tested has the juice failed to prevent allergies. It could work on some on which it hasn’t been tested, for reasons like differences in DNA, etc. You haven’t proven that it doesn’t work, you’ve just shown it to be unlikely to work in most cases. Now, I freely admit that this is “good enough” evidence for how we operate in “immanent reality,” as we do not have time or resources to go beyond sample testing in most cases. But it still doesn’t add up to “proof.”

Ultimately it has to be Scripture and theology that says “science may not claim A” because one or the other makes the rules and in a Christian worldview it cannot be science that does that.

I agree that scripture can say that “science may not claim A” and be correct since revelation makes the rules in our worldview. However, too many things even in our natural world have been shown to work after having been declared impossible for me to take *any* stand based on *lack of evidence*, let alone one that goes against scripture.

However, too many things even in our natural world have been shown to work after having been declared impossible for me to take *any* stand based on *lack of evidence*, let alone one that goes against scripture.

Don’t think I disagree with that.
And I would really enjoy it if they detect this Higgs boson only to discover that they now have a mountain of new questions without answers. A very likely outcome.

I wouldn’t call it apathy exactly. Poythress’ ideas have been out for some time and are not original to him either. The trends in the evangelical seminaries tend to elicit less passion than errors within fundamentalism which has always been officially about getting the Bible right and exposing error. So fundamentalism has set a higher standard for itself.
But there is also an important difference in Poythress’ thought process and I suspect that this accounts in part for Westminster’s relative comfort with his view of Genesis 1. The difference is that Poythress is committed (so far) to not allowing Science to set limits on what Scripture/theology may assert but rather keeping theology the “queen of the sciences,” so to speak. So he seeks an interpretation of Genesis 1 that is true to sound hermeneutics and also consistent with what seems to be overwhelming evidence that some evolution has occurred. He happens to be partly wrong on both counts (the sound hermeneutics and the seemingly overwhelming evidence), but he is not making the kinds of statements (yet) that Waltke and Enns have been making, which at least seem to express a very different kind of relationship between the Bible/theology and science.

(I have only read portions of his book but would love to give it nice slow read one of these days soon.)

Doug Wilson has some very interesting thoughts about trajectories recently… illustrating how difficult it is to accurately identify where somebody is headed and what sort of relationship with them is possible.
http://www.dougwils.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=76…

I do not claim to know where Poythress is, exactly, much less where is headed.

I just want to point out that the Reformed church has not been fully anti-evolutionist, so I don’t see how Poythress or Waltke are doing anything out of the ordinary. Warfield, A.A. Hodge and James Orr - all people who greatly assisted in creating our contemporary concepts of inspiration and infallibility - all worked some kind of evolution into their biblical theology. Many if not most Reformed theologians are old-earth at least. I don’t see this supposed connection between evolutionary concepts and a rejection of Scripture.