Incompatible Trajectories (Creation vs. Evolution)
“Most old-earth creationists begin with the authority of science. Then they proceed to evaluate the interpretive conclusions of the Bible made by believers.” - P&D
- 337 views
My advice is to read these guys’ work and see what you find their thought process to be.
Representatives include: Alvin Plantinga, Stephen C. Meyer, Michael Behe, William Lane Craig.
I’ve read books by all of these, though Meyer is in progress right now. They are best at explaining for themselves what they see as authoritative, how they believe science and the Bible relate, etc…. and what their personal trajectories are as thinkers.
Alister McGrath is another. I think I’ve only read a chapter/section by him in one of those multiple-views books. So I want to take in a whole book from his pen sometime after I finish Meyer’s Return of the God Hypothesis.
So far, RotGH is a delight.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
I've profited from Meyer as well. Nearly 10 years ago, he spoke at the Ligonier Conference and gave a talk entitled "Rock of Ages and the Ages of Rocks" that was outstanding.
Mark Mincy
Preface, I am a YEC. With that said, I don't think the author used the best example here,
"The trajectory of evolution is upward: from primitive to civilized. And this upward trek took 100,000 years.
The Bible presents a view of civilization that is quite different."
First, civilization could have been 100,000 years, we can't be dogmatic on dates, because the bible is not dogmatic on these dates.
Second, the Bible does present a civilization that takes an upward trek. Cain was not building the pyramids or calculating the circumference of the earth. When it says he built a city, the Hebrew word is broad and the interpretation of a city is broad.
I do agree that the Bible does not show a primitive people as evolutionist would outline. But it does show an upward trek of civilization. I would have probably approached the argument differently.
I do agree that the Bible does not show a primitive people as evolutionist would outline. But it does show an upward trek of civilization. I would have probably approached the argument differently.
I understand the tensions involved, I think. Looking at human history through a biblical lens, we see humans and civilization becoming arrogant and embracing a God-excluding autonomy. So.. the Flood, then Babel.
There is a tension involved, if we’re going to really have a biblical mindset, and one side of the tension is to take a dim view of human civilization and human progress.
On the other hand, human progress is exactly what God commissioned man to do in Gen 1:27-28 (“multiply…fill the earth…subdue it”), and elaborated on through Gen 2, begining with “tendig” and “keeping” the garden.
So how can civilization and human progress be bad, if it’s what God made us in His image and put us here to do?
That’s the other side of the tension.
The fulcrum, so to speak, is the Fall, and ultimately the Gospel. These realities help us find a good balance.
But it’s human nature to oversimplify, so we tend to overemphasize one side or the other rather than recognizing the balance/tension.
- Man was made in God’s image to be brilliant, powerful, creative, and fill the world with human civilization and human progress.
- We we were supposed to do it with God at the center as authority, purpose, and context for every bit of it.
- We went another route, the wrong one.
- Humans are still creatures made in God’s image, still capable of great accomplishments, and have still brought about the rise (and fall) of many great—though always deeply flawed—civilizations.
- Progress is real, but always tainted by sin and always, on the whole, in the context of rebellious, God-excluding autonomy.
We don’t have to deny human greatness and progress to affirm human depravity. One of the reasons our depravity is so tragic is the fact of our continuing greatness. We really do progress. Because of sin, we eventually self-destruct, and also because of sin we use our progress either ignoring the God who makes it possible or actively rejecting Him.
It’s still progress of a sort.
The trajectories are complex. Edit: Well, not really all that complex, but they are intertwined and in tension.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
There are options to YEC that are not evolutionary.
One: Old universe coupled with young earth
It can sometimes look like an author/scientist is prioritizing science and the scientific community over the Bible when what’s really going on is you’re looking at a person who started out as a scientist and only became a Christian later on.
One result of that particular journey is that science is already your context when you come to faith. If it’s your field/life’s work and then later you become a Christian, you are not going to come at with a “this needs justifying and defending” mindset. You already knew it was serious and valuable work, so your journey is more like “How does it look now through the lens of my faith?”
In Meyer’s case, science played a major role in his coming to faith…. though I’m still reading and don’t have his whole story yet. But he was interested a lot in big bang cosmology, and it became increasingly clear that science could not account for space-time having a beginning. A lot of Return of the God Hypothesis is about that, so far.
For those of us who grew up in the Christian faith, it’s easy to come at science from an antagonistic/highly skeptical place intellectually, by default. But to me, this is part of what makes guys like Meyer, who had such a different personal trajectory, so interesting.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Discussion