Culture warriors typically think that the contending parties in our current struggle pit morality and truth against relativism and skepticism. If only we had more skeptics. As I read the culture wars, both sides are equally committed to moral absolutes. Either gay marriage is wicked or the opposition to gay marriage is immoral. Uncertainty is as much in short supply on Fox as it is on CNN.
A recent story about Emory University’s commencement speaker confirmed this impression at least to (all about) me. Ben Carson, an accomplished neurosurgeon at Johns Hopkins University, a Protestant of some evangelical variety, and an African-American humanitarian still cannot clear all of Emory students’ and faculty’s objections because he is not completely on board with evolution. According to this story:
About 500 Emory employees and students signed a letter, published in the campus paper, drawing attention to the fact that Carson doesn’t believe in evolution. The letter acknowledges the surgeon’s accomplishments and doesn’t ask that Carson be disinvited, but it suggests some of his views fail to align with Emory’s values. Other letter writers have defended the invitation, which was made after a group of seniors presented a shortlist of potential speakers to administrators. The surgeon is the cofounder of the Carson Fund, which has presented more than $4 million in scholarships to students with outstanding academic and humanitarian achievements.
Carson will still speak in Atlanta, though campus spokesman Ron Sauder said Emory wasn’t aware of Carson’s views on evolution until after extending the invitation. The invitation isn’t necessarily an endorsement of Carson’s opinions. “Our position is to follow the research and the scientific method where it leads,” Sauder said. “Our leading life scientists would define our views on evolution, and the number of signatories on that petition would probably speak to that.”
Even if Emory will not cancel the engagement, the response by part of a university community hardly identifiable with religious traditionalism is just the sort of reaction one might expect from a school like Liberty University if the administration were unwittingly to invite Francis Collins. Neither side today is willing to encounter an alien idea, both want to shelter its young from hostile beliefs, and each side does so under the banner of the pursuit of truth and intellectual freedom.
The last I checked, the American empire was full of citizens who are certain about their views, the ridiculousness if not perverseness of their opponents, and committed to keeping the other side out of power. If only the American public (as opposed to the mainline churches) had paid heed to Harry Emerson Fosdick.
Old Life 
Creationist proponents offer a highly relativistic view of evidence so that their theories may gain acceptance into curriculums, as displayed by Stanley Fish’s recent article on the topic:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/26/citing-chapter-and-verse-which-scripture-is-the-right-one/
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/09/evidence-in-science-and-religion-part-two/
Your article is a species of this argumentation. The banner displayed here is actually for evidentiary standards in science. Do you understand why this would be a concern, Mr. Hart?
LikeLike
Now, I don’t see why someone with silly views couldn’t give a speech, unless they intended to expound upon them. But, the concern is certainly, very certainly valid.
LikeLike
Joy: Your article is a species of this argumentation. The banner displayed here is actually for evidentiary standards in science. Do you understand why this would be a concern, Mr. Hart?
RS: Fine, but do we have scientific evidence demonstrating that the standards of evidentiary science are the only way to know about the origin of human nature? That sure sounds like something that is assumed rather than something that can be demonstrated by evidentiary science.
LikeLike
Richard: I’ve seen the way you argue with people on this blog, and I don’t wish to bother with you for too long.
Your response (and probably Hart’s) will eventually bring up this point: science is not merely about intellectual freedom and truth-seeking. Aside from that being a simpleton’s intemperate, unbalanced view of justice, it is a meritocratic community based on ethical standards of operation.
Disagreement is not the same as “sheltering of young from hostile beliefs”. Nor is holding people to ethical standards in their scientific behavior. They didn’t “do” anything to Carson. They exercised their rights as free citizens and as ethical scientists. I know the flouting of ethical standards and evidence by an authority is not a big deal to some. But the position of “Let them have uncriticized speech on our private institution to advocate idiotic proposals” depends on people like those scientists to excercise their free speech to criticize such people.
LikeLike
Joy: Richard: I’ve seen the way you argue with people on this blog, and I don’t wish to bother with you for too long.
RS: Ah, yes, swat at that bothersome fly, perhaps even a gadfly. Hemlock anyone?
Joy: Your response (and probably Hart’s) will eventually bring up this point: science is not merely about intellectual freedom and truth-seeking. Aside from that being a simpleton’s intemperate, unbalanced view of justice, it is a meritocratic community based on ethical standards of operation.
RS: Thinking? With an evolutionary viewpoint? That is not consistent with evolution. Merit? Can an evolutionary type of thinking consistently have merit? Ethics? Can an evolutionary type of thinking consistently have ethics? Standards? If you want to believe in evolution, then you are certainly free in the United States to do so. However, your meritocratc community is something like 100 little men that have always lived in a cave sitting around smirking that they are the only ones in the universe that can know anything. They cannot see outside the walls of their own prison.
Joy: Disagreement is not the same as “sheltering of young from hostile beliefs”. Nor is holding people to ethical standards in their scientific behavior. They didn’t “do” anything to Carson. They exercised their rights as free citizens and as ethical scientists.
RS: Where did that standard of ethics come from again? Have you tested that according to your empirical standards?
Joy: I know the flouting of ethical standards and evidence by an authority is not a big deal to some. But the position of “Let them have uncriticized speech on our private institution to advocate idiotic proposals” depends on people like those scientists to excercise their free speech to criticize such people.
RS: And you know that these are “idiotic proposals” by what empirical study? You are in an empirical cave trying to use non-empirical evidence to show that you must have empirical evidence to determine truth. Sorry, but I am getting dizzy from your circular reasoning as you long down your nose at some poor mortal like me.
LikeLike
Joy knows full well what she is doing when she employs derogatory and insulting language.
She is (1) trying to elicit emotional, unthinking responses, and especially thereby (2) unloving, unchristian responses. The end game for this behaviour is to garner yet again sufficient excuse in her mind for writing off Christians and their faith as witless and beneath contempt. Despite her very real and deep pain, she should realize that there are good Christians who love her and faithfully pray for her, though I realize that for now that only enrages her all the more.
LikeLike
I am a Christian:a member of Hart’s denomination, the OPC. And I stand by my rhetoric, the views espoused by Carson are ridiculous beliefs according to the standards of institutionally recognized science.
LikeLike
Joy: I am a Christian:a member of Hart’s denomination, the OPC.
RS: Being a member of a church does not in and of itself make one a Christian. Do you defend the teachings of Christ with as much enthusiasm and conviction as you defend evolution?
Joy: And I stand by my rhetoric, the views espoused by Carson are ridiculous beliefs according to the standards of institutionally recognized science.
RS: The implication being that the standards of institutionally recognized science are always right.
The confession of the OPC, of which you say you are a member, says this:
WCF: Ch IV
I. It pleased God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,[1] for the manifestation of the glory of His eternal power, wisdom, and goodness,[2] in the beginning, to create, or make of nothing, the world, and all things therein whether visible or invisible, in the space of six days; and all very good.[3]
II. After God had made all other creatures, He created man, male and female,[4] with reasonable and immortal souls,[5] endued with knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness, after His own image;[6] having the law of God written in their hearts,[7] and power to fulfil it;[8] and yet under a possibility of transgressing, being left to the liberty of their own will, which was subject unto change.[9] Beside this law written in their hearts, they received a command, not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil;[10] which while they kept, they were happy in their communion with God, and had dominion over the creatures.[11]
The standards of institutionally recognized science would deny the statement of the confession above, while the confession would deny the standards of institutionally recognized science.
It would appear that you cannot believe both the confession and the standards of institutionally recognized science, at least on this matter, since the two contradict each other and both cannot be right. If Dr. Carson holds the confession (I don’t know if he does or does not) of the church you say you belong to and therefore denies the standards of institutionally recognized science, are you still saying that he espouses ridiculous beliefs?
LikeLike
RS: Yeah, see, this is where you waste my time and lose 90% of the people reading this. How dare you lazily copy-paste the standards without taking the 20 more seconds to see what OPC rulings on this topic have said. You also can’t seem to get a grip of either my civil argument or my argument from standards within the discipline. I’m done. Peace out, dude.
LikeLike
Joy, I don’t know what banner you are referring to. I also don’t know how the post denies “evidentiary standards in science.” The point was about ideological or intellectual purity, something that characterizes both sides, even though one side does not admit its fundamentalism.
If you’re saying that a commencement speaker, who has impressive credentials and performs mainstream science, has to line up on everything, I’m not sure why. No speaker could satisfy every discipline or wing within a discipline. I may not agree with Gordon Wood on all aspects or implications of the American founding, but I (so open that I am and a model of intellectual freedom, get it?) would love to hear him as a commencement speaker.
LikeLike
Joy, students and professors are not free citizens. This is a lousy part of your point. A university and an academic discipline — even if a state university, which Emory is not — have standards by which its members must abide. I am not sure that these rules apply to commencement speakers. Last I checked, Robin Williams is not a scientist but he does give commencement speeches. His politics are right.
Nor does it appear that the rules of science inform all scientific pursuits. Carson may not believe in evolution but it doesn’t prevent him from performing highly complicated surgeries or knowing the science necessary for such procedures. I’m not sure why biological orthodoxy would apply to everyone in every department in the university.
LikeLike
Joy Holowicki: Yeah, see, this is where you waste my time and lose 90% of the people reading this. How dare you lazily copy-paste the standards without taking the 20 more seconds to see what OPC rulings on this topic have said. You also can’t seem to get a grip of either my civil argument or my argument from standards within the discipline. I’m done. Peace out, dude.
RS: Again, standards within the discipline. Could it be that they are standards that are those that we are warned about in Colossians 2:8? “See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.” Are the standards of this discipline according to the elementary priniciples of the world or according to Christ? The first link below is of an OPC elder who was tried, censured, and then recanted of certain aspects of his views on evolution. The lazy copy-paste below is from the OPC website, or at least I think they are from the OPC website. To the best of my knowledge there are no standards to follow within the discipline of google.
http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2010/03/being-evolutionary-creationist-in.html
Question and Answer
Does the OPC reject evolution?
Question:
Does the OPC reject the unbiblical teaching of evolution? Do you prohibit people from being ministers who believe man evolved from animals?
Answer:
My answer can be equally clear and succinct—it is “Yes.” And in this instance I can say this with emphasis because of a rather recent judicial case in the OPC. A ruling elder who taught university level courses wanted to be free to say that Adam may have had animal ancestors. Oddly enough, in my opinion, he also seemed quite willing to say that Eve was made by a direct supernatural act of God from a rib of Adam. The session of his church determined that he could not serve as an elder unless he held that Adam was directly created by God. It was when God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life that he became a living being. Since animals were already such as had the breath of life in them it follows that no animal was Adam’s ancestor.
The elder appealed this to his presbytery and later to the General Assembly. I was present at that General Assembly and was not only impressed by its decision to uphold the session’s original decision, but also by the way in which the case was deliberated. Throughout the debate it was to the text of the Bible that appeal was made, and it was quite clear through the whole process that this elder was given ample opportunity to present his case to the assembly. It was also quite clear that the final decision was such that it became crystal clear that the answer to your two-part question is, indeed, a resounding “Yes!”
LikeLike
Seems to me that what is sorely needed in this heated discussion—Joy v. RS, etc. is a clear definition of “religion”. First Amendment uses the word and its intoductory document, The Dec. of Ind., assumes one. I heard this defn. and think it sound— “One’s RELIGION is his/her set of answers to 3 questions: (1) Just how did all this beautiful Universe come to BE? (2) What went wrong with it? (3) How can it be fixed?” I find it very useful! I, like Joy, claim to be a member of the OPC. (Since the 1950s, for me). Do I have to review how Atheists like Hitler, Marxists, many leaders in USA academia and all the rest of us answer these 3 questions? I say that EVERY human being has a religion! And that his/her religion is founded on a very few basic PRESUPPOSITIONS. True of Joy just as surely as for Bob, here, or anyone else. Where one religion is allowed, so should ALL others! I am a retired mathprof, University System of Georgia. My religion was NOT welcomed in my classrooms!!! We can use evidence to help us assume our religion, but in the end, underneath all, is basic BELIEF, a FAITH. What else can I or anyone else say? I am saddened by the harsh language in the comments above mine. In love that is so sorely needed in this world, RKM
LikeLike
Bob Morris: Seems to me that what is sorely needed in this heated discussion—Joy v. RS, etc. is a clear definition of “religion”. First Amendment uses the word and its intoductory document, The Dec. of Ind., assumes one. I heard this defn. and think it sound— “One’s RELIGION is his/her set of answers to 3 questions: (1) Just how did all this beautiful Universe come to BE? (2) What went wrong with it? (3) How can it be fixed?” I find it very useful! I, like Joy, claim to be a member of the OPC. (Since the 1950s, for me). Do I have to review how Atheists like Hitler, Marxists, many leaders in USA academia and all the rest of us answer these 3 questions? I say that EVERY human being has a religion! And that his/her religion is founded on a very few basic PRESUPPOSITIONS. True of Joy just as surely as for Bob, here, or anyone else. Where one religion is allowed, so should ALL others! I am a retired mathprof, University System of Georgia. My religion was NOT welcomed in my classrooms!!! We can use evidence to help us assume our religion, but in the end, underneath all, is basic BELIEF, a FAITH. What else can I or anyone else say? I am saddened by the harsh language in the comments above mine. In love that is so sorely needed in this world, RKM
RS: Well, I can only say that on my part things were not and are not heated. Perhaps a bit amused a few times, but not heated. I am curious as to what you perceive as harsh in the comments above yours. While it may not be the time or place, your statement at the end aroused my curosity quite a bit, perhaps even a lot. “We can use evidence to help us assume our religion, but in the end, underneath all, is basic BELIEF, a FAITH. What else can I or anyone else say?” Would you mind explaining what you think a “basic BELIEF, a FAITH” , might entail or be? Thanks
LikeLike
DGH,
He lied (or was ignorantly mistaken) concerning evidences for evolution in his writing and poses as an authority in science. If you want to pose an authority in science (which Carson certainly can), you will be held accountable for what you say to the public on science, especially concerning this topic. That certainly is ethical. Can you acknowledge that? (Certainly seems like you have in your writing about holding celebrity pastors accountable.)
Now, I’m not really sure why that would lead to a ban on a speech either. I have the notion that not wanting someone to air their fringe or mistaken views on your graduation day might be a concern. Just a guess. But this is all besides the point, because these people are not university administration. They are not dictatorially enacting a decree from on high or have a stipulation in their constitution that someone must believe X about evolution to speak -which is what actual fundamentalist christian institutions do. These are students who, with their families, will be celebrating a big day in their lives. It is in a patently American spirit to petition and protest to an authority, something that is their freedom on their relatively free and open campus, where the spirit of liberality -and ethical consciousness -are alive.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I have a protein gel to run.
LikeLike
RS,
You are confusing the issue of evolution and the historicity of Adam with respect to the OPC proceedings (the Terry Gray trial). The OPC’s concerns were directed to upholding the biblical teachings on Adam, not whether or not Dr. Gray believed evolution was a viable explanation of the origins of biological life – in his letter clarifying his views he simply upholds the biblical account in Gen. 2, and asserts that evolution is true – and that evolution is true without attempting to address how the two reconcile (since there is nothing in the historical record outside Scripture to corroborate Adam’s existence). Terry Gray seems to me to have struck a reasonable balance of a scientist who holds to the accepted academic position, yet upholds Scriptures teaching without feeling the need to explain away the mysteries and difficulties that such a position entails – living in tension is a difficult proposition that fundies on all sides eschew. With this respect Gray’s stated views after the proceedings do not seem altogether different than BB Warfield’s.
LikeLike
Joy,
After reading your comments, I don’t think you are adequately addressing the argument that the (fundamentalist, according to DGH) scientific community is as guilty of stifling dissent as some in the religious community. To question the general theory of evolution in scientific circles (or in this case medical) is to invite the marginilization by at least some within these communities. I am assuming you are part of the scientific community (protein gel and all), wouldn’t you at least agree that dissent within science has lead to some of it’s best discoveries. I am not militant against evolution, nor do I think that there isn’t the possibility that the theory might be significantly modified based on future discoveries, which is why I think that all serious dissent should be dealt with seriously, as it could serve at the very least to modify aspects of evolutionary theory that do not necessarily align with fact or is otherwise unclear. For instance, I am not so sure that evolutionary scientists have adequately answered the objections of ID proponents, such as accounting for the appearance of design or the occurrence of features such as irreducible complexity. I am not a scientist, but try to stay abreast with these debates, and these questions certainly linger for me.
LikeLike
Joy, I prefer grape jelly with my peanut butter, speaking of protein gels.
But what has you so animated about Carson? Is he not an authority in science if he can conduct sophisticated surgery? If he can do that without checking off on all of evolution’s boxes, what is the big deal?
LikeLike
Hi, Richard, Looks like Joy didn’t keep her promise to quit! I wont make a similar promise, but I have to tell you that I have been in this type of discussion for 60 years, and am pretty tired now. I apologize for giving the impression that I thought the discussions above were equally unloving. Joy should be ashamed! About my use of BELIEF and FAITH—- Before I was 20, I was sure, like Joy seems to BELIEVE, that evolution was firmly based on undisputable facts. Happily, I came to see I was wrong! How could my atheism be PROVED? No way! Seemed to me that the facts of my being formed in my mothers womb, 1928,— heart, eyes, ears, brain, circulatory and other finely tuned systems, etc. PROVED to my satisfaction that I and the “impossible” Universe all around me was a product of Design, not blind chance! As I look back over what I am trying to say, seems to me that maybe I should have responded to you privately, not like here, I share a definition of Old Age I once heard: Old age is when you FINALLY have a few good answers and nobody asks you any questions!” Thanks for asking what I meant about the part evidence plays in my BELIEF (FAITH). God Bless, Old Bob
LikeLike
Bob Morris: Hi, Richard, Looks like Joy didn’t keep her promise to quit!
RS: If I might take up for her just a bit, I think her “promise” was not to respond to me rather than to anyone else. Besides, I think she is a personal trainer and has to get some protein gel out for some jogging and that can keep one busy.
Bob Morris: I wont make a similar promise, but I have to tell you that I have been in this type of discussion for 60 years, and am pretty tired now. I apologize for giving the impression that I thought the discussions above were equally unloving. Joy should be ashamed!
RS: Well, she was just a bit worked up on that issue and I would imagine that it did not just start yesterday.
Bob Moris: About my use of BELIEF and FAITH—- Before I was 20, I was sure, like Joy seems to BELIEVE, that evolution was firmly based on undisputable facts. Happily, I came to see I was wrong! How could my atheism be PROVED? No way! Seemed to me that the facts of my being formed in my mothers womb, 1928,— heart, eyes, ears, brain, circulatory and other finely tuned systems, etc. PROVED to my satisfaction that I and the “impossible” Universe all around me was a product of Design, not blind chance! As I look back over what I am trying to say, seems to me that maybe I should have responded to you privately, not like here,
RS: But if you had responded in private, then others would be that much poorer.
Bob Morris: I share a definition of Old Age I once heard: Old age is when you FINALLY have a few good answers and nobody asks you any questions!” Thanks for asking what I meant about the part evidence plays in my BELIEF (FAITH). God Bless, Old Bob
RS: I guess you must be only half old, because there are a few questions I would like to ask.
LikeLike
Jed Paschall: RS, You are confusing the issue of evolution and the historicity of Adam with respect to the OPC proceedings (the Terry Gray trial). The OPC’s concerns were directed to upholding the biblical teachings on Adam, not whether or not Dr. Gray believed evolution was a viable explanation of the origins of biological life – in his letter clarifying his views he simply upholds the biblical account in Gen. 2, and asserts that evolution is true – and that evolution is true without attempting to address how the two reconcile (since there is nothing in the historical record outside Scripture to corroborate Adam’s existence). Terry Gray seems to me to have struck a reasonable balance of a scientist who holds to the accepted academic position, yet upholds Scriptures teaching without feeling the need to explain away the mysteries and difficulties that such a position entails – living in tension is a difficult proposition that fundies on all sides eschew. With this respect Gray’s stated views after the proceedings do not seem altogether different than BB Warfield’s.
RS: A person that believes in the historicity of Adam cannot (logically) believe in evolution according to the standards of institutionally recognized science. If we accept how institutionally recognized science uses the term “evolution” and limit it to how they use it, then there is no room for a God who created Adam or who created at all. I think that I understood his point, but from the OPC site the answer is that men are prohibited from being ministers if they believe men evolved from animals. That is a flat out denial of evolution according to the standards of institutionally recognized science.
LikeLike
RS,
DGH’s post only proves the point, evolutionary science is not monolithic, yet there are fundamentalists on both sides of the debate who assert their either/or arguments that simply do not account for the data. All someone has to do is provide one scientist (e.g. Terry Gray) to disprove your argument. The fact of the matter is, one can hold to a modified form of evolution, which many Old Earth, and Framework advocates do, and still hold to a historical Adam. Last time I checked Richard Smith does not speak for science, even if he would like to. Nor does he speak for the varied interpretations of Gen. 1-11 being propounded by conservative scholars everywhere, so I feel quite comfortable not taking your word for it.
The antagonism between religious and scientific fundamentalists has done serious injury to fruitful dialogue between the two disciplines. It will remain so as long as the battles between “Science” and “Religion” remains a zero-sum game. The fact of the matter is we live in a post-Copernican, post-Darwinian, post-Einsteinan age where religious truth claims must give a proper account of scientific truth claims, and willful ignorance and unwillingness to separate the good from the bad in both disciplines (especially amongst orthodox theologians and exegetes) is a detriment to a robustly orthodox Christian spirituality in the modern age.
LikeLike
Jed Paschall: RS, DGH’s post only proves the point, evolutionary science is not monolithic, yet there are fundamentalists on both sides of the debate who assert their either/or arguments that simply do not account for the data.
RS: Yes, that was his point and I thought he got it across. I am not arguing with that point.
Jed Paschall: All someone has to do is provide one scientist (e.g. Terry Gray) to disprove your argument. The fact of the matter is, one can hold to a modified form of evolution, which many Old Earth, and Framework advocates do, and still hold to a historical Adam. Last time I checked Richard Smith does not speak for science, even if he would like to. Nor does he speak for the varied interpretations of Gen. 1-11 being propounded by conservative scholars everywhere, so I feel quite comfortable not taking your word for it.
RS: In that case, you are missing my point. My point is that when a person using the standards of institutionally recognized science speaks of evolution, that person is not speaking of evolution with the idea of God in mind. Any attempt to modify the concept of evolution to allow room for God means that a person is no longer speaking in accordance with the standards of institutionally recognized science. Indeed many people do hold to a form of modified evolution, but their modification means that it is no longer the evolution that is in accordance with the standards of institutionally recognized science. I am using Joy’s phrase, not in an attempt to mock her, but just because it is such a good phrase.
Jed Paschall: The antagonism between religious and scientific fundamentalists has done serious injury to fruitful dialogue between the two disciplines. It will remain so as long as the battles between “Science” and “Religion” remains a zero-sum game. The fact of the matter is we live in a post-Copernican, post-Darwinian, post-Einsteinan age where religious truth claims must give a proper account of scientific truth claims, and willful ignorance and unwillingness to separate the good from the bad in both disciplines (especially amongst orthodox theologians and exegetes) is a detriment to a robustly orthodox Christian spirituality in the modern age.
RS: While we can certainly agree to that on one level, there are other dangers involved as well. What is biblical truth will always be biblical truth no matter how foolish it may appear to the world or to those within the institutional Church. While I did not speak to any interpretation of Genesis 1-11, though you might have thought I was assuming one, the Scripture must not be twisted to fit any scientific theory or theological theory. Neither should scientific evidence be twisted to fit a theological theory or a scientific theory. Which is where my point comes in again. When we try to fit God into evolutionary theory, it does not fit with the standards of institutionally recognized science and most likely does not fit Scripture either.
Again, the standards of institutionally recognized science do not have room for God in its definition or concept of evolution and when people try to fit God into evolution it is no longer the same evolution being spoken of. If we use the standards of institutionally recognized science to define evolution there is no room for God. I am also saying that we don’t need to try to plug God into that system in order to be acceptable. Human beings are the ones that need to be acceptable to God in Christ, not the other way around.
Jed Paschall: The fact of the matter is we live in a post-Copernican, post-Darwinian, post-Einsteinan age where religious truth claims must give a proper account of scientific truth claims, and willful ignorance and unwillingness to separate the good from the bad in both disciplines (especially amongst orthodox theologians and exegetes) is a detriment to a robustly orthodox Christian spirituality in the modern age.
RS: But why does the Word of God have to be subservient to scientific truth claims? The former sentence was in reference to your “especially amongst orthodox theologians and exegetes” comment. The Word of God is the Word of the living God who created all things. Surely He has a bit of insight into the matter. While it may seem to be rather innocent, we must never put the interpretation of Scripture into the hands of secular people. The Gospel is nonsense to the natural man, as indeed all spiritual matters are.
LikeLike
RS:
First, let me preface this by saying I am not 100% sold on evolution as the best explanation for speciation, however, I am 100% sold on the facts of an Old Earth, they simply seem indisputable to me. With that said, there are plenty of theists who are also evolutionary scientists, ranging from Roman Catholics to evangelicals (e.g. BioLogos), so you are arguing for a thoroughgoing anti-theistic evolutionary cabal that simply does not exist, though there are elements of this within the scientific community, so your analysis is simply unbalanced and contrary to fact.
But why does the Word of God have to be subservient to scientific truth claims?
Simply stated, the Word of God is not now or ever subservient to any truth claim, scientific or otherwise. The Word is revelatory, and as such inerrant. Any scientific discoveries are attained through the grid of human fallibility, and as such are anything but immutable, over and against the immutable canon of Scripture. With that said, the willful and collective refusal of the church in many instances to communicate the truth of Scripture in such a way that the modern mind can at a minimum understand the truth claims of Scripture and their binding authority on all men in all places and all times is indicative of failure on the part of the church, not Scripture. Placing a false dichotomy between science as a body of knowledge, and Scripture as the final arbiter of truth concerning God and man, has been a common ploy of churchmen in the scientific era. Often we elevate our science, which in a contemporary setting has often been expressed in Young Earth Creationism in such a fashion, that the rejection of YEC is tantamount to a rejection of scripture. In light of such false dichotomies, is it any wonder many in the scientific community have rejected Scripture as outdated and antiquarian? In my mind it matters less what one affirms as scientifically accurate, since this target is in constant flux, and matters much more what one believes concerning Scripture, which simply privileges no modern form of science, whether “Christian” or “Secular”. And the church as a whole, inasmuch as it has posed as against science, simply perpetuates a dichotomy that actually hurts its witness because she is speaking authoritatively to areas to which she has not been granted authority. The church’s authority is confined to her commission given to her by Christ, nowhere was the church authorized to speak with authority to the material phenomena of the world, except to say that it’s uttermost source is found in God as Creator of all that is seen and unseen.
Agreed, but you are still pitting “science” and Scripture against one another carte blanche, this is unwise on a few accounts:
a) Scripture is not written as a scientific document, rather broadly speaking, it speaks of the unfolding of salvation history, which God mediates through covenantal means through the course of human history.
b) Piggy-backing on (a), the authors of Scripture would have been wholly unaware of modern scientific discoveries and discourse, and are primarily addressing theological concerns, even on matters of real history (which I believe the Scripture truly affirms), Scripture records these for theological purposes as it reveals God’s purposes in salvation-history.
c) Science’s concerns, properly confined, are non-ideological, simply attempting to account for the observable (or reconstructable) physical phenomena of natural history, meaning that the aims of science and Scripture are wholly different.
d) As Calvinists, we uphold the axiom that all truth is God’s truth, and if God in his wisdom did not offer a comprehensive revelation on how natural and salvation history coincide, then we as believers should not feel any threat where there appears to be tension between the two, because we, unlike God simply do not see the whole picture.
LikeLike
Somehow the formatting is off:
The comment was supposed to start with this –
In that case, you are missing my point. My point is that when a person using the standards of institutionally recognized science speaks of evolution, that person is not speaking of evolution with the idea of God in mind.
Then…
Agreed, but you are still pitting “science” and Scripture against one another carte blanche, this is unwise on a few accounts:…
LikeLike
Since Dr. Gray is probably reading this, I am sure he can correct me, but, as I recall, his case could be summarized as “may an officer in the OPC maintain the position that Adam had primate ancestors?” The answer, of course, was “no.”
LikeLike
MM,
This is what I understood from Dr. Gray’s proceedings as well, it does not seem that the OPC has, at least in his case ruled that evolution cannot be responsible for non-human speciation and the observation of the natural historical record. The question of human evolution is, of course a far stickier question for obvious biblical reasons.
LikeLike
Jed Paschall: RS: First, let me preface this by saying I am not 100% sold on evolution as the best explanation for speciation, however, I am 100% sold on the facts of an Old Earth, they simply seem indisputable to me. With that said, there are plenty of theists who are also evolutionary scientists, ranging from Roman Catholics to evangelicals (e.g. BioLogos), so you are arguing for a thoroughgoing anti-theistic evolutionary cabal that simply does not exist, though there are elements of this within the scientific community, so your analysis is simply unbalanced and contrary to fact.
RS: Again, I am not sure you are quite getting what I am trying to say. For example, if you asked Richard Dawkins if a person could believe in evolution and also in God, he would say that the two do not go together. I am not arguing that there are no people who try to put the two together, I am simply saying that if you take the term “evolution” as the standards of institutionally recognized science would define them, then that does not allow for God to be the one that arranged them. It is that way by definition. God cannot be tested according to the scientific methodology and so has no place in the hypothesis of evolution according to the standards of institutionally recognized science. This does not deny that there are scientists who believe in some form of evolution, but they do not believe in it the same way than a professing atheist would believe in it.
Jed Paschall: Agreed, but you are still pitting “science” and Scripture against one another carte blanche, this is unwise on a few accounts:
RS: I don’t think that I am doing that at all. What I am saying, however, to put it in a different way, is that an atheist who believes in evolution cannot believe in evolution in the same way that a Christian does. Though they are using the same word, they are using it in an equivocal way. This is not against Scripture and it is not against science. It is simply recognizing a reality of equivocation that is going on and causing confusion.
Jed Paschall: a) Scripture is not written as a scientific document, rather broadly speaking, it speaks of the unfolding of salvation history, which God mediates through covenantal means through the course of human history.
RS: But according to the confession, whatever it speaks to it speaks the truth.
Jed Paschall: b) Piggy-backing on (a), the authors of Scripture would have been wholly unaware of modern scientific discoveries and discourse, and are primarily addressing theological concerns, even on matters of real history (which I believe the Scripture truly affirms), Scripture records these for theological purposes as it reveals God’s purposes in salvation-history.
c) Science’s concerns, properly confined, are non-ideological, simply attempting to account for the observable (or reconstructable) physical phenomena of natural history, meaning that the aims of science and Scripture are wholly different.
RS: I don’t mean this in a mean way, but thinking that scientists are non-ideological is rather naive. The fall of mankind into sin means that all of us are self-centered and are deceived about many things. Unbelieving scientists hate God and their hatred is evident in the way that they interpret the evidence.
Jed Paschall: d) As Calvinists, we uphold the axiom that all truth is God’s truth, and if God in his wisdom did not offer a comprehensive revelation on how natural and salvation history coincide, then we as believers should not feel any threat where there appears to be tension between the two, because we, unlike God simply do not see the whole picture.
RS: I would argue that there is no real tension between the two, but when science makes statements that contradicts Scripture some tension is there. When Scripture is interpreted in a way that contradicts what some scientists say is truth, then some tension is there. As long as human beings are fallen and selfish and unbelievers hate God, this tension will be there. As long as people use equivocal terms, a true harmony will not be found.
LikeLike
Dr. Ben Carson does not subscribe to evolutionary theory but he is an extraordinarily effective pediatric neurosurgeon at Johns Hopkins. DGH spent some time at Johns Hopkins and that’s why this story is really about him!
LikeLike
Joy’s link to Stanley Fish’s article in the NY Times certainly illustrates one aspect of Darwinian evolution — Richard Dawkins didn’t have much to say until his much bigger, more powerful rival, Steven J. Gould, died. Bully for Richard Dawkins!
LikeLike
As a PhD theoretical physicist, who is now a lawyer, I’ve never quite understood the vitriol that biologists direct to those who express honest criticisms of the weaknesses of macroevolutionary theory.
I would agree that macroevolutionary theory makes the better sense of the available data than other available alternatives. But that doesn’t mean that the theory shouldn’t be subject to criticism. Every theory–whether in physics, biology, or economics–should be subject to criticism. After all, that’s how the academy arrives at improved theories that are more effective at explaining observable phenomena. Every physicist I know accepts that this must be the case. But why do biologists insist that their theories must be inviolate? I’d agree with DGH. Insisting on the inviolability of a scientific theory is just as closed-minded as what the fundamentalists do.
Moreover, Carson’s criticism of evolution is largely related to its use in the fields of sociobiology and evolutionary psychology. In my opinion, these fields lie more closely to philosophy than to the natural sciences. Thus, Carson seems to be criticizing the (mis)use of a scientific theory to lend unwarranted credibility to one’s theory of epistemology. Would the Emory faculty also be up in arms if the school invited a commencement speaker who is opposed to Social Darwinism?
LikeLike
Finally, a thread about which I should have something to say. The “Terry Gray case” was quite narrow–about whether Adam’s body could have non-human ancestors. To this day I don’t argue that Adam, as a human being (body and soul), had animal ancestors. Anything pre-dating Adam wasn’t human. The answer adopted by the GA was not confessional (as far as I can tell) but based on the extra-confessional agreed upon exegesis of Genesis 2:7 from John Murray, namely “that which constitutes man as man also constitutes him as living creature.” Of course, Murray’s exegesis disallowed B.B. Warfield’s position from the OPC. I suppose on many fronts Warfield was a bit liberal for the OPC. Interestingly, there were a number of GA commissioners who had their negative votes recorded–you can see the list in the GA minutes. I think “old lifers” and strict confessionalists were in the majority of that group. The majority was a coalition of those persuaded of the “anti-theistic evolution” of John Murray and convinced young-earth creationists, somewhat of a novelty in the OPC at the time. DGH was at the assembly but not a commissioner. We tried to get him to testify as an expert witness on Machen’s view of evolution and even human evolution, but he declined.
As to the broader question of biological evolution, it does not seem to me that the OPC has spoken. There was a later more general report on Creation, but it tended to focus on the days of Genesis 1 and did not narrow the OPC’s stance on that issue, again, as far as I can tell. I was not charged with any heresy because of my espousal of evolution (understood as a providentially governed process like all processes described by science) in general. I don’t think that the OPC would object to a claim for apparent evolution (something like apparent age–looking at all the scientific evidence suggests evolution, but we know from scripture that it didn’t happen like that–it only looks like it happened like that). I think those in this thread who advocate that the evolution of the scientific community is inherently atheistic are mistaken. Self-proclaimed defenders of science, Dawkins, Harris, etc. are doing philosophy and religion and not science.
As to whether a surgeon has to be an evolutionist to be a good surgeon…I think not. And such a person may have all sorts of wisdom worth sharing at a graduation ceremony. There are valid reasons to drive a perfectly competent biologists to deny evolution, such as a commitment to a particular understanding of Genesis 1 or a belief that evolution is fundamentally atheistic. In my opinion those are mistaken commitments and beliefs, but one arrives at those viewpoints by different routes than scientific practice. It’s hard to imagine someone resisting the arguments for evolution on the basis of the science alone.
On the other hand the evolutionary framework of modern biology is unmistakable. Anyone who thinks otherwise is sure to be marginalized. Most evolution skeptics keep their mouth shut until they get tenure. Folks in the Intelligent Design movement even counsel young scientists not to let their views know if they want to get their Ph.D. or get tenure. As far as the community of practicing professional biologists is concerned, not accepting evolutionary theory is akin to Ptolemaic astronomy or chemistry based on the elements of earth, air, water, and fire, or psychology based on sanguine, choleric, melancholic, or phlegmatic humors.
It would be nice to get a hearing from the type of folks who read this list and other conservative evangelicals. Of course, this is a great reason to vote for sphere sovereignty and the spirituality of the church. The church as a whole isn’t really qualified to judge the science, but unfortunately tends to push out the door those of like faith who might be. On the floor of the assembly the debate was quite restricted to scripture, confessions and theology, as it should have been. One never knows what was in the mind of individual commissioners.
LikeLike
Richard,
I could belabor a few points with what you have most recently stated, but by in large I am not substantially in disagreement with your clarifications, so thanks. Unless you want further clarification on my part, I am willing to let my statements stand alongside yours here as at least a good exercise in discovering areas in which we can or cannot agree. All I will say is that I am less suspicious of the claims of science, until such a point that they make metaphysical claims that their own scientific methods of inquiry cannot substantiate – meaning I am less hostile to the possibility of the validity of evolution, and firmly against the notion that God cannot supernaturally guide such a process, or that the affirmative claims of Scripture are somehow at odds with any other body of truth, scientific or otherwise.
LikeLike
Terry,
Thanks for the response here. I can only imagine the practical difficulty of maintaining a mainstream view with regards to science, and retaining office in a historically conservative Reformed communion, especially with the prevalence of young earth creationism. My interests are geared more toward the interpretation of Gen 1-3 than they are to any one brand of scientific modelling of beginnings, but as anyone who has spent years thinking even on the primary history in Genesis, there are many questions that abound that aren’t easily resolved, especially in today’s ideologically charged climate.
It would be interesting to see what Machen’s views were regarding evolution, as it seems that the analysis that scholars like DGH have divulged would suggest that he was not as hostile as some currently in the OPC to the theory. My guess is he had more pressing issues within the Presbyterian controversies of the 1920’s than the mode of human origins, but it would be interesting to me to see how his views on the confluence of Genesis and science would have been welcomed in the OPC today. My opinion is that ambivalence on the mode of how science and Genesis agree is a far healthier position than the supposed certainty that YEC’ers within the OPC (and other NAPARC denoms) apply to the matter today. It seems to me that the roots of YEC, especially within 7th Day Adventism, but also within evangelical organizations such as AIG and ICR deserves more historical and exegetical analysis, notwithstanding scientific scrutiny, in Reformed communions today. The mantra of some to elevate YEC as a litmus test for orthodoxy seems to be horribly anachronistic given the development of Reformed orthodoxy during the heyday of orthodoxy in institutions such as Old Princeton. Heck, even the original Presbyterian evolutionary rabble-rouser, W. J. Bryan of Scopes trial fame wouldn’t have had a passing test-strip according to YEC advocates since he was of Old Earth persuasion.
LikeLike
Jed, agreed, the theological origins of young earth are indeed troubling. So is any abandonment of efforts to harmonize the two books (even if such harmonization is littered with doubts and worries).
LikeLike
Jed, I’m at a loss at the moment, but I seem to recall Machen making the point once somewhere that he’d’ve rather put the emphasis on the destiny rather than the origin of the human species.
LikeLike
Jed Paschall: Richard, I could belabor a few points with what you have most recently stated, but by in large I am not substantially in disagreement with your clarifications, so thanks. Unless you want further clarification on my part, I am willing to let my statements stand alongside yours here as at least a good exercise in discovering areas in which we can or cannot agree.
RS: Sounds like a good plan.
Jed Paschall: All I will say is that I am less suspicious of the claims of science, until such a point that they make metaphysical claims that their own scientific methods of inquiry cannot substantiate – meaning I am less hostile to the possibility of the validity of evolution, and firmly against the notion that God cannot supernaturally guide such a process, or that the affirmative claims of Scripture are somehow at odds with any other body of truth, scientific or otherwise.
RS: As an effort to let statements/beliefs stand alongside of each other for the sake of clarification, just know that I am not a rabid young earth sort. My position, as far as I can discern from a deceptive heart, is that God created all things that have any being. I don’t know when He did so or how He did so. As Dr. Gray stated, there are “self-proclaimed defenders of science” and they are doing philosophy while claiming it is science. I was able to watch Richard Dawkins give a speech (actually, more of like leading a cheer for atheism) once and he is so clear that science is opposed to any religion, but especially Christianity. His hatred of God certainly leads him along the path he takes.
So you have Richard Dawkins (a fundamentalist preacher hardened in his view) who uses philosophy and anti-religion to bolster his science while on the other hand you have vitriolic young earthers who are hardened in their views and use what they think of as science to bolster their views. My vew is that we should be very careful in trying to determine where the two (science and Bible) meet and how they relate. When one has depraved and self-interested scientists (actual and pseudo) sticking up for their discipline and then depraved and self-interested theologians (actual and pseudo) sticking up for theirs, polarization is sure to follow. Perhaps God alone can reveal truth in any endeavor, but He is certainly free to do so to whom He pleases.
LikeLike
the theological origins of young earth are indeed troubling. So is any abandonment of efforts to harmonize the two books (even if such harmonization is littered with doubts and worries).
Agreed here as well. I think there are historical reconstructions that try to account for some amount of harmony between Scripture and science that are obviously outside orthodoxy, and should be rejected on this basis. Then there are several live options that seem to me to be conscientiously orthodox and at least attempt to see broad agreement between science and theology – I think that some simply account for the biblical and scientific data better than others. Which is why I am not YEC, even if I do think it is a viable orthodox position. But the problem is when certainty is overplayed in the arena of orthodox positions, when I am not sure it is there to be had.
LikeLike
DG Hart, where would one go to read about the theological origins of young earth?
LikeLike
Thomas, Ronald Numbers history of scientific creationism is the place to go.
LikeLike
Machen did say this. Excerpting from my Appeal documents at http://www.asa3.org/gray/evolution_trial/evolution_appeal.html
…there is a very interesting passage in the writings of J.G. Machen where there is a hint that Machen is willing to follow Warfield’s lead on this issue. Machen point is a simple one: that the evolutionary views on the origin of man, even if true, do not exclude a miraculous creation of the soul of man. The passage is in A Christian View of Man (Chapter X, pp. 129-142):
Given the Virgin Birth analogy that Machen sets up here, it does not seem to me to be too much of a stretch to suggest that all that Machen is arguing for here is that a supernatural creative act was involved at some point in the creation of man, especially the creation of the human soul, without necessarily denying that ordinary evolutionary processes may have been at work along the way.
LikeLike
Interesting Terry, thanks posting that.
LikeLike
Thanks Terry,
One could wish the moderate, and consciously biblical approach Machen took to these difficult questions was in force in today’s creation debates. Machen properly understood that the greatest threats to the church came in the garb of false and erroneous doctrine, not science. Yet, many who do not hold to YEC, something it is doubtful that Machen himself held to, they are criticized of holding dangerously aberrant doctrine. I fear they gather more of their understanding of Genesis and evolutionary science from authors like the deceased Henry Morris who attributes evolutionary theory to a deception from Satan himself, and less time actually investigating the actual claims and data of science, which aren’t as big and scary as YEC’ers make them out to be. All it means is that we need to understand Genesis as an account of a very particular aspect of creation, dealing with specific (yet universally binding) theological concerns regarding the ethical and moral basis for man’s existence in God’s creation. Meaning that Genesis is but one part of the story of creation, rather than the whole story. Nothing is lost, whether it is the historicity of Adam, or the great doctrines of Scripture, and we see that salvation-history is imbedded in a history that is far vaster than we would have imagined in the pre-scientific era.
LikeLike