Friday, July 2, 2010

Creation Myth?

Spent some time this morning reading articles by Darrell Falk professor of Biology at Point Loma Nazarene College. He is a theistic evolutionist. Theistic evolution is the idea that God created the "world" or at least the building blocks of the world and then allowed the process of Macro-Evolution to produce the results guided of course by the Big Biologist in the Sky aka God. In one article, he was responding to Stephen Meyer, a Cambridge trained philosopher of science. Falk, first of all in syrupy language, talked about how great a philosopher Meyer was, but then slammed him as having no right to critique a biologist. Why is it that people automatically think that just because they have a diploma they are above criticism. I've heard the same arguments from teachers complaining about mothers who home school, or physicians who won't listen to their patients. The attitude is "I've studied; therefore, who are you to tell me anything." Nowhere can this attitude be found with such vigor as in institutions of higher learning. In my field as a theologian and pastor, I would be run out of the church if I took such an attitude. There are smart people who don't have diplomas hanging on the wall but whose faith can move mountains. I believe the attitude of "I know more than you- so shut up" is detrimental not only to fair debate but to the growth of the person with said attitude.
Then Falk went on to quote scripture saying he believed in Romans 8:38-39 and that he was sure Meyer also believed this in order to facilitate common ground. However, here is the real crux of the issue: is the bible true or not. The theistic evolutionist must be selective in what he believes is true in the context of scripture for the fact of the matter is that the first chapters of Genesis have to be myth according to Falk. The Genesis creation narrative must be understood or "explained away" by making it man's account (though a far better account than other creation myths) in which to convey things for a human perspective that at the time where unexplainable. The problem is that the Apostle Paul states that "all scripture", not just the New Testament, is "God breathed" or "inspired by God" (2 Timothy 3:16). Therefore, the Genesis account of creation is not man's explanation but God's revelation. The Genesis account itself claims to be history in chapter 2 verse 4 which means in layman terms: it should be interpreted literally and not figuratively or mythologically. If we say Genesis 1-3 is myth, why not Mathew through John; they too are full of miracles and even resurrection accounts, how can that be any different then interpretationally? No, the creation account of Genesis is not myth any more than the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ; otherwise, our faith would be useless. Theistic evolution is completely incompatible with orthodox Christianity and it undermines the faith of scripture.
The other problem was that Falk intimated a stupidity on the part of Meyer when he said there was biological evidence contrary to Meyer's stated opinion to the contrary. However, it is interesting to point out that where evolutionists see chaos and chance often times creationists see purpose and intention. Ultimately it is a matter of faith not biology. So the Philosopher Meyer is right to criticize the Biologist Falk. As a theologian, my advice to macro-evolutionists is "repent and believe".
If you want to know more see http://biologos.org/blog/on-reading-the-signature-a-response-to-stephen-meyer/

4 comments:

Secular Humanism said...

Why is there an evolution-creation debate? In spite of the fact that the evolution hypothesis is stuck in step 3 of the 7- scientific method and there are 4 gaps in the hypothesis that evolutionary scientists admit cannot yet be explained, Evolutionists have already won. Evolution is taught in public schools, creationism is prohibited. Evolutionists have won in the courts. The media unanimously supports evolution. Why don’t Evolutionists simply ignore the Creationists’ objections? Or, why not point out that Creationism is not within the purview of science because God is not a falsifiable hypothesis nor can he be proved by science?
Consider the fact that of the 6 major theological positions on creation, 3 allow for evolution, albeit with a divine influence of some sort, such as to fill those 4 gaps that scientist are struggling with. There are 2 reactions when a Creationist proposed theistic evolution as an answer to the incomplete hypothesis testing and the 4 gaps. An evolutionary scientist would respond by admitting there is no scientific explanation for the gaps, as yet, and dismiss the influence of God as something outside the purview of science. The Evolutionist philosopher, however, becomes extremely agitated at the mention of God because Evolutionism is about atheism, not science.
As a philosophy, Evolutionism is not held to the rigor of hard science – the scientific method can be ignored. As a philosophy, Evolutionism can object to theism whenre hard science cannot comment. Evolutionism is a major cornerstone of Marxism and Human Secularism because is supports those philosophies built on atheism. Twenty-five percent of the Humanist Manifesto is devoted to opposition to religion and theism, and the establishment of evolution and atheism. As long as there is a God, those philosophies fail. But Darwin supplied the “missing link” to their philosophies,; a way to explain how we got here – without a God.
Science and faith are not mutually exclusive, but theism and atheism are. So when a supporter of evolution attacks creation (and usually the Creationist), he does so as a philosopher, not as a scientist. And, when a Creationist opposed evolution, he must do so as a philosopher/theologian – not as a scientist. An excellent resource regarding the creation-evolution debate can be found at http://sechumanism.blogspot.com/p/secular-humanism.html

Pastor Bob Farmer said...

Excellent point. It is philosophy that also colors the facts. As, I pointed out two scientists can look at a set of tests and see the same conclusion but based upon their philosophy (including ethics, origins, etc.) go in two opposite directions- each saying that they are believing the "facts". I'll check out your blog.
Thanks.

Ryan said...

I've noticed that a lot of the times, the scientists behind the theories end up either being ignorant or belligerent about the Christian ideas they're trying to undermine. This is just a personal observation, but I've noticed that usually, these people- with names like Paul or Steve- whatever- behind these vehement arguments usually are merely wounded individuals, hurt by people in the church- their parents, and/or simply life in general. A lot of the times- as a Christian dealing with these people, you can take off all the apologetic armor (not that it isn't useful at times) and deal with them as people instead of just scientific or philosophical arguments.

By dealing with people as people, often times you can get straight to the heart of the real problem that's been eating them away for the better part of their lives-

What do you think, Pastor?

Also, feel free to check out my blog too! it's http://www.archaen.blogspot.com
God bless!

Pastor Bob Farmer said...

thanks for the comment Ryan. Sorry its taken me so long to respond, but I've been gone for a bit.
I think you hit the nail on the proverbial head. When it comes down to it you can't argue anyone into the kingdom of God, so you are right that we approach individuals with the love of Christ and His gospel allowing the Holy Spirit to do the work. Lifting up the magnanimous Jesus is far better. However, when dealing with the scientific community in general or with heretical teaching within the church, apologetics has it's place.
The pursuit of knowledge by Christian scientists is also important work, but as you suggest ultimately people are unbelievers often not because of science but because of ulterior motives which are best addressed pastorally. Thanks again and I'll check out your blog.