The Fundamental Mistake in the “Fundamental Mistake of Theistic Evolutionists”
In working on another post on the Emerging vs Emergent church, I came across Christian Ministries International (warning: flash-intensive, high-bandwidth site). As always, I took a glance at their articles section. I came across a few “the sky is falling” articles, the standard fare for conservative evangelical organization websites. One article in particular was entitled “The Fundamental Mistake of Theistic Evolutionists” by Jason Carlson and Ron Carlson. What is this fundamental mistake that shows theistic evolutionists for what they really are?
The fundamental mistake that is being made by Christian evolutionists all over the world is this: they are equating science with the theory of evolution. They have bought into a false definition that says “science equals evolution.” Thus, if someone legitimately questions the validity of the theory of evolution, theistic evolutionists assume that they are attacking science. This is 180 degrees from the truth. Young earth creationists are thoroughly committed to science and its method of observation and experimentation, along with its self-correcting abilities of verification and falsification based on the observable and repeatable evidence. Young earth creationists have no problem with science.
What is the problem here? Is he not correct that if one takes “science = evolution” then they have committed an intellectual error? I have no disagreement if that happens. However, I don’t think that Theistic Evolutionists do that uncritically. In fact, I think the opposite happens. I think that Young-Earth creationists start out assuming that evolution cannot be true. They start out with the following assumption: “science ≠ evolution.” Sure, Young-Earth Creationists have no problem with science, as long as you exclude any and all evidence that the earth is old, or that there is a progression in the fossil record.
While the article would be correct if Theistic Evolutionists did equate the science and evolution, the problem is that they don’t. Instead, they try to observe the world and build a theory of what would explain it in terms of their religious worldview. This is a more comprehensive approach than the Carlsons give them credit for. Remember, they are significantly altering the theory of evolution in a way that appalls secular scientists. In light of that, I think that their criticism of Theistic Evolutionists is unfounded.
They go on to say that the real problem with the Church in its conflict with Galileo was not that they were not using science, but that they were using pagan science. That goes along nicely with their thesis, but again, I think they miss the point. The Church was not going off of straight pagan science. Instead, they has completely reformulated it and used the works of Thomas Aquinas to build their worldview. It was a highly Christianized science, one from long ago that they had crystallized into doctrine. That crystallization of old science into doctrine was the fundamental error.
The Carlsons end on a conciliatory note, arguing for allowing Young-Earth creationism into the debate.
We all agree that God created the universe and our world, but the question is how? If we are ever going to answer this question correctly, we need to get back to the practice of true science, let”s not limit the discussion to only one framework of interpretation, and let”s allow for the possibility that the Genesis record of creation could be literally true. This is the only way that we will ever be able to engage in an honest pursuit of the truth; the truth revealed in the natural world and the truth revealed in scripture.
Ok, I am willing to do that, providing they also allow for other possibilities, such as the figurative, metaphorical, or spiritualized account of Genesis. Luther took the last approach as well as Augustine.
Moral of the story? When it comes to the basis of science, don’t assume naturalism and don’t assume a theological interpretation as the basis of science.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
Henry,
With reference to your comments:
They start out with the following assumption: “science ≠ evolution.” Sure, Young-Earth Creationists have no problem with science, as long as you exclude any and all evidence that the earth is old, or that there is a progression in the fossil record.
I agree with part of what you say in that ‘YECs would say that science ≠ evolution’, and it is true that YECs have as their foundational belief a literal reading of Genesis.
But ponder this:
- Hebrew scholars agree that the author of Genesis intended to convey exactly what it says, ie 6 days of creation etc.
- Modern Biblical scholars have sought to re-interpret Genesis primarily because they think that science has proved that the world is very old.
- Science cannot ‘prove’ the age of the world; the scientific method is about testing and observing physical phenomena in the present - any analysis of the past necessarily involves assumptions and bias from your personal viewpoint; rocks do not come with a ‘birthdate’ - scientists can measure composition and decay rates, but extrapolation into the past must involve unprovable assumptions. That’s not to say that there is not an important role for forensic science, but we need to understand its limitations.
Referring back to the extract from your column - I think it is incorrect to say that YECs ‘exclude any and all evidence that the earth is old, or that there is a progression in the fossil record’
Regarding the fossil record, YECs have written quite extensively on this topic, e.g. ‘Evolution: the Fossils Still Say No’ by Duane Gish, and ‘Bones of Contention’ by Marvin Lubenow; these writings show how the fossil evidence does not support evolution. Are you saying that these writers are ignoring the evidence? If the fossil evidence was so supportive of evolution, it should be quite easy to simply provide it; instead arguments against YEC views typically involve personal attacks or statements such as ‘there is so much evidence’, but none is actually produced!
Regarding the age of the earth, are you familiar with the ‘RATE Project’? This group has come up with some very interesting findings that give lots of scientific support for a young earth, eg the presence of C14 in diamonds supposedly millions of years old (there should be no C14 in anything older than 100,000 years), and the level of helium in crystals when there should be none if they were millions of years old (helium is hard to contain, it leaks out of rocks just like balloons.
If you have some evidence for transitional fossils or the age of the earth that has been ignored by YECs, how about publishing that evidence instead of saying they ignore it?
Good comment Wayne, as always, do you have a site that I can link to?
Anyway, back to the points at hand. This is just going to be some thoughts off the top of my head - once the semester is over (tomorrow) I can respond better.
1) Criticizing presence of c14 in diamonds where there should not be is not evidence for a young earth, it is a problem with dating methods. Errors in particular dating methods do not prove another theory, only question some of the data for one part of one theory. I am not that familiar with the RATE project, so I cannot speak about it offhand.
2) I do have transitional fossils. Here is a list of some of them. Also, within the theory of evolution, there are no “fixed” species, they are always developing. So, in essense, every single fossil and living animal is a transition fossil.
3) What I see ignored is a why the simplest creatures are usually found deeper than the most complex ones in the fossil record. I am not talking about exceptions related to local geologic activity, but in looking at the fossil record as a whole, there is a undeniable progression in complexity. Complex forms are always proceeded by less complex ones.
4) Notice that I am not advocating any sort of atheistic evolution. I might not even be arguing for theistic evolution. I am not sure what exactly happened. I know that the origin stories of Gen 1 and 2 don’t seem to be physically possible and do not account for how the world seems to exist and have existed. I am merely arguing against the world being 5,000 years old.
5)
Modern Biblical scholars have sought to re-interpret Genesis primarily because they think that science has proved that the world is very old.
I am not sure why this is a problem. Science has enhanced our view of the world and there is no conclusive proof that Genesis is a literal account. The closest thing is Paul speaking about Adam as a literal human; that can be accounted for in other theories.
I’ll respond with better arguments in a few days. Again, I appreciate what you are brining to the discussion Wayne.
Hi Henry,
I don’t have a personal website, so I can’t leave one. But a site I like that looks at a lot of science issues from a YEC perspective is the one you referred to (Creation Ministries International - Creationontheweb.org) If you search this site you will find links to the RATE project.
If you look on this site you will also find extensive comment on the lack of transitional fossils, and explanations on why the ’simpler’ lifeforms seem to be lower in the fossil record.
My main point here was that YECs don’t ignore the scientific data - their argument is against the evolutionary and long age interpretations of this data that is based on unprovable assumptions … and undermines the foundations of the Bible. And of course there is a lot of scientific data that supports a young earth - eg are you familiar with the recession of the moon? It is apparently moving away from the earth at a rate of a few centimetres per year (it’s something to do with the effect of the tides). If the earth is only 6000 years old then that is no problem … but if you wind back time several billion years then it becomes a huge issue.
You say that Gen 1 and 2 don’t seem to be physically possible - Would you agree that what you are really saying is that you base your understanding of history on what humans have interpreted from scientific data, and hence you must reinterpret (or at least leave open) the meaning of the creation accounts?
If you follow that logic then do you agree that you must also question the virgin birth, the resurrection of Christ, the miracles of Jesus etc? After all these events can also not be verified by science, in fact they are impossible from a scientific viewpoint.
Perhaps I could share with you a bit of my story. I have never been able to accept evolution as a feasible explanation of life - but I did at one stage have a real difficulty with the distant starlight issue - ie how could you see light from starts that are millions of lightyears away if the stars were created only about 6000 years ago on Day 4 or the creation week? You don’t need to be very clever at maths to work out that there is a problem here. So I thought there must be some other explanation. Then several years ago I read the work of Russell Humphrey - he put forward a theory for creation which explains being able to view distant stars. It is based on Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. I was familiar with the idea that speed affected the flow of time, but so does gravity - under certain conditions you could have billions of years of time pass in outer space while only hours pass her on earth. After I read this work I realised that I had in part been putting my understanding of science in precedence to the scriptual record. Since then I have resolved to take the Bible as my foundation and to judge science by what it says.
I’m not sure where this comment fits, but I thought I’d put it here under a previous submission:
——————————————-
The poll of the day on Dinosaurs specifically excludes a YEC explanation - I am wondering if that is deliberate or indavertant? Eg Could I suggest this as an option:
Dinosaurs were created on the 6th day of the creation week, were on the ark, but have since become extinct. Fossil remains have mostly resulted from Noah’s flood.
I know that this doesn’t fit with the predominant long age thinking, but consider this comment on a report of red blood cells observed in a dinosaur bone not fully fossilised yet supposedly 65 million years old ( http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/606); and how many are familiar with the descriptions of the behemoth in Job 40 15-19 - it sounds something like a brachiosaurus. (It’s interesting how the Bible text notes say the behemoth is possibly an elephant or hippopotamus, when it is described as having a tail like a cedar.)
Wayne -
I thought the answer “No room on the Ark” presupposed a Young Earth view.
Hopefully later this week I’ll have some stuff on Dinosaurs and so forth.
Henry,
Why would a YEC view presuppose that there be no room on the ark for dinosaurs? Are you familiar with YEC literature?
Consider this:
1) Apparently most dinosaurs were about the size of sheep.
2)The giant sauropods were all much smaller when young - so it is likely that young dinosaurs would have been on the ark.
3) The ark was really big.
So why wouldn’t they be on the ark?
The other thing to consider is that the Bible says that each animal was created to reproduce after its own kind, and that the number of original kinds is mosty likely significantly fewer than the number of species living today. ie, what we see in the world today is the result of lots of speciation, eg there are various species of rhino, but it is likely that there was originally only one ‘kind’; through natural selection of characteristics favourably suited to a particular local environment, speciation can occur and so today we have the white rhino, black rhino, Javanese rhino and a few others (note that this is not evolution - this is sorting of the gene pool and actually results in the loss of information in a local population whereas evolution requires an increase in information at the genetic level to specify a new function).
What I would really encourage you and others to do is to look at what modern YEC theory actually says and then critique that, not what you think or others say that they teach - and it would be good if this was reflected in your discussions and opinion polls
Sincerely,
Wayne
Last friday (June 1, 2007) Al Mohler did a radio show on theistic evolution and how it does not work as a middle ground if you hold to natural selection and true Darwinian evolution. I really enjoyed the program and hearing some of the arguments against both evolution and theistic evolution. click here to listen.
I am going to listen to that tomorrow. I have very significant questions about Theistic Evolution, namely what it does to Adam and Eve.
However, someone needs to tell Mohler that indiviual listings on a blog are posts, not blogs. The blog is the name for the whole shebang, not for the individual posts. “There are no blogs for this month.”
I must confess, I feel the same way that the Carlsons feel. When I was at SBU, one of our professors was a theistic evolutionist. He gave absolutely no room for the possibility of Intelligent Design in the classroom discussions and said that it was foolish to do so. He did not take the time to teach the ID point of view for a counter-argument and then refute it. Instead, he taught that only theistic evolution was the way in which all life appeared on the earth as they do. Their statement is very well founded.
There was another prof. there at SBU who did teach both points of view, both theories, and let the students weigh the arguments and evidence. She happened not to be a theistic evolutionist but rather an ID and Young earth girl.
Plus, I hear so many times from students in KC and outside of the metro area that they cannot learn any other theory on the origin of species and that it’s evolution or nothing. I empathize with the Carlsons firsthand.
However, I feel that your point is true: don’t assume any scientific theory until it has been tested and validated. Point very well taken.