Why is human evolution not a slippery slope?

[Scrawly]

..with some cherished belief of the World.

But isn't the issue revolving around the fact that there is evidence for evolution? Isn't this why theistic evolution is held by many devout Christian scientists who are well acquainted with the data?

[RBerman]

But isn't the issue revolving around the fact that there is evidence for evolution? Isn't this why theistic evolution is held by many devout Christian scientists who are well acquainted with the data?

Data is only as good as the assumptions used to analyze it. The evidence for evolution (and more generally, an Old Earth) is predicated on an underlying non-biblical worldview which assumes the absence of miracles. If Genesis is historically correct, then God created the universe and earth with features which, when interpreted through a non-theistic bias, will make the universe and earth seem old. that non-theistic bias is the underlying "cherished belief" of which I spoke, and the supposed evidence for evolution is a consequence of that bias.

[KingsGambit]

Data is only as good as the assumptions used to analyze it. The evidence for evolution (and more generally, an Old Earth) is predicated on an underlying non-biblical worldview which assumes the absence of miracles. If Genesis is historically correct, then God created the universe and earth with features which, when interpreted through a non-theistic bias, will make the universe and earth seem old. that non-theistic bias is the underlying "cherished belief" of which I spoke, and the supposed evidence for evolution is a consequence of that bias.

If this is the case, then why do Christians who readily believe in miracles find themselves persuaded by the evidence independent from any such assumptions?

In any event, even a staunch YEC such as Al Mohler admits that the universe at least appears old: http://www.icr.org/article/5669/

[RBerman]

If this is the case, then why do Christians who readily believe in miracles find themselves persuaded by the evidence independent from any such assumptions?

Because people are not primarily logical or consistent. If we were unable to live with contradictions, than one tiny error would invalidate everything, which is clearly not how we operate. Our default mode is to believe what we believe, and then rummage around for some facts to lay over the top of our beliefs so that we can feel logical. In the case at hand: If they are persuaded by the evidence, then they are operating under one set of assumptions in part of their lives (the part where we assume there are no miracles) and under another set of assumptions in another part of their lives (the part where they believe in some miracles).

In any event, even a staunch YEC such as Al Mohler admits that the universe at least appears old: http://www.icr.org/article/5669/

Count me in that group as well. I don't feel the need to appeal to an expanding universe to explain starlight. (Although if that turns out to be the right answer, I'm fine with that as well.) God is a creator. If he can create the sun, he can certainly create light before the sun, or light that's already almost at earth even though it seems to be coming from a star very far away.

[Joel]

Count me in that group as well. I don't feel the need to appeal to an expanding universe to explain starlight. (Although if that turns out to be the right answer, I'm fine with that as well.) God is a creator. If he can create the sun, he can certainly create light before the sun, or light that's already almost at earth even though it seems to be coming from a star very far away.

Indeed. Presumably God created Adam as an adult rather than as an embryo. Likewise if God wanted to create an enormous universe of stars and have all the starts be visible from earth on that same day, what would be the result? exactly what we have. A God who can create the universe including creating the laws of electromagnetism, surely is able to create vibrations in the electromagnetic field if He wants.


Also consider dating the universe according to the Big Bang. From what I understand, people observe that the galaxies are moving apart and think: the stars were closer in the past, and so assuming that the universe has been around long enough, all the stars must have been all together at some time in the past. And by mathematically extrapolating (using various additional assumptions) one could calculate how long ago that would have been. But because that line of reasoning assumes that the universe has been around long enough for that, it is circular reasoning to turn around and use that calculated hypothetical duration as evidence that the universe has been around that long.

[phat8594]

If this is the case, then why do Christians who readily believe in miracles find themselves persuaded by the evidence independent from any such assumptions?

In any event, even a staunch YEC such as Al Mohler admits that the universe at least appears old: http://www.icr.org/article/5669/

If I understand you correctly, my guess is that it is because most people don't understand what assumptions are actually being made from a scientific POV. Many times, the underlying assumptions are used to validate certain findings and invalidate others.

Remember, there are many, many Christian and non-Christian scientists who reject evolution, not based on Biblical evidence, but based on a questioning of the underlying assumptions given the way the evidence has unfolded.

[Scrawly]

Data is only as good as the assumptions used to analyze it.

OK. Good point.

The evidence for evolution (and more generally, an Old Earth) is predicated on an underlying non-biblical worldview which assumes the absence of miracles.

Haven't there been orthodox theologians throughout the centuries, long before evolution was ever articulated, that differed as to the age of the earth and even the mechanism God used to create? Surely they were not operating within a non-biblical worldview.

If Genesis is historically correct, then God created the universe and earth with features which, when interpreted through a non-theistic bias, will make the universe and earth seem old.

But what if the earth really is old and its your interpretation of Genesis that is at fault?

that non-theistic bias is the underlying "cherished belief" of which I spoke

I agree so wouldn't it be right to therefore combat the philosophical naturalism injected into science instead of attacking the science itself?

and the supposed evidence for evolution is a consequence of that bias.

I'm not too sure about that.

[seanD]

If this is the case, then why do Christians who readily believe in miracles find themselves persuaded by the evidence independent from any such assumptions?

In any event, even a staunch YEC such as Al Mohler admits that the universe at least appears old: http://www.icr.org/article/5669/

I admit, this is something I've struggled with for a long time. As a creationist, I have to believe human evolution is a lie, one of the biggest lies to ever befall the intellect of man. So I struggle with the issue of why God would allow such a powerful lie that would ensnare so many Christians, and a lie that is upheld as undeniable by the most prestigious institutions of the world. The same institutions we hold with much esteem and as an authority on other issues that affect our lives. In some respects, I happen to agree with phat8594. There are a lot of Christians that claim they're TEs without really having a grasp of the theory, just because it's the less embarrassing belief to hold. But this can't be the case with all Christians. I struggle with the scope of that deception.

[RBerman]

Haven't there been orthodox theologians throughout the centuries, long before evolution was ever articulated, that differed as to the age of the earth and even the mechanism God used to create? Surely they were not operating within a non-biblical worldview.

Augustine believed in instantaneous creation because God could have done it that way, which while true is non sequitur and thus a bad argument. God could have done it lots of ways. When God tells us how he did it, we should believe him.

I am not aware of serious theological momentum behind an old earth prior to science's claims of an old earth.

But what if the earth really is old and its your interpretation of Genesis that is at fault?

One could ask that question about any belief. Show me where you think my interpretation of Genesis is at fault, and I'll listen.

I agree so wouldn't it be right to therefore combat the philosophical naturalism injected into science instead of attacking the science itself?

I am not sure what difference you are identifying between the two. "The science" consists of two things: Data and interpretation. I do not contest the data. (e.g. "We see lights in the sky at night.") I contest the interpretation. (e.g. "The starlight has been travelling toward us for billions of years.")

I'm not too sure about that.

Well, which interpretations of raw scientific data do you find free from non-theistic bias? Pick one for discussion.

[RBerman]

Indeed. Presumably God created Adam as an adult rather than as an embryo. Likewise if God wanted to create an enormous universe of stars and have all the starts be visible from earth on that same day, what would be the result? exactly what we have. A God who can create the universe including creating the laws of electromagnetism, surely is able to create vibrations in the electromagnetic field if He wants.


Also consider dating the universe according to the Big Bang. From what I understand, people observe that the galaxies are moving apart and think: the stars were closer in the past, and so assuming that the universe has been around long enough, all the stars must have been all together at some time in the past. And by mathematically extrapolating (using various additional assumptions) one could calculate how long ago that would have been. But because that line of reasoning assumes that the universe has been around long enough for that, it is circular reasoning to turn around and use that calculated hypothetical duration as evidence that the universe has been around that long.

Exactly. Science requires an assumption of uniformitarianism in order to make extrapolations from measured data. Any time God has acted to violate our expectations of uniformitarianism, we can fully expect the extrapolations to generate faulty results.

[Scrawly]

Augustine believed in instantaneous creation because God could have done it that way, which while true is non sequitur and thus a bad argument. God could have done it lots of ways. When God tells us how he did it, we should believe him.

I agree, but the difficult part is in figuring out if our interpretation is the best and most accurate considering a wide range of factors. For example, if all I had to go on was the biblical text without the aid of scientific findings, I would conclude that the bible teaches a flat and stationary earth. I would literally believe I am being faithful to what God said.

I am not aware of serious theological momentum behind an old earth prior to science's claims of an old earth.

I don't think the age of the earth was a big deal for many theologians throughout the centuries. I don't think there was theological momentum for the age of the earth until the advent of the relatively new movement of young earth creationism.

One could ask that question about any belief. Show me where you think my interpretation of Genesis is at fault, and I'll listen.

I think the problem might be in reading Genesis with modern day eyes and modern day assumptions. You might be reading the text contrary to the purposes for which it was intended. Although, I do not know, perhaps you are right and scholars such as Walton have it wrong.

I am not sure what difference you are identifying between the two. "The science" consists of two things: Data and interpretation. I do not contest the data. (e.g. "We see lights in the sky at night.") I contest the interpretation. (e.g. "The starlight has been travelling toward us for billions of years.")

The difference would be:

a) Scientific findings confirm and support the theory of evolution. As opposed to:

b) Scientific findings confirm and support the theory of evolution, therefore God does not exist.

Well, which interpretations of raw scientific data do you find free from non-theistic bias? Pick one for discussion.

This would probably be best discussed with a theistic evolutionist who obviously doesn't have a non-theistic bias and who is well acquainted with the scientific data.

[RBerman]

I agree, but the difficult part is in figuring out if our interpretation is the best and most accurate considering a wide range of factors. For example, if all I had to go on was the biblical text without the aid of scientific findings, I would conclude that the bible teaches a flat and stationary earth. I would literally believe I am being faithful to what God said.

You raise hermeneutical questions about the genre of different portions of the Bible. One certainly needs to understand the concept of phenomenological language like "sunrise" and "the corners of the earth." I have not heard a satisfactory explanation of what phenomena would have looked like a seven day creation, except for an actual seven day creation.

I don't think the age of the earth was a big deal for many theologians throughout the centuries. I don't think there was theological momentum for the age of the earth until the advent of the relatively new movement of young earth creationism.

You're correct that "How old is the earth?" was not something that consumed a lot of debating effort, simply because there was no reason to debate something on which everyone agreed. Even Augustine didn't debate the age of the earth, only the amount of time that it took to create the earth. Here are a few samples of the theological momentum behind a young earth in the early church, for instance:

For in as many days as this world was made, in so many thousand years shall it be concluded. And for this reason the Scripture says: "Thus the heaven and the earth were finished, and all their adornment. And God brought to a conclusion upon the sixth day the works that He had made; and God rested upon the seventh day from all His works." This is an account of the things formerly created, as also it is a prophecy of what is to come. For the day of the Lord is as a thousand years; and in six days created things were completed: it is evident, therefore, that they will come to an end at the sixth thousand year. Irenaeus, Against Heresies

The Sabbath is mentioned at the beginning of the creation: "And God made in six days the works of His hands, and made an end on the seventh day, and rested on it, and sanctified it." Attend, my children, to the meaning of this expression, "He finished in six days." This implieth that the Lord will finish all things in six thousand years, for a day is with Him a thousand years. And He Himself testifieth, saying, "Behold, to-day will be as a thousand years." Therefore, my children, in six days, that is, in six thousand years, all things will be finished. The Epistle of Barnabas

...there have neither been twenty thousand times ten thousand years from the flood to the present time, as Plato said, affirming that there had been so many years; nor yet 15 times 10,375 years, as we have already mentioned Apollonius the Egyptian gave out... From the creation of the world to the deluge were 2242 years. And from the deluge to the time when Abraham our forefather begat a son, 1036 years. And from Isaac, Abraham's son, to the time when the people dwelt with Moses in the desert, 660 years. And from the death of Moses and the rule of Joshua the son of Nun, to the death of the patriarch David, 498 years. And from the death of David and the reign of Solomon to the sojourning of the people in the land of Babylon, 518 years 6 months 10 days. And from the government of Cyrus to the death of the Emperor Aurelius Verus, 744 years. All the years from the creation of the world amount to a total of 5698 years, and the odd months and days. Theophilus's letter to Autolycus

... the Mosaic account of the creation, which teaches that the world is not yet ten thousand years old... Origen, Against Celsus

The Egyptians, indeed, with their boastful notions of their own antiquity, have put forth a sort of account of it by the hand of their astrologers in cycles and myriads of years; which some of those who have had the repute of studying such subjects profoundly have in a summary way called lunar years; and inclining no less than others to the mythical, they think they fall in with the eight or nine thousands of years which the Egyptian priests in Plato falsely reckon up to Solon. (And after some other matter:) For why should I speak of the three myriad years of the Phoenicians, or of the follies of the Chaldeans, their forty-eight myriads? For the Jews, deriving their origin from them as descendants of Abraham, having been taught a modest mind, and one such as becomes men, together with the truth by the spirit of Moses, have handed down to us, by their extant Hebrew histories, the number of 5500 years as the period up to the advent of the Word of salvation, that was announced to the world in the time of the sway of the Caesars. Julius Africanus

Therefore, since all the works of God were completed in six days, the world must continue in its present state through six ages, that is, six thousand years. For the great day of God is limited by a circle of a thousand years, as the prophet shows, who says "In Thy sight, O Lord, a thousand years are as one day." And as God laboured during those six days in creating such great works, so His religion and truth must labour during these six thousand years, while wickedness prevails and bears rule. And again, since God, having finished His works, rested the seventh day and blessed it, at the end of the six thousandth year all wickedness must be abolished from the earth, and righteousness reign for a thousand years; and there must be tranquillity and rest from the labours which the world now has long endured. Lactantius

...according to Scripture, less than 6000 years have elapsed since [man] began to be... Augustine, City of God

The world was created by God nearly six thousand years ago, as we shall set forth in the course of this book; although those who have entered upon and published a calculation of the dates, but little agree among themselves. As, however, this disagreement is due either to the will of God or to the fault of antiquity, it ought not to be a matter of censure. The History of Sulpitus

And so on. Three arguments were advanced by the early church for a young earth:
1) The Hermeneutical Argument: Genesis should be treated as a work of history with reliable details, not just a creation myth that only teaches the general truth that God created the world.
2) The Mathematical Argument: The genealogies in Genesis can be summed to tell us the age of the world.
3) The Allegorical Argument: It would be a nice parallel if the six (or seven) days of creation were followed by six (or seven) thousand-year periods, on the theory that "A day to the Lord is as a thousand years."

I think the problem might be in reading Genesis with modern day eyes and modern day assumptions. You might be reading the text contrary to the purposes for which it was intended. Although, I do not know, perhaps you are right and scholars such as Walton have it wrong.

There is little debate among secular scholars of the Old Testament that the language of Genesis 1-11 intends to teach a young earth created in six 24 hour periods. This is a matter of agreement between the most liberal scholars (who think that Genesis is wrong in what it teaches) and the most conservative scholars (who think Genesis is right). Caught in the middle are those who want to say that Genesis is right but does not intend to teach a young earth. The textual evidence for such a view is simply lacking.

The difference would be:

a) Scientific findings confirm and support the theory of evolution. As opposed to:
b) Scientific findings confirm and support the theory of evolution, therefore God does not exist.

This would probably be best discussed with a theistic evolutionist who obviously doesn't have a non-theistic bias and who is well acquainted with the scientific data.

It is not the case that a theistic evolutionist doesn't have a non-theistic bias in the way he approaches the question of evolution. Human beings are perfectly capable of affirming the existence of God in one area of their lives and then acting as if he doesn't exist in another area. Familiarity with the scientific data is only helpful to the extent that one analyzes that data through true assumptions. As I said upstream in this thread, I don't mind stipulating that based on current scientific methods, when we analyze currently available data, the earth does appear old, just as Lazarus appeared like a man who had not just spent three days dead in a tomb. A Christian scientist is obliged to use all the data at his disposal, including the firsthand report of God himself concerning what He has done. Once scientism's uniformitarianism becomes the rulestick by which the Bible is interpreted, then functionally the Bible has been replaced by scientism as the guiding principle in your life.

[Pinoy]

Familiarity with the scientific data is only helpful to the extent that one analyzes that data through true assumptions. As I said upstream in this thread, I don't mind stipulating that based on current scientific methods, when we analyze currently available data, the earth does appear old, just as Lazarus appeared like a man who had not just spent three days dead in a tomb. A Christian scientist is obliged to use all the data at his disposal, including the firsthand report of God himself concerning what He has done. Once scientism's uniformitarianism becomes the rulestick by which the Bible is interpreted, then functionally the Bible has been replaced by scientism as the guiding principle in your life.

[Scrawly]

You raise hermeneutical questions about the genre of different portions of the Bible. One certainly needs to understand the concept of phenomenological language like "sunrise" and "the corners of the earth." I have not heard a satisfactory explanation of what phenomena would have looked like a seven day creation, except for an actual seven day creation.

Isn't the reason we can even label a passage of the bible as "phenomenological" due to the input of scientific findings? Without the aid of science to inform our interpretation how would you ever conclude that the phenomenological language of the sun setting, for example, is not literally true, but only how it appears?

You're correct that "How old is the earth?" was not something that consumed a lot of debating effort, simply because there was no reason to debate something on which everyone agreed.

Didn't everyone also pretty much agree that the earth was stationary as well? At another point in time I am sure most everyone agreed that the earth was flat, and I am sure the Bible was evoked to support that belief at various points in time.

Even Augustine didn't debate the age of the earth, only the amount of time that it took to create the earth. Here are a few samples of the theological momentum behind a young earth in the early church, for instance:

[cut]

[Scrawly]

Three arguments were advanced by the early church for a young earth:
1) The Hermeneutical Argument: Genesis should be treated as a work of history with reliable details, not just a creation myth that only teaches the general truth that God created the world.
2) The Mathematical Argument: The genealogies in Genesis can be summed to tell us the age of the world.
3) The Allegorical Argument: It would be a nice parallel if the six (or seven) days of creation were followed by six (or seven) thousand-year periods, on the theory that "A day to the Lord is as a thousand years."

And I think that just as the early church got the geocentric view wrong, we need to take heed so as not to repeat the mistakes of history.

There is little debate among secular scholars of the Old Testament that the language of Genesis 1-11 intends to teach a young earth created in six 24 hour periods. This is a matter of agreement between the most liberal scholars (who think that Genesis is wrong in what it teaches) and the most conservative scholars (who think Genesis is right). Caught in the middle are those who want to say that Genesis is right but does not intend to teach a young earth. The textual evidence for such a view is simply lacking.

Caught in the middle are those that interpret Genesis in light of ANE findings and other support from the sciences. They are questioning an interpretation of the text by utilizing other tools for a more accurate analysis so as not to repeat the mistakes of history - such as the mistakes of:

Melanchthon: The eyes are witnesses that the heavens revolve in the space of twenty-four hours. But certain men, either from the love of novelty, or to make a display of ingenuity, have concluded that the earth moves; and they maintain that neither the [stars] nor the sun revolves...Now, it is a want of honesty and decency to assert such notions publicly, and the example is pernicious. It is the part of a good mind to accept the truth as revealed by God and to acquiesce in it.

&

John Calvin: The heavens revolve daily, and, immense as is their fabric, and inconceivable the rapidity of their revolutions, we experience no concussion -- no disturbance in the harmony of their motion. The sun, though varying its course every diurnal revolution, returns annually to the same point. The planets, in all their wandering, maintain their respective positions. How could the earth hang suspended in the air were it not upheld by God's hand? (Job 26:7) By what means could it [the earth] maintain itself unmoved, while the heavens above are in constant rapid motion, did not its Divine Maker fix and establish it? Accordingly the particle, ape, denoting emphasis, is introduced -- YEA, he hath established it--John Calvin, Commentary on the Book of Psalms, Psalm 93, verse 1, trans., James Anderson (Eerdman's, 1949), Vol. 4, p. 7

It is not the case that a theistic evolutionist doesn't have a non-theistic bias in the way he approaches the question of evolution. Human beings are perfectly capable of affirming the existence of God in one area of their lives and then acting as if he doesn't exist in another area.

So you are sure that all theistic evolutionists behave in this manner when doing science?

Familiarity with the scientific data is only helpful to the extent that one analyzes that data through true assumptions.

So would it be proper to say that a YEC assumes his interpretation of the biblical text is the correct one, and then analyzes scientific data through those interpretative lenses? What if his interpretation is wrong, how will he ever be corrected?

As I said upstream in this thread, I don't mind stipulating that based on current scientific methods, when we analyze currently available data, the earth does appear old, just as Lazarus appeared like a man who had not just spent three days dead in a tomb. A Christian scientist is obliged to use all the data at his disposal, including the firsthand report of God himself concerning what He has done.

I agree, but I think its wise to be open to the possibility that the earth appears to be old, because it actually is.

Once scientism's uniformitarianism becomes the rulestick by which the Bible is interpreted, then functionally the Bible has been replaced by scientism as the guiding principle in your life.

Scientism is essentially naturalism so no Christian will read the Bible through those lenses. Christian scientists wisely, I think, let the scientific data inform their interpretation of the text which is why geocentrism and a flat earth, for example, are rejected as valid interpretations. Although, there are many well meaning Christian's who take the Bible as a guiding principle and thus affirm a flat earth and geocentric view in spite of scientific findings under the banner of "let God be true and every man a liar".