6 Reasons Why Ken Ham vs Bill Nye Gives Truth a Black Eye

White-Owl-of-TruthwithBlackEye02My daughter once danced with Bill Nye.  She grew up on Bill Nye the Science Guy.  So, when Nye appeared at a local swing dance, she plotted with the young man she was dancing with to surreptitiously work their way over to Nye before the next dance started.  It worked – Bill Nye asked her to dance.  She said Nye could really shake a leg!

1. The Ken Ham vs Bill Nye Debate is Over the Wrong Question — A FALSE “Either/Or” Dichotomy

“Good, I hope Ham vs. Nye shakes a little sense into Ken Ham!”, was my first thought and inclination when I first heard about the Ham vs. Nye debate.  But, my evolutionary creation (EC) Twitter friends quickly set me straight – nothing good can come from a debate that focuses on the wrong question, “whether creation is a viable model of origins?”.  It isn’t Creation or evolution.  It isn’t Creation vs. evolution!  That is a FALSE dichotomy, i.e., “a logical fallacy in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are others” (Christian M Schmidt, that’s @CMS_ on Twitter).

The truth rarely lies in polar extremes and focusing on the polar extremes as if those were the only two answers is a sure way to obfuscate whatever is true. Ken Ham is a young-earth creationist (YEC) who believes that the book of Genesis, written thousands of years ago, should be read like a modern science book and like a modern exacting history book and taken as God’s pronouncement that the earth was indeed created in 6 literal  days only a few thousand years ago.

On the other end of the false-dichotomy spectrum, notorious atheists like Richard Dawkins, and I expect Bill Nye (an agnostic), like to point out that natural evolutionary processes in biology account for what used to be argued as one of the strongest arguments for a supernatural spontaneous de novo creation of the various kinds of living organisms.  I agree.  But, so what?!?  The conclusion that there couldn’t then be Creation is a metaphysical (beyond the data) one — it doesn’t come from the data.  It doesn’t mean it wasn’t part of a Plan.

Fully expounding on the alternatives here is beyond the scope of this post, but that doesn’t mean evolution couldn’t be the Purposeful tool of a Creator who invented the natural order and seeded or  front-loaded the Creation with all the right stuff to inevitably produce life, high intelligence and an advanced civilization.  See, “What if Evolution Meant High Intelligence and an Advanced Civilization Were INEVITABLE???” Beauty, complexity and functionality in nature still begs the question of (but doesn’t prove) an ultimate Plan and  Purpose — biological evolution couldn’t have happened without all-the-right-stuff. Amazon link with citation to Who Made God?: And Answers to Over 100 Other Tough Questions of Faith

While I don’t agree with everything in their book,  Ravi Zacharias and Norman Geisler in Who Made God?: And Answers to Over 100 Other Tough Questions of Faith are all over the Big Bang as an argument FOR belief in God!  When did that endorsement happen?  Times they are a-chang’n.  Even YECs accept microevolution and adaptation now.  Do you know where were you when you first believed in micro-evolution?  I do.

After a long conversation with my wife and I a few months ago, my pastor (large conservative evangelical church) heartily commended me  for my rational approach to my faith.  A few days later, I got the same encouragement from an atheist on Twitter — that I had “gone from rash to rational”.  You know, times-they-are-a-chang’n when an evolutionary creationist (EC) gets the same encouragement in the same week from both his conservative evangelical pastor and an atheist for being rational.

Just because the truth isn’t creation in the literal 6  day spontaneous “poof” sense of Ken Ham, doesn’t rule out Creation — it doesn’t mean evolution wasn’t God’s invented, initiated, ordained and sustained Creative tool.  It doesn’t mean God’s essential design isn’t simply further back, e.g., front-loaded in the in the initial exquisitely finely-tuned initial conditions and natural physical laws at the beginning of our universe only to inevitably produce Desired results through evolutionary processes over a long period of time — time that is incidental to God (“…with the Lord…a thousand years [or million or billion years] as one day” (2 Peter 3;8)).

Ken Ham excludes such possibilities.  That exclusion is utter nonsense.  So is it nonsense to think and speak of the laws of nature and the physical world as if they were in opposition to God instead of as the invention and Creation of God with all their possibilities and inevitabilities.  “God is either in all of nature or none of it” (John Polkinghorne).  The “natural” world and “nature’s laws” are God’s Creation.

U.S. scientists almost unanimously accept evolution, but 40% of them believe God is behind it somehow.

With Nye an agnostic, it’s not likely he’ll even entertain the idea of a Creator if Creation means it has to have been done in 6 days  a few thousand years ago.

So, the question debated in Ham vs. Nye is a lose-lose proposition for getting at the truth – both in terms of the scientific data and what metaphysical (our beliefs beyond the data) conclusions we might draw from it. False dichotomies destroy the credibility of the pursuit (scientifically, theologically, philosophically) of what really is true.

But, that’s not the only problem.

2. Ham Doesn’t Speak for Evangelicals, in General

Link to "Billy Graham; Personal Thoughts of a Public Man on AmazonI’m an evangelical Christian and Ken Ham doesn’t speak for me.  Neither does Ken Ham speak for Billy Graham.

Why listen to Ken Ham instead of Billy Graham?  Billy Graham has preached the gospel to billions and was, perhaps, the greatest evangelist for the gospel, ever.  Here’s what Billy Graham has to say about evolution:

I don’t think that there’s any conflict at all between science today and the scriptures. I think that we have misinterpreted the Scriptures many times and we’ve tried to make the Scriptures say things they weren’t meant to say, I think that we have made a mistake by thinking the Bible is a scientific book. The Bible is not a book of science. The Bible is a book of Redemption, and of course I accept the Creation story. I believe that God did create the universe. I believe that God created man, and whether it came by an evolutionary process and at a certain point He took this person or being and made him a living soul or not, does not change the fact that God did create man. …Either way is by faith and whichever way God did it makes no difference as to what man is and man’s relationship to God.”

Billy Graham: Personal Thoughts of a Public Man, 1997. p. 72-74 [emphasis added].  See a good discussion of this quote here.

In all fairness, like theologian (and scientist) Denis O. Lamoureux, I was a young-earth creationist (YEC), initially, and then a scientific creationist (OEC & ID Theory) for over 34 years.  I once (late ’70s) put great hope in Ken Ham’s views and wished I could work for Gish and Morris’s Institute for Creation Research.  So, I get it. I do.  But, now I think Ham’s hyper-literalistic and scientific concordist interpretation of the Bible does great harm to the credibility of our witness for the gospel.

So do a great many other evangelicals.  Ken Ham also doesn’t speak for a large and growing number of evangelicals who are extremely concerned about anti-science sentiments in the church and what that sentiment is doing to our young people (more on that below),  especially when young-earth creationists (YEC) dogmatically hold to an unreasonable literal 6 day creation just a few thousand years ago.  That simply isn’t credible anymore.  As the Barna Group recently found, the #3 reason young people are leaving the church is because Churches come across as antagonistic to science – 25% embrace the perception that “Christianity is anti-science”.

Amazon link to Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy Amazon link with citation to Four Views on the Historical AdamEvidence that young-earth creationism is not where many evangelicals are really at can be seen in the topics of recent talks at the 65th Annual Evangelical Theological Society meeting last year and the recent release of Four Views on the Historical Adam (Counterpoints: Bible and Theology) and Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy (Counterpoints: Bible and Theology), both by the conservative Christian book publisher, Zondervan Publications, Inc.

According to historian, Ron Numbers, young earth creationism and a hyper-literal interpretation of scripture didn’t even begin to take off in America until 1962 with the Henry Morris et al. flood book.  Before that, Christian fundamentalists, at least according to written record, were essentially all old-earth creationists (OEC).  Christian fundamentalists had come to terms with an old earth and the overwhelming evidence against a global flood.  See, “Why is Creationism so popular in the USA?”, talk given by historian Prof. Ronald Numbers.  According to Prof.  Numbers, even fundamentalist William Jennings Bryan in the infamous Scopes Monkey Trial was clearly OEC.  For instance, see this portion of the Q&A of the text of the day 7 of the trial where Bryan gives the answers:

“…Q–You think those were not literal days?

A–I do not think they were twenty-four-hour days…

…Q–Do you think those were literal days?

A–My impression is they were periods, …”

Amazon link with citation to, "The Language of God...", by Francis CollinsIt was 4 years ago that I was first challenged with what the impact would be to the credibility of our witness for the gospel if we have been wrong about evolution.  What if we are wrong?  What impact would that have on the credibility if our faith?  Reading Francis Collin’s book, “The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief” in one weekend, I finally FULLY engaged  (i.e., other than just to argue against it) with the now overwhelming convincing new molecular evidence for evolution.  All the evidence for evolution, evidence that I had encountered over the years and conveniently put on a back shelf in the corner of my mind every time every time it started to become convincing and I moved on to another scientific creationist argument, suddenly came front and center.  In that one weekend I had to admit to myself, as a matter of intellectual integrity and for the sake of the credibility of our witness, that I had been wrong about evolution for over 34 years.  Hundreds of hours of study later, I adopted an evolutionary creation (EC) view.

But, that being said, I also understand why so many Christians are YECs because, while its true that, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” (T. Dobzhansky – a Christian, BTW), NOTHING in life makes sense except in light of the gospel!!!  There are plenty of atheists who disagree with us but the power of the gospel to radically transform lives is undeniable to evangelicals. After being a small group leader for over 25 years in my evangelical church, it is undeniable to me.  The reality of God working in my own life and that of my family of 7 is also something I cannot deny.  The gospel makes so much sense to me and those who live by it that it really isn’t all that hard to believe like Ken Ham believes — God can do anything.  And Ham’s view is a quick fix for some issues that otherwise might require a lot of work and thought.  And who has time for that?

Ken Ham and young-earth creationism ASSUMES (you know what you get when you assume) every one of the 66 books in the Bible is supposed to be read in a straight-forward manner and interpreted with scientific concordism in a one-size-fits-all literal hermeneutic just like the New Testament eye-witness gospel accounts.  But, is that the way all of the Bible is supposed to be read?  Or could that be a grave hermeneutical error?

3.  Ken Ham Doesn’t Speak for God or the Bible

This may sound harsh but the harsh reality is that, frankly, Ken Ham is not academically qualified to debate or lead on this this topic — he has no earned degree in theology. 

In principle, if there really is a personal God (as I’m rather absolutely convinced that there is) and God really did say it and meant it literally in a scientific concordist way, then we’d have to believe it that way.  But, just what God was saying in the Bible, especially Genesis, and how to properly interpret that is where many Christians would sharply disagree with Ken Ham. Ham argues that it is unfaithfulness and unbelief NOT to believe the first chapters of Genesis as literally true — God can do anything.  Yes, I expect God can, but, this isn’t about what God can do, but what God did-do.  It is about accurate interpretation.  It is about being reasonable and rational in light of the evidence.

Bottom line, regardless of the sense you hold scripture to be inerrant, our interpretation is NOT inerrant! According to the two book model, the book of God’s works and the book of God’s Word, these books cannot disagree.  If they do appear to disagree then our understanding or interpretation of one or the other, or both, is in error.  Given that our interpretation is not inerrant; our interpretation is the place to start when the scientific evidence overwhelmingly contradicts our understanding of scripture.  But, Ken Ham ASSUMES his interpretation is inerrant.

Beware the tragic misconception that science is atheistic.  Not so.  Science simply investigates data about the material world and natural laws and is bound by those limits.  Science, per se, as a discipline, makes no conjectures of causes outside the material or natural world and the natural laws that it can investigate.  By the nature of what it is as a discipline science cannot propose God or look to the supernatural for answers.  That isn’t it’s job!  That’s not to say that faith can’t be completely consistent with modern science.  It certainly can.  I believe mine is.  But science ceases to be science if it goes beyond the data and natural explanations that it can investigate.

Combine that easy-to-make misconception with the prevalence of outspoken media atheists who try to use science (partly in reaction to anti-science sentiment) to make and promote metaphysical conclusions that God doesn’t exist or point out that God hasn’t been revealed by science (which, by its very nature, it cannot do) and it is easy to see why people tend have the impression that science is atheistic and why people of faith often react negatively against it.  Regrettably, science is a sufferer from this warfare model.

Note that the Barna Group’s finding that 25% embrace the perception that “Christianity is anti-science” and that this is the #3 reason young people are leaving the church flies in the face of Ken Ham’s position in his new “Six Days…” book, i.e., that young people are leaving the church because we have not held to a literal interpretation of Genesis.

Link to Ken Ham's 6 Days bookThe real cause of decline is trying to make people hold to a 6 day creation a few thousand years ago as well as as deny the now overwhelming molecular evidence for evolution.  In so doing, they are asked to check their brain in at the door when they enter the church.  That isn’t what it means to be a fool for Christ.  It is especially tragic when that default one-size-fits-all literalistic and scientific concordist interpretation of all 66 books in the Bible is a actually a grave hermeneutical error (see, for example, Billy Graham above and the free-to-view online Lamoureux Science & Religion course). Religious Self-perception pie chart described at

Today, I expect there are now billions, literally BILLIONS, who won’t even listen to the gospel largely because they see Christians as soooo out-of-touch-with-reality over the evidence for evolution – evidence that they now know to be overwhelmingly convincing! There are now 3 “convinced” atheists (910 million) for every evangelical (287 million) in the world.  If you include self-described “non-religious” (1.6 billion) that ratio goes to 9:1 (see http://bit.ly/1cU4mPx and  http://bit.ly/13Tjz0M ).

4. Ken Ham Knows Enough Science to Be Dangerous

Maybe Ken Ham is qualified to comment on the science aspect of the debate?  Well, no, not according to his own AIG site.  Ken Ham’s only earned degrees are a bachelor’s degree in Applied Science and a diploma of education.  I expect that is only enough science to be dangerous when talking at these levels.

On a topic of such importance where expertise is of the essence, why do we listen to Ken Ham on science?  For that matter, why look to Stephen Meyer (Discovery Institute), who argues against biological evolution to mass audiences from an ID Theory perspective, but doesn’t even have a bachelors degree in a biological science?  It’s true.  But, that is another story.  For a better perspective on how intelligent design (NOT intelligent design theory) is a pointer to God consider, CAN AN EVOLUTIONIST STAND-IN-AWE OF GOD’S DESIGN IN NATURE?.

Yet, is there any wonder why the world sees a huge credibility gap in our witness for our otherwise rational Christian faith?

Amazon link with citation to, "Human Evolution...", by Graeme FinlayNow, if you really want to understand the new molecular evidence for evolution from a Christian, the definitive book on that definitive evidence is in a new Cambridge University Press book by Greame Finlay, PhD, entitled, “Human Evolution: Genes, Genealogies and Phylogenies“, recommended for those with some background in molecular biology, which might be High School biology, these days.  See my review on Amazon.

5.  No Amount of Evidence is Going to Convince Ken Ham

NO evidence is going to convince Ken Ham of any other position because, as a young-earth creationist (YEC), he’s married to the formula:

Any weak argument + God’s Word (literally interpreted with scientific concordism) = an irrefutable argument!!!

NO amount of evidence is going to persuade Ken Ham from his position because he presupposes that when the Bible says the world was created in 6 days, that it was a literal 6 days and scientifically & historically concordant, i.e., that, in addition to inerrant messages of faith, Ken Ham ASSUMES part of God’s revelation in the Bible include true facts about material origins thousands of years before modern scientific instruments — facts that should be born-up by modern scientific investigation, i.e., assuming scientists interpreted the data correctly.   Ken’s is the more extreme form of widely-held interpretation called scientific concordism.

Like most evangelicals, I held to some form of scientific concordism (also including old-earth creationism (OEC) and/or ID-theory) for 34 years because I didn’t know there was any other theologically acceptable interpretation until 4 years ago.  We need to ask ourselves, is scientific concordism really a feature of the Bible?

I’ve since learned that noted NON-concordists include, in addition to Billy Graham, J.I. Packer (author of Knowing God, etc.), John Stott (author of The Cross of Christ, etc.), N.T. Wright, Denis O. Lamoureux (whose hermeneutics I heartily endorse), and others.  See endnote [10] in Introduction to the Interpretation of Genesis 1.

6.  Our Witness for the Truth of the Gospel Will Lack Credibility

Will Bill Nye be able to hear the gospel?  Or will anyone else, for that matter, after hearing this widely publicized debate?  How can anyone hear the gospel after hearing those who evangelize it argue for a 6 day de novo creation only a few thousand years ago?

That is so utterly absurd in this day and age.  It doesn’t just strain credibility, it crushes it.

In 2009, Bill Nye was boo’d for saying the moon reflects the sun.  Some folks were offended by him saying that the moon’s light is just a reflection of the sun.  That’s because they interpreted Genesis 1 literally and in a scientific concordist manner when it includes the moon as one of the two great lights God created.

The gospel speaks for itself but the truth and Truth gets a black eye if no one will hear it when our interpretation of scripture doesn’t square with reality.

So, did God lie in Genesis?  No, He simply accommodated to an incidental ancient science in order to most effectively communicate to an ancient people (Bible written for us but not to us) revealed messages of faith and spiritual truths, as taught so well in the Science and Religion courses of Denis O. Lamoureux DDS, PhD, PhD.

Conclusions and Predictions:

Scientists shouldn’t debate Christians unless the Christian has to sense to admit that their potentially fallible interpretation of scripture could be wrong if data is contrary and convincing.  That was the clear lesson of Galileo that Ken Ham clearly hasn’t learned.  Otherwise, such debate will be an exercise in futility because no amount or veracity of evidence will be convincing — the truth loses.

These are my Ham vs. Nye predictions:

  1. Nye will make bacon out of Ham over the evidence.
  2. But, Ham, largely through controlling fear of unfaithfulness to a literalistic interpretation of the Bible (actually a hermeneutical error), will convince his followers to deny that evidence, put hope in his weak arguments, and little will change.
  3. The science vs. faith false-dichotomy-war will be fanned into flame.
  4. Nye will remain agnostic, if he doesn’t become an atheist from the encounter.
  5. And all Christians and the credibility of our witness for the gospel will get a black eye by association.

What do you think?

Keith Furman, PhD

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/keith-c-furman-phd/44/b99/684

14 Comments:

  1. Wow, Keith – this article is excellent and one that I want to shout from the rooftops because it’s a personal one for me, and I’m sure for many others. My adult daughter had a crisis of faith several years ago and is still away from the Lord, and this questioning came as a result of debating Young Earth Creationism with a young man at college who challenged her beliefs. (Her story: http://goo.gl/S4jLH6)

    Especially damaging is the implication that if you do not believe in the literal 6-day creation, you cannot be a Christian because you obviously will not be able to believe the rest of the Bible as credible. Ham and other proponents of literal 6-day creation make this issue a primary doctrinal issue. It is NOT. The Bible does not say, “Believe in the literal 6-Day Creation and you will be saved.”

    • Thanks for the encouraging words about the post, Anne. I got choked-up over your daughter’s story. And she is far from alone.

      My wife and I homeschooled our 5 children and raised them to be good scientific creationists for similar reason only to have to undo their young-earth creationist thinking when I began my paradigm shift 4 years ago. So far, they all (with 3 in college) love God and the gospel and their faith now squares with reality.

      Do you know of a good homeschool physical science curriculum for a 13 year old (my youngest)?

      Denis does have a High School version of his Web Lectures.

      I really think Lamoureux’s course materials (described in INTRIGUING SCIENCE AND RELIGION COURSE OPPORTUNITIES!) could help her just has it made sense of it all for me. He’s taught his full class over 64 times over 17 years. It’s helping a great many people make sense of their Christian faith in a way that is consistent with modern science with sound biblical hermeneutics. His university class size doubled since last year and it now offered online. Secular universities, even in the U.S., are pursuing his course to help young people come to terms with the evidence. But, you may want to start with his condensed Web Lectures.

      You’ll appreciate his story, which is in there. Raised in a good Christian family, his story begins with falling away over the evidence for evolution in college. But, as I mentioned, he was YEC for a time and pursuing graduate degrees in science and theology to argue that position with academic credentials only to see the evidence for evolution first hand and end up with an evolutionary creation view. There aren’t many (I don’t now any) evangelicals who have such credentials (to the PhD level) in both biological science and theology. He was also educated in theology at Regent College in its hey-day with J.I. Packer and Bruce Waltke.

      I couldn’t agree more with you about the damage of the implications — young-earth creationists tend to be very dogmatic and condemning of other Christians who don’t hold their view. That doesn’t make it any easier and drags believers down who are coming into a knowledge of what really is true. And it is divisive.

  2. Great commentary! Your story very closely mirrors mine, btw; I was a YEC until I was early-to-mid 20’s, then held to OEC/ID until ALSO about 4 years ago. I was able to meet Dr. Lamoureux a couple years ago when he had a friendly debate with C. John Collins on the historicity of Adam. I side with Collins on Adam, but I sided with Lamoureux on just about EVERYTHING else. Had a great discussion with Dennis, and though I differ with him on Adam, I went away with a great respect for him as a man and as a Christian. Collins was a great guy too, and I have much respect for him and his work. Collins is certainly NO Ham.

  3. Alan, thanks!, and GREAT point about the Adam issue and agreeing with him over C. John Collins (not to be confused with Francis Collins, for those unfamiliar), as you say, “on just about EVERYTHING else”.

    Folks don’t need to adopt Lamoureux’s position on Adam to have his hermeneutics make sense of EVERYTHING else. But, for those who can’t see it any other way, his hermeneutics don’t require a historical Adam in order to be held theologically valid as shown by his presentation of that view at the 65th Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society a couple months ago and co-authoring with one of the four in the Zondervan Publications, “Four Views on the Historical Adam”, book above.

    So, I think that is a win-win for the faith as long as Christians don’t judge one another on disputable matters while the theologians are hashing these things out at an accelerated pace.

    I could see it both ways (not that it is necessarily a dichotomy ;-o)), personally, in my limited arm-chair theologian way. But, I think Lamoureux does make a great case for the “recycled and reinterpreted” view of ANE events that fits nicely with his view on Adam.

    Either way, contrary to Al Mohler’s assertion in his “Bankrupt Theology of BioLogos” podcast a few years ago, that there is NO fall from “innocence” in an evolutionary paradigm, I think it is blatantly obvious that, either way, man went from animal-like innocence to sin (i.e., sin that can is counted by sin by God because it is transgression of God’s law in the Ro 4:15, 5:13 & ch 7 sense) with the introduction of revelation of Himself that can only come from God and introduction of God’s laws — can’t be a fall (or slide?) without God’s law/command. Maybe God’s role in a “fall” from innocence is the big elephant in the room that few are talking about. Such a fall from innocence could have happened relatively recently as monotheism entered the world, perhaps to a representative head that God chose in a literal way, or otherwise inevitably as God and God’s law was revealed over time. I know that Paul talks about what can be known about God is plain to them (Ro. 1:20). BUT, Paul’s “ever since the creation of the world” there BEGINS with a fully formed man who had the revelation of God and a command from God, so that “plain to them” doesn’t necessarily apply to prior evolutionary history. That is just my 2 cents.

    Glad you were able to meet Denis and I know he is concerned that, just because he was championing that view (other theologians can’t do that or they lose their jobs), that people would react negatively and think that view is what his hermeneutics are all about, i.e., and miss out on the great sense his course makes of EVERYTHING else.

    Lamoureux’s main focus is on exposing the FALSE-dichotomy as FALSE and helping “the kids” who are otherwise falling away from their faith. He’s having tremendous success at that.

  4. Great analysis, Keith, and right on the money, I think. When people want to constrain the vast amount of mystery that is God to a literal reading of the Bible, they do little more than make an idol of the Bible and their own certitude.

    It also reduces the role of the holy Spirit to being just a yes man to their hermeneutical assertions. I can’t get in line with a view of the Spirit as something that exists only to co-sign on my nonsense.

  5. I like DL and now Gerald Rau pointing out that there are multiple possible models of origins, so it really is a false dichotomy to think there are only 2 choices. This is where some on the extremes of Rau’s 6 models both become militant and claim there are only 2 choices, the 2 most extreme ones, this sets up a strawman for each group that they can easily knock down among their adherents. It may make for good theater, but bad discussions, as it is not respectful of those that accept one of the middle 4 models.

    • Also very well put, Don!!

      I do have Rau’s book, Mapping the Origins Debate: Six Models of the Beginning of Everything, but have only perused it looking for certain things, so take my take here with a grain of salt. He seems to do a good job of breaking down the various views — a lot like the tables in Lamoureux’s course (see chart from Slide 4 of Episode 184 in #Lamoureux course http://bit.ly/19paSLN http://pic.twitter.com/X74EF2DADS ), but with some different names and more detail in parts, like “planned evolution” for evolution creation. I like “planned evolution”, maybe not as a replacement, but as an alternative to emphasize the teleology aspect — part of an intentional plan.

      The OECs in my church don’t seem to be put off by it and maybe that was a goal — nothing too controversial, just mapping out the landscape to be a good introduction. Maybe good for schools that want to show the landscape without introducing non-concordist views other than the framework view.

      With Rau being a scientist (biology) but not also a theologian, I thought it weak on a theological aspects with only the framework interpretation (Lamoureux prefers “parallel panels”) for a non-concordist view, unless I’m missing something. He actually attributes that interpretation to Lamoureux but Lamoureux merely includes that interpretation one of the many reasons Genesis 1 is not to be interpreted like we pick up an read a science or history book. I think the framework view/interpretation was more championed by Wenham and Meredith Kline according to Wikipedia, anyway.

      So, that doesn’t help much with Genesis 2-11 and doesn’t suggest cohesive hermeneutical principles for all the questions. There is nothing about “recycling/reinterpreting” ANE beliefs/legends that I found persuasive from Lamoureux full course when listening to it online.

      Also, check out Paul Seely’s assessment of the framework view http://bit.ly/117YWsr. I had to listen to it several times to get it but he has some good criticisms that I think play into Lamoureux’s hands, i.e., Seely concludes that Genesis 1 really is talking about 24h literal days — it just doesn’t matter because God was accommodating to an incidental ancient science (for lack of a better word) and historiography… So, you separate and don’t conflate the ancient science with the inerrant messages of faith/spiritual truths.

      Love to know what you think on those aspects and whether that is an accurate assessment if you have time sometime. And again, I may have missed something in Rau’s book on those things.

      And thanks again, Don!

  6. Headless Unicorn Guy

    NO evidence is going to convince Ken Ham of any other position because, as a young-earth creationist (YEC), he’s married to the formula:

    Any weak argument + God’s Word (literally interpreted with scientific concordism) = an irrefutable argument!!!

    Don’t forget the Grand Unified Conspiracy Theory dynamic also in play:

    In that dynamic, any evidence against The Conspiracy is Disinformation invented and planted by The Conspiracy; lack of evidence for The Conspiracy is proof The Conspiracy has suppressed and silenced it; and anyone who says there is no Conspiracy has revealed themselves as part of The Conspiracy. (Like Fight Club, membership in The Conspiracy requires denying The Conspiracy exists.)

    The Dwarfs are for The Dwarfs, and Won’t Be Taken In.

      • Headless Unicorn Guy

        Also remember that these days, Christians seem especially prone to Grand Unified Conspiracy Theories. (Usually with SATAN pulling all the strings and slipping woopee cushions under Christians’ butts.) Remember the Satanic Panic of the Eighties? (Thank you, Mike Warnke…)

        Website I found many years ago — “Christians and Conspiracy Theories”:
        http://www.acts17-11.com/conspire.html

        And I recommend the book “Conspiracy Theories and Secret Societies for Dummies”. Great read.

  7. I like your false dichotomy approach but it won’t work on creationists. They aren’t people who think about things but rather react emotionally. I doubt most of them aren’t aware of the teachings of Jesus but have opinions molded by people like Ken Ham who are charlatans and make their living bilking well meaning people out of their money in exchange for creating fear in their lives.

    • Brian, thank you for commenting and I’m quite sure you are not alone in thinking that way. However, I may be wrong, but, from my vantage point as a former YEC, I really don’t think Ken Ham is a charlatan. I trust that comes through in my post. But, for reasons that are legion, I expect he is just simply self-deceived, just as I once was.

      I DO understand why you feel that way and the “C” word has crossed my mind more than once in recent years, such as when reading some of his “Six Days” book – it is now hard to image otherwise. But, then I have to remind myself how I clung to that YEC view for several years, initially. I’d like to believe that I was well-intentioned then. I believed I was, and zealous for the gospel.

      I have to wonder if I was in Ken Ham’s shoes — had had the same backing, praise, encouragement-to-be-YEC that Ken Ham has from millions, perhaps, who put great hope in what he says, whether I would have had the motivation to finally FULLY engage with the evidence for evolution other than to argue against it – the motivations not to are legion. But for the grace of God, there go I.

      I also know a number of YECs in my conservative evangelical church, a church I’ve been in along with my family for about 35 years. Almost all of them are the most loving, warm, genuine, as well as Biblically-literate, people you’d ever want to meet. A few have graduate school degrees. I’ve known some of them for that long too and have quite a few YECs or YECs-turned-OECs in my extended family.

      Science/faith issues simply aren’t a big part of the lives of most of them. Most probably won’t even watch the debate tomorrow. And when they do think about it, it is to defend their understanding of scripture that they get from a plain straight forward reading. Cross that and they do get emotional because they feel like it is an attack on God.

      Conversations can get really awkward really quick and, with some, there really is no talking to them. But, I too remember getting emotional about my convictions in that regard and a scientific creationist. I still get emotional, but from a different perspective now – over the credibility of our witness for our otherwise rational faith.

      The legion of hurdles and what made the difference for me is something I plan to post on in coming months. It IS a paradigm shift.

  8. Huh! So, what your saying is your God is pretty small! Let’s take your science to another part of the Bible, the resurrection . When was the last time science demonstrated that life could come from death? I would expect you to use the same science to answer that as you use to determine evolution played a role in Gods design. You would therefor come to the scientific conclusion that resurrection is an impossibility ! Therefor Jesus was simply a nice guy who taught sweet things at a time in history. His followers were so loyal that they made the story up to create a legend. That’s it! Why follow a guy who scientifically did the impossible?

    Also just read an article challenging Biblical accuracy of the use of camels! Wow, people are punching holes in this book left and right! Why do you even bother to profess a faith in such an individual? You have diminished the deity and power of the Creator of all things simply to rationalize something.

    And your quote b Billy Graham as I read it simply said that it was immaterial to him how God created things. To question all of what the Bible says as far as history leaves us with a book. Simply a book of inaccuracies. Why trust a book like that. Hey last have more fun, how about we say Budda is just as real? Sikhs are welcome as well to go to heaven! When Jesus said he was the only way to heaven, he meant it only for the Jews of the day! He knew other cultures would follow other Gods. Wow, you have shown me that the path to heaven is wider than I first thought. I can join in with brothers. D sisters of all faiths as we are one. The Muslims will love tha we finally accept that Jesus was equal to Mohammed. Jesus taught Jews, Mohammed taught Arabs. And the world will be like paradise! Maybe that’s what Jesus wanted, for us to simply all learn to get along. And tha would creat the new heaven and earth he was talking about. I feel enlightened now !

    • Fred, thank you for taking the time to comment and express your concerns. I totally get it — why you feel this way. I felt and thought much the same way for some 34 years when I thought I understood (actually misunderstood) what a theistic evolution or evolutionary creation (EC) view meant. I understand why you’d think that I must not believe in the resurrection and miracles. Not true! I do, absolutely! I’m not sure where some of your other thoughts about Buddha, etc. are coming from and I think you misunderstand. …I do need to get my “About” & “Story” sections up there. Soon!

      Your comments underscore what an extreme paradigm shift it was for me and will be for other evangelicals and why we desperately need to have this conversation. Our faith has to square with reality. It does!

      Can a scientist believe the resurrection? Yes, absolutely! I certainly do! It is the linchpin of our faith and the glorious gospel. See, “Can a Scientist Believe the Resurrection?” http://bit.ly/YPr5Sz , talk by NT Wright on the evolutionary creation Faraday Institute for Science and Religion site. The same goes for other miracles – see, “Can a Scientist Believe in Miracles?”http://bit.ly/YzQ93X , on the same site by Sir Colin Humphreys. See also the “About Us” section http://biologos.org/about of the BioLogos site and elsewhere there on these topics.

      I assure you, once again, I cannot think about the cross for more than a few minutes without being moved to tears over the love of God revealed there – in Jesus’s life, sacrificial death, and resurrection. But, it really took Lamoureux’s course (free to view online) http://www.thegospelandevolution.com/unparalleled-science-religion-course-opportunity/ to enable me to understand how things work theologically. See his Web Lectures http://bit.ly/16YJ3Kr for an intro. Where was this understanding all my life?!?
      About Creation:

      It isn’t about what God CAN do (God can do anything), but what God DID do.

      Why God would choose to create using an automatic process is another deep and mysterious question. If God chose to use an evolutionary paradigm as His creative tool, as a mountain of overwhelmingly convincing evidence now shows, that’s not our call. Perhaps God has a vested interest in covering His tracks – “…blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe”. If God created all living things at once, it would be evident in the fossil record and we’d have to belief – our faith wouldn’t be faith – it would be sight. If our faith was sight, the world would be like a police-state where everyone would have to obey. We may have to content ourselves with mystery but there are many other thoughts I’ve come across in the last 4 years that I find more satisfying than the way I thought before that consistent with both scripture and what we know from science.

      Talk about the power and glory of God! That God could foresee and Create all the glorious living things through an automatic process – what an invention! I can’t think of a greater trick or feat, short of the cross & resurrection. It is a matter of perspective. See, “What if Evolution Meant High Intelligence and an Advanced Civilization Were INEVITABLE???” http://www.thegospelandevolution.com/what-if-evolution-meant-high-intelligence-and-an-advance-civilization-were-inevitable/

      We mustn’t conflate science with atheism – see above post. It isn’t science vs. God’s Creative power. God Created nature! There is sooo much more that can be said. I hope you will stay tuned and we can continue this conversation.

Leave a Reply