What should a good Christian "origins" science program cover?

I originally published the following post in my personal blog. I am now (in 2016) republishing here those articles from my blog that have to do with the focused subject matter of biblical questions and faith. --JAH

Considering the discussion over the last few days, I thought I would attempt a first-draft summary statement of what I think a really quality Christian science program would cover when it comes to origins.

My view: A top-quality science curriculum should discuss the various views and talk not only about the arguments in favor of each view, but about their problems . . . i.e., why advocates of each view are in favor of the view, and why opponents find fault with them. –It can be exceptionally difficult to present all of these positions fairly, but, I believe, fairness is necessary.

Okay. So what views should one cover?

Some typical viewpoints I have seen discussed include these:

• non-theistic evolution
   
• theistic evolution
   
• young-earth creationism
   
• old-earth creationism.

Some may also throw in a discussion of Intelligent Design.

I think such a list is good . . . as far as it goes.

The problem I find--and I am thankful to Ken Ham and friends at Answers in Genesis for opening my eyes to this matter 14 years ago . . . --The problem I find is how such a list tends to cut out any discussion of the biblical evidence. And it is the Bible that leads in AiG's/Ken Ham's young-earth creationist argument. And, in my mind--again in agreement with Ham and AiG--any curriculum that claims to be Christian needs a discussion of biblical evidence to play a central role . . . at least to the extent that the Bible has evidence to bring to the table.

As a result, I believe a discussion of origins requires quite a bit more nuance than the four (or, possibly, five) options mentioned above.

And so I would like to propose the following divisions for discussion/presentation in a thorough Christian "origins" program:

• Theism or naturalism? --Clearly, Christians will opt for theism. But the topic of biblical theism v. naturalism and, perhaps, pantheism, needs to be discussed. I imagine this is the place you might want to address the Intelligent Design school of argumentation, though I don't see its success as essential to a theistic worldview, nor its failure as a death knell for such a worldview.

Assuming a biblical theistic viewpoint, then, I believe we need to discuss the following matters:

• Biblical concordism or non-concordism? Some questions to address: How should we read Genesis 1-3 (let alone 4-11)?
  
  • Should we look for concord [agreement/peace] between what we read in Genesis 1 and 2 (at least) and how a scientist might describe the beginnings of the cosmos, the biosphere and humankind? [I.e.: Even though the language of the Bible, obviously, isn't going to be scientifically precise in any modern sense of the term, do the biblical descriptions of the beginning of the world and humankind generally match what modern scientists would say? Or, put another way: If we look at the “testimony” of science, should we expect to find that it corroborates what we read in Genesis 1 and 2? (If our answer is YES, then we are concordists. Examples of concordist positions: young-earth creationism; progressive creationism (Hugh Ross); gap theory; day-age theory; etc.)]
  —OR—
  
  • Should we abandon any attempt to find concord between science and Genesis 1 and 2 and, instead, look solely to science for clues with respect to how and when God created? [I.e.: Even though, based on numerous Scriptural references, we should recognize that God created the cosmos and everything in it, should we read the text of Genesis 1 and 2 as something other than literal history and, therefore, not expect or even attempt to show some kind of correlation to what scientists would have to say and what we read in Genesis 1 and 2? –If our answer to this question is YES, then we are non-concordists. Examples of non-concordist positions: John Walton’s “cosmic temple” interpretation; Johnny Miller and John Soden’s “apologetic against Egyptian mythology” interpretation; etc.)]
   
• Old-earth (i.e., billions of years) or young-earth (i.e., 6,000 to possibly 10,000 or maybe even 12,000 years old)? Questions to ask: What are we to believe about how old the earth is? What evidence do we find for how old the earth is?
  
  NOTE: For presuppositionalist young-earthers like Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis, the Bible itself provides much or virtually all of the evidence . . . all of the evidence that really matters. As Tas Walker of AiG expressed it to me back in 1999: “Since we believe the Bible is the Word of God, we start with the Bible. . . . The Bible clearly teaches that the world is young. . . . So, now that we have established that the world is young (~6000 years), we are ready to come to the [scientific] evidence.”
  
  I mention this because, once more, if someone is going to argue against a presuppositionalist young-earth viewpoint, he or she must present strong evidence for why he or she believes the Bible does not teach a young (approximately 6,000-year-old) earth history . . . and/or, even more difficult, convince these evangelicals why the standard formulas of evangelical beliefs about the Bible should be abandoned or reformulated.
  

  (When I say what I just said, I am referring to such documents as The Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics which, in Part 2 of Article XIII, declares, “We deny that generic categories which negate historicity may rightly by imposed on Biblical narratives which present themselves as factual.” That certainly sounds good, but how do we know whether a biblical narrative is presenting itself as factual? --The Statement doesn't address the problem. Though The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy does state,
  

  ARTICLE XXII
  We affirm that Genesis 1-11 is factual, as is the rest of the book.
  We deny that the teachings of Genesis 1-11 are mythical and that scientific hypotheses about earth history or the origin of humanity may be invoked to overthrow what Scripture teaches about creation.

  And the grounds for affirming the full factuality of Genesis 1-11? . . . --I'm sorry. I'm not trying to get into the details of what a solid Christian course in "origins" will cover. But I am trying to tease out at least a few of the ugly/niggly details that such a course--and/or the advocates of certain positions--will need to address.
  
  My point here was "simply" to show that those who want to argue against a young-earth presuppositionalist view are going to have to address issues related to well-accepted evangelical statements of faith and not only the scientific evidence.)

• What mechanism did God use to create the earth and all that is within it: Unmediated (“word spoken --[yields]-- thing created”) or Mediated (“word spoken --[creates/establishes]-- PROCESS (some type of evolution?) --[which yields]-- thing created”)? To what kind of evidence can we point for our views?

Once we tease out these four primary questions, we find the following options:

Atheistic	Theistic
Evolution	Mediated Creation (i.e., in the current scientific environment, Evolutionary Creation)
	Unmediated Creation

And then, as best as I can understand, these are the theistic options:

		Relationship of Scripture and Science
		Concordist	Non-Concordist
Age of Earth	Old-Earth	Progressive Creation (à la Hugh Ross) -OR- Mediated (Evolutionary) Creation (includes Day-Age, Gap, and other such theories)	Mediated (Evolutionary) Creation -OR- (at least hypothetically) Unmediated Creation [I am unaware of any unmediated non-concordist creationists]
	Young-Earth	Unmediated Creation (à la Ken Ham)	[Scientific data w/o concordist interpretation generally leads away from Young-Earth view]

If you have any additional suggestions, recommendations, criticisms, or other contributions to make, I would be most grateful for your input!

Genesis 1: How Should We Interpret It? --Part 2

Second in a series on In the Beginning . . . We Misunderstood by Johnny V. Miller and John M. Soden. Click here for the first post.

*****

Miller and Soden begin their book with personal statements of "where they are coming from." Both confess long time commitments to literalistic, young-earth creationist perspectives. As Miller put it, he was raised in fundamentalist churches "where the Bible reigned supreme--that is, our interpretation of the Bible reigned supreme. To question our interpretation of the Bible was equal to doubting God and proving you weren't really a Christian" (p. 18).

He struggled with his faith, but eventually gave his life to Jesus. Shortly after making this commitment, he ran into Henry Morris' and John Whitcomb's The Genesis Flood and he "began to believe that if you take Genesis one literally, then you also must take Genesis 2-5 literally, and putting these chapters together with a tight genealogy demands a young earth" (p. 19).

And so he believed and so he taught for many years. But then . . .

One day he came to the conclusion that "all my life I had been reading Genesis from the perspective of a modern person. I had read it through the lens of a historically sophisticated, scientifically influenced individual. I assumed that Genesis was written to answer the questions of origins that people are asking today" (pp. 20-21). Put another way, he had failed to ask--as most authors who debate the meaning of Genesis 1 fail to ask-- "What did Genesis mean to the original author and original readers?" (p. 21).

And that is the primary question that Miller and Soden both seek to answer: What is Genesis 1 intended to teach us? "Only after we see Genesis 1 . . . from the perspective of both its author (in this case, Moses) and its original readers will we have the right to apply it to modern discussions . . . about the age of the earth and the meaning of the days of creation" (p. 23).

You know--you just know--a shoe is about to drop. They're "setting us up" for something. Right? It's obvious.

But for what?

And whatever they are about to say--and you know (since their title, itself, tells you) the authors are going to offer less than gushing approval of their (obviously former) young-earth perspective: If "the perspective of a modern person" isn't good enough to understand what Genesis 1 is about, then what will the perspective of a person from three thousand years ago or more add to our understanding? And, perhaps more important: How can Miller and Soden possibly suggest they could discover what a person of three thousand years ago believed or thought?

Happily, the authors offer answers to these questions--gently, carefully, tentatively, with humility and grace.

Next post in this series found here.

Genesis 1: How Should We Interpret It? --Part 1

I have been looking forward to writing this post for some time. I can't remember how I discovered this book, but I find its "solution" to the question of how to interpret Genesis 1 extremely gratifying.

The book's title: In the Beginning . . . We Misunderstood . . . by Johnny V. Miller (former president of Colombia Bible College [which became Colombia International University during his tenure as president]) and John M. Soden (professor of Old Testament at Lancaster Bible College and Graduate School).

I have urged my acquaintances at Sonlight to incorporate this book into the Sonlight high school curriculum—and at least some of its basic insights and perspectives into earlier grades’ teaching notes. Hint: Miller and Soden take a strongly non-concordist view of Genesis 1-3.

As I wrote on this blog two years ago:

The concordist interpretations seek to show how modern scientific teaching is well in line with what the Bible teaches about creation and the early history of the world. ("See, if we reinterpret this word as meaning _______, and if we recognize that this word means _______ [etc.], then there is no conflict at all between science and Scripture!")

The non-concordist interpretations, by contrast, say, in essence, "Look, the biblical record in Genesis 1-11 has no relation to modern science or history. Don't even look for evidence that tries to tie the Bible's teachings in Genesis 1-11 to modern science or history. It doesn't. It 'teaches' everything obnoxious to modern science and history that the young-earthers claim . . . and more. Except . . ." . . . 

The non-concordists suggest various ways by which evangelicals ought to understand Genesis 1-11--ways that, they say, honor the Bible as God's inerrant, infallible Word (as per the standard evangelical statements of faith) while also containing statements or teachings that don't even come close to according with the truth of history and science as we know it. 

My view: In the Beginning . . . We Misunderstood is the first book on a generally POPULAR level that seeks to address the topic of Genesis 1-3 in a way that honors the legitimate intentions and concerns of both old- and young-earth creationists while also--and more importantly and fundamentally--seeking truly to honor the text of the Bible as written and the context in and for which it was written.

As  Miller and Soden note, the concordists on both side—the Ken Hams of the world on the young-earth side and the Hugh Rosses of the world on the old-earth side—all read into the text modern scientific “insights” that were never there in the first place . . . and, therefore, they try to make it say what it obviously doesn't say.

Meanwhile, however, all of the non-concordists I have read prior to Miller and Soden tend to note the problems with concordist interpretations [“so,” they conclude “therefore, we must adopt a non-concordist interpretation”], but/and, then, they immediately “get on” with “the science” of the age of the earth . . . and jettison any concern with or attempt, properly, to interpret the biblical text. I.e., they leave us with an open question as to what was the Bible meant to say? How should we interpret it?

Miller and Soden provide what I find to be a rather satisfying answer.

It is an answer that will shake up most fundamentalists’ and/or evangelicals’ perspectives on the Bible. But I believe Miller and Soden have gotten to the deepest roots of my discomfort with both the old- and young-earthers’ claims. . . . I sense they honor the text as written, the Bible as God's inerrant Word. They also leave modern science to do whatever it will do.

And in case you are wondering: they say, YES, the Bible--"even" Genesis 1-3--is authoritative. But/and it is authoritative and speaks authoritatively in a way that doesn't happen to have anything to do with the age of the earth or scientific evidence concerning the age of the earth.

--More in my next post . . . found here.