Steve Badger & Mike Tenneson
Origins Master
2012
11
Table of Contents (links)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Resolving a dispute
T/B survey data
ID & finely tuned universe
Truth theories
Meaning of evolution
Punctuated equilibria
Evidences for evolution
Catastrophism/uniform?
Discussing productively
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Knowledge, belief, truth
God’s two books
Graph: Five camps
Integrative models
Naturalism/Supernaturalism
Measuring…attitudes/beliefs
Roger Cotton’s insights
22
Settling a Disagreement
33
Resolving a Dispute
We have taught for over 20 years,
and we don’t agree on everything.4 4
Return to TOC
55
Survey Data
66
77
Evolutionary Biologists Critical of
Macroevolutionary Explanations
• Stern, David L. “Perspective: Evolutionary Developmental Biology
and the Problem of Variation,” Evolution 2000, 54, 1079-1091. A
contribution from the University of Cambridge. “One of the oldest
problems in evolutionary biology remains largely
unsolved…Historically, the neo-Darwinian synthesizers stressed the
predominance of micromutations in evolution, whereas others
noted the similarities between some dramatic mutations and
evolutionary transitions to argue for macromutationism.”
• Simons, Andrew M. “The Continuity of Microevolution and
Macroevolution,” Journal of Evolutionary Biology 2002, 15, 688-701.
A contribution from Carleton University.”A persistent debate in
evolutionary biology is one over the continuity of microevolution
and macroevolution — whether macroevolutionary trends are
governed by the principles of microevolution.”
88
Return to TOC
99
Knowledge, belief, & truth
1010
Knowledge is justified belief—that is… A belief you have reason to think is true
All Propositions
Knowledge
1111
Return to TOC
1212
God’s two books
1313
Biblical
Theology
Natural
Science
God
God’s Two Books
1414
Return to TOC
1515
Graph: Five camps
1616
Five Camps
1717
Return to TOC
1818
Can Christians Agree to Disagree?
• August 2010 A/G position paper statement (AG Website):
• “As a result, equally devout Christian believers have formed
very different opinions about the age of the earth, the age of
humankind, and the ways in which God went about the
creative processes. Given the limited information available in
Scripture, it does not seem wise to be overly dogmatic about
any particular creation theory.”
• Ken Ham response (Ken Ham blog, accessed 9/10/2010).:
• “…they have now succumbed to the view—prevalent in the
church today—that is undermining the authority of God’s
Word, and ultimately is significantly contributing to the
collapse of Christianity in our Western world.”
1919
ID & finely tuned universe
2020
Truth Theories
2121
Meaning of evolution
2222
Five integrative models
2323
Natural
Science
Biblical
Theology
Biblical
Theology
Natural
Science
Two Worlds
Complementarism
Natural Biblical
Science Theology
Conflict: Science Wins
Concordism
Natural Biblical
Science Theology
Conflict: Theology Wins
2424
Natural
Science
Biblical
Theology
Complementarism
Two Worlds
Natural Biblical
Science Theology
Conflict: Science Wins
Biblical
Theology
Natural
Science
Concordism
Natural Biblical
Science Theology
Conflict: Theology Wins
2525
Return to TOC
2626
Summary on Origins Beliefs
• Recognize your opinions regarding
gaining reliable knowledge.
• Genuine Christians hold different
positions on Origins.
• Opinions on Biblical interpretation
and the trustworthiness of science
affect conclusions about Origins.
2727
Finely Tuned Universe
and Intelligent Design
2828
A “Just Right” Universe
• Life as we know it could not exist if some
of the “parameters” of our universe were
even a little different!
• Our universe seems to be designed for
life—especially human life.
• The Anthropic Principle.
2929
A “Just Right” Universe
Many fine-tuned parameters
to our galaxy, solar system,
and planet:
• distance of Earth from the
sun
• size, temperature, & type
of sun
• size, axial tilt, rotation
speed, moon, &
composition of earth
• stability of Jupiter and
Saturn
3030
Intelligent Design
• Living things possess complex structures.
• Cannot be explained by naturalistic
theories.
• Must have been specially created.
• Evidence of a designer.
31
3131
Early Proponent: William Paley
• “…intelligent causes are
necessary to explain the
complex, information-rich
structures of biology and…
these causes are empirically
detectable.”
William Paley, Natural Theology; or,
Evidences of the Existence and
Attributes of the Deity, 12th ed.
(London: J. Faulder, 1809), p.1.
3232
Early Antagonist: Darwin
“An innocent and good man stands under a
tree and is killed by a flash of lightning. Do
you believe…that God designedly killed this
man? … If you believe so, do you believe
that when a swallow snaps up a gnat that
God designed that particular swallow should
snap up that particular gnat at that particular
instant?”
Hunter, C.G. (2001). Darwin’s God. Brazos Press, Baker Book
House: Grand Rapids, MI.
33
3333
Early Antagonist: Darwin
“I believe that the man and the gnat are in
the same predicament. If the death of
neither man nor gnat are designed, I see
no good reason to believe that their first
birth or production should be necessarily
designed.”
Hunter, C.G. (2001). Darwin’s God. Brazos Press, Baker Book
House: Grand Rapids, MI.
34
3434
Darwin’s Challenge
“If it could be demonstrated that
any complex organ existed which
could not possibly have been
formed by numerous, successive,
slight modifications, my theory
would absolutely break down.”
Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species p. 154
35
3535
Evidences for ID
• Specified Complexity
• Irreducible Complexity
36
3636
Specified Complexity
• Living things are complex in
ways that undirected random
processes could never
produce.
• William Dembski
– mathematician/philosopher
– Professor of Science and
Theology, Southern Seminary,
Louisville, KY
37
3737
Specified Complexity: DNA
• New complex specified
information cannot be
generated by natural
mechanisms (evolution)
involving chance.
• Natural processes can only
shift around or lose
information, they cannot
produce it.
38
3838
Irreducible Complexity
• Proposed by Michael Behe
(Lehigh U. biochemistry professor).
• Darwin’s Black Box, Christianity
Today’s 1996 “Book of the Year.”
• Irreducibly Complex Systems
– Complex systems are composed of
interacting parts that contribute to
function.
– Removing any one of the parts causes
system to cease functioning.
– No functional intermediates.
39
3939
One Example: Bacterial Flagellum
40/54
4040
Bacteria Swimming
Flagella Movement
Flagellum Self Assembly
4141
ID Scientific Predictions
1. “Natural structures will be found that contain
many parts arranged in intricate patterns that
perform a specific function…”
2. “Forms containing large amounts of novel
information will appear in the fossil record
suddenly and without similar precursors.”
3. “Convergences will occur routinely. That is,
genes and other functional parts will be re-used
in different and unrelated organisms.”
4. “Much ‘junk DNA’ will turn out to perform
valuable functions.”
Luskin 2007, p1
4242
ID and Evolution
• Many ID proponents think the unity and
diversity of life are the result of both
evolution and design.
• All accept microevolution.
• All reject ateleological macroevolution.
43
4343
Dembski: Evolution Is a Given
“Intelligent Design does not so
much challenge whether
evolution occurred but how it
occurred. In particular, it
questions whether purposeless
material processes—as
opposed to intelligence—can
create biological complexity
and diversity.”
44
4444
Objections to ID
• Not science or not good science
– It invokes supernatural factors (AAAS).
– It is poor quality science (Miller).
• Not Biblical (Ham)
– Too watered down.
– Doesn’t explicitly name the designer as the God of
the bible.
– Some ID proponents accept macroevolution.
• God of the Gaps (Collins)
– ID explains only what science cannot.
– This can undermine confidence in the Bible.
45
4545
Criticism: Supernatural
“…Intelligent Design … is in fact religious,
not scientific…”
“…AAAS Board underlined the
inappropriateness of teaching
Intelligent Design in the science classroom
because of its ‘significant conceptual flaws in
formulation, a lack of credible scientific
evidence, and misrepresentation
of scientific facts.’“
46
4646
Criticism: Not Christian
“What good is it if people believe
in intelligence? That’s no different
than atheism in that if it’s not the
God of the Bible, it’s not Jesus
Christ, it’s not salvation.”
(Ken Ham)
47
4747
Criticism: God of the Gaps
“…But I'm not an advocate of
intelligent design, either…I
think intelligent design sets up
a ‘God of the gaps’…
scenario…”
(Francis Collins in PBS interview with
Tucker Carlson, 4/8/2005)
48
4848
Bottom Line
• Theists tend to overlook the theory’s
weaknesses.
• Atheists tend to overlook the theory’s
strengths.
• Creationists are split…some favor it while
others oppose it.
49
4949
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Ecklund EH, Scheitle CP. 2007. Religion among academic scientists: distinctions, disciplines, and demographics. Social Problems 54(2):289-307.
Total participants: 1,646
No religious affiliation: 52%
Do not believe in God: 31%
Do not know if there is a God: 31%
Have not attended religious services during preceding year: 56%
“No doubts about God’s existence”: 9.7%
Kosmin BA, Keysar A. 2009. American religious identification survey [ARIS 2008] [summary report]. [Hartford (CT)]: Trinity College. p. 1-26.
Total participants: 54,461
Americans with no religious affiliation: 15%
Ages 18-29 with no religious affiliation: 22%
Identified themselves as Christians: 76%
Believe in a personal God: 70%
Claim to be atheists/agnostic: 12%
Claim to be deists: 12%
Stark R. 2008. What Americans really believe: new findings from the Baylor surveys of religion. Baylor University Press.
Institute for Studies of Religion at Baylor University: Gallup Organization
Percentages related to those who answered affirmatively for the possibility of superstitious elements including dreams foretelling future, existence
of Atlantis, places being haunted, and possibility of communicating with the dead.
Those with religious affiliation: 8%
Those with no religious affiliation: 31%
5050
Presupposition Continuum: Naturalism & Supernaturalism*
0%
Reality
does not
include matter &
energy (thus only supernatural explanations are
acceptable since naturalistic
science cannot fully understand or explain any
phenomenon).
Reality includes more than
matter & energy
(thus, only science
integrated with religious
faith can hope to fully
understand or explain any
phenomenon).
Reality includes only matter &
energy (thus, only naturalistic
science can fully understand
or explain any phenomenon,
and supernatural explanations are
irrelevant).
Percent Naturalism
Percent Supernaturalism
100%
100%
0%
The figure above attempts to illustrate a person’s presuppositions about reality. These are
represented along a continuum from absolute supernaturalism on the left to absolute
naturalism on the right. Precisely where theists should be on each axis is debatable, but
since they believe both the Special Revelation and the General Revelation describe reality,
we should be in the middle somewhere.
* Adapted from Boehlke et.al., (2006) Zygon 41:2, 415-425.
5151
Return to TOC
5252
Publications
5353
5454
5555
5656
Return to TOC
5757
Self-Reported Positions
5858
A/G College Students
Responses to Enrichment Article Spring 2010
CCCU Survey results from online article (September 2010)
Self-Reported Position
May 2010 (n=21)
Young Earth Creationists
9 (43%)
Old Earth Creationists
6 (29%)
Evolutionary Creationists
5 (24%)
Undecided and Blank, Other
1 (5%)
Self-Reported Position
2004 A/G (n=224)*
2008 Pentecostals (n=70)
2009 A/G (n=145)*
Young Earth Creationists
34.8%
24.3%
23.4%
Old Earth Creationists
30.8%
38.6%
41.4%
Evolutionary Creationists (TE)
12.1%
25.7%
19.3%
Undecided and Blank
21.4%
10.0%
15.8%
Atheistic Evolutionists
0.8%
1.4%
0%
Self-Reported Position
N=20
Young Earth Creationists
6 (30%)
Old Earth Creationists
8 (40%)
Evolutionary Creationists
0 (0%)
Undecided and Blank, Other
6 (30%)
Self-Reported Position
Self-Reported Position
Percent
Young Earth Creationists
25%
Old Earth Creationists or Reluctant to Commit
48%
Evolutionary Creationists
27%
2004* (n=763)
2009* (n=185)
Young Earth Creationists
51.1%
42.7%
Old Earth Creationists
17.6%
23.2%
Evolutionary Creationists
8.5%
15.7%
Undecided and Blank
22.5%
18.3%
Atheistic/Deistic Evolutionists
0.2%
0%
Position
n
A/G Leader
1
Pastor
17
Physician
1
SS Teacher
2
5959
6060
Mike Tenneson, PhD
Steve Badger, PhD
Evangel University
Attitudes
and Beliefs about Origins
American Scientific Affiliation
Baylor University
August 1, 2009
6161
Origins Camps
6262
GCA is ancient
science, not
historical
narrative
GCA is part
historical
narrative with
poetic elements
GCA is
historical
narrative &
scientifically
accurate
AE
View of creation account in Genesis
GCA is ancient
myth
DE
GAP THEORY
EC
OEC
YEC
low confidence
high confidence
Reliability of the scientific method
6363
63/49
The Online Origins Surveys
6464
Purposes
• Investigate the Origins views of Pentecostal
faculty, staff, and students.
• Evaluate and improve instruction in science
and theology classes.
6565
Desired Characteristics
• Valid
• Reliable
• Convenient
• Anonymous
6666
Three Surveys
• 2004
• 2008
• 2009
6767
2004: Five Mental Constructs
Factor
1
Students (n=763)
Faculty (n=224)
Evolutionary Creation
Old Earth Creation
• Scree plots and eigenvalues indicated five factors.
• Varimax orthogonal rotation resulted in highest
factor loadings.
• Factor loadings >0.40 are moderate to high.
6868
2004: Five Mental Constructs
Factor
Students (n=763)
Faculty (n=224)
1
Evolutionary Creation
Old Earth Creation
2
Old Earth Creation
Evolutionary Creation
• Scree plots and eigenvalues indicated five factors.
• Varimax orthogonal rotation resulted in highest
factor loadings.
• Factor loadings >0.40 are moderate to high.
6969
2004: Five Mental Constructs
Factor
Students (n=763)
Faculty (n=224)
1
Evolutionary Creation
Old Earth Creation
2
Old Earth Creation
Evolutionary Creation
3
Young Earth Creation
Science Over Theology
• Scree plots and eigenvalues indicated five factors.
• Varimax orthogonal rotation resulted in highest
factor loadings.
• Factor loadings >0.40 are moderate to high.
7070
2004: Five Mental Constructs
Factor
Students (n=763)
Faculty (n=224)
1
Evolutionary Creation
Old Earth Creation
2
Old Earth Creation
Evolutionary Creation
3
Young Earth Creation
Science Over Theology
4
Historic/Scientific
Accuracy of Genesis
Young Earth Creation
• Scree plots and eigenvalues indicated five factors.
• Varimax orthogonal rotation resulted in highest
factor loadings.
• Factor loadings >0.40 are moderate to high.
7171
2004: Five Mental Constructs
Factor
Students (n=763)
Faculty (n=224)
1
Evolutionary Creation
Old Earth Creation
2
Old Earth Creation
Evolutionary Creation
3
Young Earth Creation
Science Over Theology
4
Historic/Scientific
Accuracy of Genesis
Young Earth Creation
5
Fiat Creation
Anti-Deism
• Scree plots and eigenvalues indicated five factors.
• Varimax orthogonal rotation resulted in highest
factor loadings.
• Factor loadings >0.40 are moderate to high.
7272
2008 Survey
• n=70 Pentecostal educators.
• Most believe:
– The universe is billions of years old.
– All life did not have a common ancestor.
– One theistic position has more support than the
others.
– Arguments for intelligent design (ID) are convincing.
• They are divided on:
– Whether new life has arisen since creation.
– Macroevolution should be taught as the unifying
concept of biology.
7373
2008: Pentecostal Faculty
Self-Reported Position
(n=70)
Young Earth Creationists
24.3%
Old Earth Creationists
38.6%
Evolutionary Creationists
25.7%
Undecided and Blank
10.0%
Atheistic Evolutionists
1.4%
7474
2009: Mental Constructs
Factor
Students
(n=185)
1
Old Earth Creation
Faculty
(n=145)
Old Earth Creation
All Respondents
(n=390)
Old Earth Creation
• The four identified factors explained
54.8% of the total variance.
• The mental constructs correspond to
our theoretical expectations.
7575
2009: Mental Constructs
Factor
Students
(n=185)
Faculty
(n=145)
All Respondents
(n=390)
1
Old Earth Creation
Old Earth Creation
Old Earth Creation
2
Evolutionary
Creation
Young Earth
Creation & ID
Evolutionary
Creation
• The four identified factors explained
54.8% of the total variance.
• The mental constructs correspond to
our theoretical expectations.
7676
2009: Mental Constructs
Factor
Students
(n=185)
Faculty
(n=145)
All Respondents
(n=390)
1
Old Earth Creation
Old Earth Creation
Old Earth Creation
2
Evolutionary
Creation
Young Earth
Creation & ID
Evolutionary
Creation
3
Young Earth
Creation & ID
Evolutionary
Creation
Young Earth
Creation
• The four identified factors explained
54.8% of the total variance.
• The mental constructs correspond to
our theoretical expectations.
7777
2009: Mental Constructs
Factor
Students
(n=185)
Faculty
(n=145)
All Respondents
(n=390)
1
Old Earth Creation
Old Earth Creation
Old Earth Creation
2
Evolutionary
Creation
Young Earth
Creation & ID
Evolutionary
Creation
3
Young Earth
Creation & ID
Evolutionary
Creation
Young Earth
Creation
4
Intelligent Design
Gap Theory
Intelligent Design
• The four identified factors explained
54.8% of the total variance.
• The mental constructs correspond to
our theoretical expectations.
7878
Factor 1: Old Earth Creation
Item #
FL
18
33
7
19
0.801 0.796 0.776 0.740
20
0.721
10
2
0.707 0.688
Item #
12
23
25
27
FL
0.618
0.427
0.417
–0.630
13
0.622
7979
Factor 2: Evolutionary Creation
Item #
21
4
16
30
11
FL
0.816
0.803
0.731
0.709
0.572
Item #
24
6
FL
-0.687
-0.749
8080
Factor 3: Young Earth Creation
Item #
15
17
1
32
27
FL
0.757
0.630
0.625
0.613
0.439
Item #
10
12
13
23
FL
-0.433
-0.458
-0.521
-0.603
8181
Factor 4: Intelligent Design
Item #
26
14
9
3
5
FL
0.781
0.697
0.658
0.628
-0.602
8282
2009: Reliability
Mental
Construct
1
2
3
4
Reliability ()
0.922
0.860
0.871
0.721
• Measures precision of the assessment of the affective
characteristic.
• Cronbach’s alpha >0.70 is evidence of reliability.
8383
8484
8585
Return to TOC
8686
Findings
8787
Respondent Demographics
Respondents (n)
Students
Educators
Staff
Administrators
A/G Affiliated
2004
1,032
63%
19%
11%
3%
74%
2009
390
47%
32%
11%
5%
80%
8888
Faculty
Self-Reported
Position
Young Earth
Creationists
Old Earth
Creationists
Evolutionary
Creationists
Undecided and
Blank
Atheistic
Evolutionists
2004 A/G
(n=224)*
34.8%
30.8%
12.1%
21.4%
0.8%
*p≤0.05, comparing 2004 and 2009 samples.
χ2=11.066, df=3 (AE and DE omitted)
8989
89/49
Faculty
Self-Reported
Position
Young Earth
Creationists
Old Earth
Creationists
Evolutionary
Creationists
Undecided and
Blank
Atheistic
Evolutionists
2004 A/G
(n=224)*
2008 Pentecostals
(n=70)
34.8%
24.3%
30.8%
38.6%
12.1%
25.7%
21.4%
10.0%
0.8%
1.4%
*p≤0.05, comparing 2004 and 2009 samples.
χ2=11.066, df=3 (AE and DE omitted)
9090
90/49
Faculty
Self-Reported
Position
Young Earth
Creationists
Old Earth
Creationists
Evolutionary
Creationists
Undecided and
Blank
Atheistic
Evolutionists
2004 A/G
(n=224)*
2008 Pentecostals
(n=70)
2009 A/G
(n=145)*
34.8%
24.3%
23.4%
30.8%
38.6%
41.4%
12.1%
25.7%
19.3%
21.4%
10.0%
15.8%
0.8%
1.4%
0%
*p≤0.05, comparing 2004 and 2009 samples.
χ2=11.066, df=3 (AE and DE omitted)
9191
91/49
Percent
A/G Faculty
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2004
2009
41.4
34.8
30.8
23.4
12.1
YEC
OEC
Camp Affiliation
19.3
EC
9292
CCCU Biology Faculty (2005)
Self-Reported Position
Percent
Young Earth Creationists
25%
Old Earth Creationists or
Reluctant to Commit
48%
Evolutionary Creationists
27%
n=67 CCCU schools
Sutherland, J.C. (July 1, 2005) “Evangelical Biologists and
Evolution.” Science 309:51
9393
A/G Students
Self-Reported Position
2004*
2009*
(n=763) (n=185)
Young Earth Creationists
51.1%
42.7%
Old Earth Creationists
17.6%
23.2%
Evolutionary Creationists
8.5%
15.7%
Undecided and Blank
22.5%
18.3%
Atheistic/Deistic Evolutionists
0.2%
0%
*p≤0.01, χ2=14.933, df=3
9494
Percent
A/G Students
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2004
2009
51.1
42.7
17.6
23.2
8.5
YEC
OEC
Camp Affiliation
15.7
EC
9595
Do you embrace the theory
of Intelligent Design?
Response
Faculty
Students
Yes
84.1%
83.2%
No
4.1%
3.8%
Blank
11.7%
13.0%
9696
Do you embrace the
Gap Theory?
Response
Faculty
Students
Yes
22.8%
15.7%
No
38.6%
54.6%
Blank
38.6%
29.7%
9797
Stated Positions & Knowledge
of Core Concepts, 2009
SA or A
SA or A
4 of 5 Top Items 5 of 5 Top Items
SA or A
4 or 5
of 5 Top Items
YEC
68/138 (49%)
3/138 (2%)
71/138 (51%)
OEC
16/122 (13%)
12/122 (10%)
28/122 (23%)
EC
13/62 (21%)
1/62 (2%)
14/62 (23%)
Camp
9898
Stated Positions & Knowledge
of Core Concepts, 2009
SA or A
SA or A
4 of 5 Top Items 5 of 5 Top Items
SA or A
4 or 5
of 5 Top Items
YEC
68/138 (49%)
3/138 (2%)
71/138 (51%)
OEC
16/122 (13%)
12/122 (10%)
28/122 (23%)
EC
13/62 (21%)
1/62 (2%)
14/62 (23%)
Camp
9999
Usefulness in Teaching
• Evaluate the development of critical thinking
skills
– Willingness to change one’s viewpoint in light of new
evidence.
– Holding positions that are internally consistent.
• Gain insights into students’ preexisting
opinions before a unit of instruction.
100
100
Applications
Used by faculty teaching:
– Biology
– Theology
– Bible or religion
– Psychology
101
101
Pentecostal Contributions
• Pentecostals:
– Have not developed a distinctive theology of
origins.
– Have embraced Evangelical & Fundamentalist
positions.
• Amos Yong:
– Integrates emergence theory with pneumatology.
– Expresses a dynamic role of the Spirit in creation
via evolution.
• Pentecostals should be open to divine
creation via evolution.
Yong, A. 2006. "Ruach, the Primordial Waters, and the Breath of Life: Emergence
Theory and the Creation Narratives in Pneumatological Perspective," in Michael
Welker, ed., The Work of the Spirit: Pneumatology and Pentecostalism (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans), 183-204.
102
102
Conclusions
• The Online Origins surveys are valid and
reliable.
• Pentecostal students and educators today
have diverse views on Origins.
• Ancient creation views are gaining
prominence among Pentecostals in higher
education.
• Responses to survey items are often
inconsistent with self identified camp
affiliation.
103
103
Acknowledgements
• Dr. Amos Yong, Regent University
• Dr. Robert Cook, The Alliance for AG Higher Education
• Dr. Marilyn Abplanalp, The Alliance for AG Higher Education
• Dr. Robert Spence, President, EU
• Dr. Glenn Bernet, VP Academic Affairs, EU
• Dr. Mike McCorcle, Chair, Department of Science & Technology,
EU
104
104
Return to TOC
105
105
Questions? Comments?
106
106
Usefulness in Teaching
• Evaluate consistency between stated camp
affiliation and bases for holding these
views.
• Evaluate the effectiveness of various
instructional approaches.
107
107
Recommendations to Teachers
• Explain the effects of the following on
beliefs about Origins:
– epistemology
– presuppositions
– theories of the natural sciences
– worldviews
• Teach that a position on Origins should
be based on an honest attempt to
integrate the biblical creation accounts
and the findings of science.
108
108
Recommendations to Teachers
• Let the advocates for each Origins camp
speak to that view’s strengths, and let the
detractors summarize the weaknesses.
• Teach that intelligent, informed, genuine
Christians embrace different positions on
Origins.
109
109
Recommendations to Teachers
• Show people the evidences and arguments
and insist that they think and arrive at their
own conclusions.
• The areas of agreement among YEC, OEC,
and EC are greater and more important
than the areas of disagreement.
• Christians should stop fighting and dividing
over Origins and work together to address
other important issues.
110
110
Propositions, Beliefs, & Truths
Among the Three Theist
Positions on Origins
111
111
All propositions regarding Origins
Beliefs
Beliefs
OEC
YEC
Shared
Beliefs
Beliefs
EC
112
112
All propositions regarding Origins
Beliefs
Beliefs
OEC
YEC
Beliefs
EC
Truth
113
113
All propositions regarding Origins
Beliefs
Beliefs
OEC
YEC
Truth
Beliefs
EC
114
114
All propositions regarding Origins
Beliefs
Beliefs
OEC
YEC
Truth
Beliefs
EC
115
115
All propositions regarding Origins
Beliefs
Beliefs
OEC
YEC
Truth
Beliefs
EC
116
116
Return to TOC
117
117
Uniformitarianism
and
Catastrophism
118/26
118
118
Two Major Presuppositions
• Catastrophism
• Georges Cuvier (1760-1832)
• Earth was affected by sudden, short-lived, violent events
(e.g. Noah’s Flood).
• Dominant view of scientists and theologians until late
1800s.
• Age of Creation = young (thousands of years).
• Uniformitarianism
• James Hutton (1726-1797), Charles Lyell (1797-1875),
Charles Darwin (1809-1882).
• Natural processes occur in the same way and rates today
as they did in the past.
• Dominant view of contemporary scientists and non YEC
theologians.
• Age of Creation = very old (billions of years).
119
119
Predictive
science
7
Catastrophism: science can deal
only with the here and now
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Uniformitarianism suggests all
three produce valid results
Historical
science
0
1
2
3
4
5
120
120
120
Theories of Truth
“Major Theories of Truth”
From Geisler and Feinberg’s
Introduction to Philosophy:
A Christian Perspective
121/26
121
121
Ways to Knowledge
Things Known
Authority (testimony)
The past, transmitted culture
The Senses
Things perceived via the senses
Reason
Logical truths, deductions,
inferences
Self-revelation
Persons
Phenomenology
General or universal ideas
Intuition
Friendship, love, hunches
Apprenticeship
Skills, connoisseurship
122/26
122
122
The Correspondence Theory of Truth
• Something is considered true if the
proposition corresponds to the
elements and a similar structure.
• The truth of a statement is
determined only by how it relates to
the world, and whether it accurately
describes (i.e., corresponds with)
that world.
123/26
123
123
The Correspondence Theory of Truth
• Presupposes an objective world
• Antagonistic to theories that reject
objectivity (such as skepticism or
relativism).
• Truth means correspondence with
the facts or reality.
124/26
124
124
The Coherence Theory of Truth
• A statement is true if and only if it
coheres (is consistent) with all of the
other statements of that system.
• Law of non-contradiction…
• Coherence is a necessary condition of
truth, but not a sufficient condition.
125/26
125
125
Verification Principle
• For a statement to be meaningful (true)
it must be either 1) purely definitional
or else 2) verifiable by one or of more
of the five senses.
• All other statements (theological,
ethical, etc) are nonsense
or meaningless
• A.J. Ayer (1910-1970)
• Self-refuting
126/26
126
126
Falsification Principle
• Anthony Flew & Karl Popper
• Flew used it to challenge belief in God
• But Flew changed his mind (2004)
Karl Popper
Anthony127/26
Flew
127
127
Falsification Principle
• Any statement or proposition is
meaningless unless it is subject to
falsification (at least in principle)
• Self-refuting
128/26
128
128
Presuppositions
• Textbooks rarely identify presuppositions held
by scientists.
• These presuppositions largely control which
conclusions a person reaches.
129/26
129
129
Presuppositions: A Short List
• The physical realm exists independently of
the mind.
• The physical world is orderly and knowable.
• Our senses and mind yield reliable
information.
• Inductive reasoning is reliable.
• The laws of logic (e.g., law of
non-contradiction) are true.
130/26
130
130
Presuppositions: A Short List
• Human observations of physical phenomena are
trustworthy (the correspondence theory).
• Measurements yield accurate and useful
information.
• Physical constants of the universe have not
changed over time (uniformitarianism).
• Our presuppositions largely control
our conclusions.
Moreland, J.P. (1989) Christianity and the Nature
of Science. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 108-133.
131/26
131
131
Presupposition #1:
Creation accepted on faith
By faith we understand that the universe
was formed at God's command, so that
what is seen was not made out of what
was visible.
Hebrews 11:3, NIV
132/26
132
132
Presupposition #2
The creation reveals God
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven
against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who
suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may
be known about God is plain to them, because God has
made it plain to them. For since the creation of the
world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and
divine nature—have been clearly seen, being
understood from what has been made, so that men are
without excuse. Romans 1:18-20, NIV
133/26
133
133
Evidences for Evolution
134
134
Seven Evidences for Macroevolution
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Age of the earth.
Evidences for natural selection.
Biogeography.
Fossil record.
Comparative anatomy.
Comparative embryology.
Molecular biology.
135
135
1. Age of the Earth
• Ancient earth is prerequisite for macroevolution.
• Radiometric dating and relative dating (geologic
strata formation) rarely differ by more than 5%.
• Vast majority of scientists (theists, non-theists)
conclude the physical realm is billions of years old.
136
136
2. Natural Selection: Galapagos Finches
137
137
3. Biogeography
138
138
3. Biogeography
139
139
4. Fossil Record
140
140
5. Comparative Anatomy
141
141
Comparative Anatomy
Basilosaurus,
extinct whale
with hind limbs
Hind limb rudimentation in a
Spotted Dolphin embryo
Wright
whale
skeleton
with pelvic
bones
142
142
Haeckel’s Ruse
6. Comparative Embryology
143
143
6. Comparative Embryology
144
144
7. Molecular Biology: DNA
• High DNA similarities between living
organisms and their apparent close relatives
based on fossil studies.
• 98.8% similarity between 77,000 DNA base
pairs examined for humans and chimpanzees.
145
145
Summary
1. Evolution as change over time is not
antithetical to creationism.
2. Evolution as common descent is
controversial.
3. Natural selection and microevolution are
universally accepted.
4. Macroevolution is not.
5. The foundational issue is materialism and
theism not evolution and creation.
146
146
What Evolution is NOT
• Darwinism
– Evolution is primarily due to natural selection.
– Not goal driven.
• Evolutionism
– Evolution is the universal mode of change.
– For life and non-life.
– Goal driven.
• Materialism/Naturalism
– Only the physical realm exists.
147
147
What Evolution Is NOT
• Scientism
– Methods of science are the only path to certain
knowledge.
• Atheism
– There is no supreme being.
• Origin of Life
– Evolution assumes life exists; it doesn’t speculate
on how it came to exist.
148
148
Evolution and Natural Selection
Not the same thing…
Natural selection is the mechanism
that causes evolution.
149
149
What Evolution Is…
1. Genetic change with time.
2. Common descent (the famous “tree
of life”).
150
150
Microevolution
• Small changes.
• No new “kinds.”
• Accepted by all creationists
and non-creationists.
151
151
Macroevolution
• Large changes.
• Results in new “kinds.”
• Rejected by some because it:
– depends on an ancient physical realm.
– depends on uniformitarianism.
– depends on species plasticity.
152
152
Punctuated Equilibria
153
153
Gradual?
Punctuated Equilibria vs. Gradual Evolution
10
Genetic Change
(Trait Change)
9
8
7
6
Gradual
Evolution
5
Punctuated
Equilibria
4
3
2
1
0
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
Time
154
154
Seven Evidences for Macroevolution
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Age of the earth.
Evidences for natural selection.
Biogeography.
Fossil record.
Comparative anatomy.
Comparative embryology.
Molecular biology.
155
155
1. Age of the Earth
• Ancient earth is prerequisite for macroevolution.
• Radiometric dating and relative dating (geologic
strata formation) rarely differ by more than 5%.
• Vast majority of scientists (theists, non-theists)
conclude the physical realm is billions of years old.
156
156
2. Natural Selection: Galapagos Finches
157
157
3. Biogeography
158
158
3. Biogeography
159
159
4. Fossil Record
160
160
5. Comparative Anatomy
161
161
Comparative Anatomy
Basilosaurus,
extinct whale
with hind limbs
Hind limb rudimentation in a
Spotted Dolphin embryo
Wright
whale
skeleton
with pelvic
bones
162
162
Haeckel’s Ruse
6. Comparative Embryology
163
163
6. Comparative Embryology
164
164
7. Molecular Biology: DNA
• High DNA similarities between living
organisms and their apparent close relatives
based on fossil studies.
• 98.8% similarity between 77,000 DNA base
pairs examined for humans and chimpanzees.
165
165
Summary
1. Evolution as change over time is not
antithetical to creationism.
2. Evolution as common descent is
controversial.
3. Natural selection and microevolution are
universally accepted.
4. Macroevolution is hotly debated.
5. The foundational issues are materialism
and theism not evolution and creation.
166
166
Application to Apologetics:
Suggestions for Productive Dialogue
Steve Badger
Mike Tenneson
Evangel University
November 2007
167
167
167
Productive Dialogue
• Identify your goals.
• What is your purpose in
debating theories of Origins?
• Are you seeking “truth” or
trying to win an argument?
• Have you honestly considered
the arguments of your friend?
• Or have you considered only
one side of the debate?
168
168
168
Productive Dialogue
• Understand yourself before you try to
understand your friend.
• Do you embrace your position
because
this is the only way to understand the
evidence—or for other reasons?
169
169
169
Productive Dialogue
• Don’t misrepresent your friend’s position
by bringing up discarded arguments that
are no longer used (fossilized human and
dinosaur footprints in the same stratum).
• Don’t make your position the
litmus test for scientific or
religious orthodoxy.
• Don’t assume you know your
friend’s motive for embracing
his/her position.
170
170
170
Productive Dialogue
• Become familiar with the biblical
and scientific evidences for the
age of the universe/earth.
• Carefully evaluate the patterns of
integrating faith and science.
• Don’t relegate science & religion
to two domains (NOMA).
171
171
171
Productive Dialogue
• Don’t think only Christians use faith
and only scientists use reason.
• Both use both.
• Natural science can neither prove nor
disprove God’s existence.
172
172
172
Productive Dialogue
• Don’t confuse the biological theory of
macroevolution with the philosophy of
evolutionism, which claims everything
(not just life) is getting better (i.e.,
progressing).
• Don’t assume that a person who
accepts one of these necessarily
embraces the other.
173
173
173
Productive Dialogue
• Each of you must train yourself to
listen.
• People often are trying to think of and
remember what they will say next
rather than really listening to
the other person.
• Discipline yourself to listen to
your friend the same way you
want him/her to listen to you.
174
174
174
Productive Dialogue
• Define your terms. Be sure that you
both mean the same thing by a
particular word.
• Is one of you using a popular
definition and the other a
technical one?
• How are people using these
terms in the literature today
(as opposed to 50 years ago)?
175
175
175
Productive Dialogue
• Be willing to admit and reveal your
presuppositions, both to yourself and to
your friend. Then use this knowledge in
your discussion.
• If you are a Christian who considers the
Bible to be God’s Word and
your friend doubts God’s
existence and has no respect
for the Bible, you are not likely
to convince that person by
citing Genesis.
176
176
176
Productive Dialogue
• Help your friend identify his/her bias.
• If you embrace a creation theory and your
friend thinks the scientific method is the
only way to gain reliable knowledge about
Origins, you will need to discover scientific
challenges
to the theory of macroevolution.
• If you’re scientifically illiterate,
your friend will probably not
listen to your arguments for long.
177
177
177
Productive Dialogue
• Discuss the merits of evidence and
conclusions instead of attacking
the other person.
• Even if you think people in other
camps are less informed, less
intelligent, or less spiritual than
you, don’t talk or act like it.
178
178
178
Productive Dialogue
• Educate yourself.
• Read articles and books by those
who hold opinions different from
yours.
• Try to discover their
presuppositions and any agenda
they may have. (Everyone who
writes has a bias
and an agenda.)
179
179
179
Productive Dialogue
• If in the end neither of you can
convince the other of his/her
position, admit that you have this
difference of opinion and learn to
accept each other—especially if
you’re both Christians.
180
180
180
Productive Dialogue
• Many genuine Christians who agree that
the Bible is God’s Holy Word disagree on
the genre of the creation account in
Genesis.
• Your position should not be the
litmus test for orthodoxy.
• Many orthodox Christians
believe there is considerable
evidence that the universe is
billions of years old.
181
181
181
Productive Dialogue
• Accepting an old Earth theory of
Origins does not mean that you accept
a theory of macroevolution.
• The theory of macroevolution is not
“known” in the same way that
the speed of light is “known.”
• Some respected scientists
today admit to problems with
macroevolutionary theory.
182
182
182
Productive Dialogue
• The SM is not the only way to gain
reliable knowledge and cannot find the
answer to every question or the solution
to every problem.
• The fact that most scientists accept
macroevolution may say more
about our methods of education
than it says about the merits of
the theory or the amount of supporting
evidence.
183
183
183
Productive Dialogue
• Teachers need to remember that good
teachers try to let the evidences speak
for themselves.
• This is true in the Academy.
• Is it true in the church?
184
184
184
Productive Dialogue
• We think that teachers should present
evidences for the various theories of
Origins along with the unavoidable
uncertainty of the scientific method, the
unavoidable effect of worldview on
data interpretation, and the
alternative theist explanations.
• Show students the options and
give them freedom to think and
arrive at their own conclusions.
185
185
185
Productive Dialogue
Is arguing Origins really the best
way to lead a non-believer to faith
in Christ?
186
186
186
Return to TOC
187
187
The Question of
The Days in
Genesis 1
By Roger Cotton, Th.D.
188
188
1. Do the statements of evening
and morning and numbering the
days in Genesis 1 intend to say
the earth as we know it was
created this way in six 24-hour
days, as we know them? A
separate but often related
question is did this take place
less than 10,000 years ago?
189
189
2. Most Bible believers have taken
it this way, until recently. (see
#11 below)
3. The Bible clearly makes the
pattern of a week important
for marking time and for rest.
190
190
4.
The Hebrew word for day is
sometimes used for long periods of
time, but here it does not seem to be.
Some commentators have suggested
the wording could be understood as
stylized and not literal (Hamilton,
NICOT, 121). Certainly, Genesis 2:4
summarizes the creation week as a
“day,” and in 2:2 God left the 7th day
open.
191
191
5. There is evidence from the
Hebrew that the days may be
understood as a list and not a
chronological sequence (Waltke,
Comm., Zondervan, 76; Sterchi,
JETS 39).
6. There is strong literary evidence
for purposeful arrangement of
the days (whether the sequence
is literal or not, Wenham, Comm.,
Word, 6-7).
192
192
7.
Generalities about genre must not
be used to avoid dealing with
specific issues? (“It is poetry so it
should not be taken literally.”)
However, genre is an important
factor in interpretation.
8.
Chapter 2 describes more events
than seem possible for a 24-hour
sixth day.
193
193
9.
If the account is consistently
taken literally, then the first
three days did not have the sun
to mark daylight and night, and
plants grew without sunlight.
194
194
10. Can/should believers reconcile the
creation account with the millions of
years the scientists see portrayed in
the universe and the earth? If the
universe is not as old as it appears,
is this a deception built in to the
universe by God?
195
195
11. Our purpose must be to be sure
we have understood what God
intended to say, not to harmonize
the Scriptures to the theories of
science. However, some of the
latter theories may cause us to
take another, more careful, look
at our understandings of the
Bible.
196
196
12. Did God reveal the truths of
creation to Moses more as a
video or a symbolic animation?
13. The question must be the intent
behind the text of the
Scriptures, not the ability of God.
14. Be sure to give priority to the clear,
primary message of any Bible
passage, and not to our issues.
197
197
Return to TOC
198
198
What Genesis
Clearly Says
199
199
1. There is a God who has created
all things and has, in this book,
revealed the truth about the
origins of everything (a real
beginning), especially people,
suffering and death, and his
plan to restore from death,
which would work through the
people he would establish as
the nation of Israel.
200
200
2. God, whose name is YHWH, is
totally sovereign, yet personal,
good, and purposeful.
3. God is personally involved
with his creation, forming it,
communicating with it,
blessing it, and intervening
to deal with it.
201
201
4. The creation process was in
distinct steps called days, which
show symmetry and purposeful
progression. In the creation week
God modeled ceasing from one’s
work every seventh day.
202
202
5. God considered the creation
good, which includes functioning
as intended, until the
disobedience of the humans.
6. The focus of God’s concern
and of the book of Genesis is
on humans and God’s personal
relationship with them.
203
203
7. All humans and only humans are
created in the image of God; this
means they have a special capacity
for communion and communication in
language with God and the reflective
understanding of, and ability to make
choices in regard to, responsibility
and accountability that he gives
them. Thus, God put them in charge
over the rest of the earth.
204
204
8. People were created male and
female and intended to have
a one-flesh relationship
between one man and one
woman, for life.
205
205
9. Brokenness in relationships,
suffering, and death for all
humans, came into the world
through people’s selfish,
distrusting, violation of the
relationship with God. The
ground was cursed because of
this fall of humans.
206
206
10. All humans have been born
outside of the Garden of Eden—
the original place where Adam
and Eve lived in perfect harmony
with God, in ideal conditions.
11. All people are graciously
offered the blessing of
restored fellowship with God
through faith in the promised
descendent of Abraham.
207
207
12. Selfish, cruel behavior
keeps increasing as the
population increases and
God intervenes to restrain
it and punish it, as well as
save a faithful remnant.
13. God holds accountable all who
take a human life.
208
208
14. The focus of the rest of
Genesis (and the OT and
the Bible) is on God’s plan
accomplished through one
who would be a ruler of His
nation, Israel.
209
209
Return to TOC
210
210
Further
Observations
211
211
1. The precise dating of the events
is not a concern in the Bible.
2. The creation days are described in
an unusual way.
3. There are descriptions of events
for the creation days, which do not
seem to fit a 24-hour period.
4. There is a question of the
introduction of the lights in the
sky after light was created and
plants were produced.
212
212
5. Darkness and the sea which ancient
peoples associated with chaos are
clearly under complete control and
are even used for God’s purposes.
Also the heavenly bodies are
polemically demythologized as
simply giving light and marking
time for the earth.
213
213
6. Most of the categories used in
Genesis are different from
modern, western, scientific
ones, and the descriptions are
phenomenological.
214
214
7. There is an emphasis on divinely
established separations in
nature and kinds of life.
8. Genesis is not told like ancient
myths and, though it has poetic
elements, it is not pure poetry.
215
215
9. Genesis 2 elaborates on day six
from chapter 1 and uses a
different style to tell the story
of the creation of Adam and Eve,
their ideal state, and the
prohibition they were given.
10. The Kingdom or Rule of God is an
important theme.
216
216
Return to TOC
217
217
My View of the Issue
of the Genesis
Days of Creation
in Relation to Science
By Roger Cotton, Th.D.
218
218
1.
I believe the Genesis 1 and 2
creation account can legitimately be interpreted in at least
these three ways, concluding
that the days are: 1) 24 hours;
2) represent long ages of time;
or 3) have nothing to do with
time but are literary constructs.
219
219
2. If we agree that Genesis is God’s
Word, then, whatever we conclude
about the days, we should be able
to agree on the primary message
of Genesis 1 and 2 and that that is
what is important.
220
220
3. I believe God did not intend the
Bible to teach details about how
He created the world in relation
to modern, scientific, questions,
observations, and conclusions.
221
221
4. I believe that generally, the Bible and
science are dealing with different
subjects. Sometimes they both look at
the same thing from different
perspectives. I believe when they
occasionally deal with the same
subject good science and good Bible
interpretation do not conflict. I
propose when issues appear to conflict,
they are inadequately understood from
one or both perspectives.
222
222
5. I believe we have to consider all new
facts and reevaluate our former
theories or interpretations,
admitting that we are capable of
making mistakes but that that does
not nullify the certainty of God’s
truths, nor does that have to be
seen as bending one to fit the other.
223
223
6. I believe Christians should never
fear truth, facts, or true science.
Problems come from partial truth,
inadequate information, incomplete
study, faulty reasoning, or
theories claimed as facts, besides
lies and distortions.
224
224
7. I believe that Christians who
hold to a different understanding of Genesis 1-3 are
not necessarily rejecting the
Word of God.
225
225
Return to TOC
226
226