Jake Allen's Ockhamist.com

Creationism is annoying if you ask me. So what? We just don't really know EXACTLY how the world was created. Even Genesis doesn't offer a lot of detail.

ug

Wow! Didn't expect anyone to AGREE with me. Especially a conservative. There's not a lot of Christians writing about Christianity and agreeing with HBO. Most people don't watch HBO for pertinent commentary on their faith.

"Annoying". Yeah, I could put it that way.

Madness!

Why do we cares what HBO thinks of us? If evangelicalism equated creationism with the gospel then maybe it would be the achilles heel of creationism, but we don't and so it isn't. I'll wager I can give a presentation of 6-day creationism that most people won't find either stupid or massively ignorant. They probably won't accept some of my premises--but that's another matter. There's a way to do it intelligently. Besides, why couldn't HBO have had the "enlightened evangelical" come in and save the day by going neo-orthodox in their view of the Bible? That would have been easy enough. . .

Oh good. Someone took the bait.

HBO matters because someone (or a combination of someones) in the writing/production machine had an experience like what became Tony's, and believed that the audience would identify with that. It certainly was not Christian-hating, and while the Schaivo-support guy was a bit unrefined, the pastor was well-spoken and intelligent.

The gospel presentation is what really surprised me. HBO had what seemed to me to be a surprisingly accurate stereotype/portrait of evangelicals-- more accurate than the stereotype of the mob, IMHO.

I've never read or heard a 6-day presentation that didn't have massive logical leaps. I've known intelligent people who believe it, to be sure, but if you have a place that answers the major scientific objections in a reasonable manner, please give up the link. Usually, it's just literal genealogies or bust.

Creationists routinely suggest, sometimes overtly, that evolutionists are going to hell. Many Christian speakers use "scientist", "evolutionist", and "atheist" interchangeably.

This thing, which used to be a squabble among Christians, has spilled into the public square. At the least it is our dirty laundry, and we need to clean it up.

Madness!

Jake,

This is Keith from Hillsdale. David pointed me to this post. Insightful stuff, as always.

I'd like to quibble with your use of the term "dirty laundry." That would imply that the creation/evolution debate is an internal squabble that divides the Church. Such as Predestination/Free Will.

Evolution is a different issue entirely. It is an external issue, which has been used by secular modernists and postmodernists to discredit the intellectual sanity of Evangelicals. The mythos of The Scopes Trial is still with us.

Therefore, the fact that HBO hits Evangelicals for their apparent foolishness, should not signal our need to mend our ways. Instead, we should celebrate that the foolishness of the Bible is ridiculed. The Biblical gospel is foolishness to those who are perishing.

HBO should not surprise us.

Thanks for weighing in, Keith.

Longtime readers know that I don't hold to the new Creationist dogmatics, nor to Intelligent Design theorists.

Like Augustine in the 4th century and Strong in the 20th, and many Christians in between, I believe that the earth is older than 6k years, and many of the genealogies found in the bible are incomplete.

Unfortunately, Christians in the early 20th century became dogmatically anti-evolution, and began to press scientists to change their methods from deduction then induction to the reverse. Some scientists pressed back, and the divide remains. That secularists embrace scientific cosmology is obvious. The issue is what amount of science do Christians embrace.

This SHOULD be the internal issue. Yet, as you pointed out, it's an external issue. External enough to enter into the Sopranos, HBO's flagship show.

It's embarrassing to be misrepresented in the media when it can be avoided. Enough evangelicals link salvation to Creationism that it was (I believe) fair for the Sopranos to make the stereotype.

I don't mind Creationists per se. I'm not dogmatic about evolution any more than I'm dogmatic about electrical theory. Darwin to me is categorically the same as Tesla, Volta, or Westinghouse, except that those guys might have been smarter.

What DOES bother me are evangelicals who say I'm not saved or that I've sold-out because they dogmatically believe in the completeness of the genealogies and I don't. If you don't think this is happening, go to the apologetics section of your local Christian bookstore.

HBO made a fair criticism of evangelicals.

Madness!

Look, if some evangelical told you you were going to hell because you believed in evolution or didn't believe in the inerrency of Scripture, then they were wrong do to it and I'm sorry that they did. But I don't think that's very common. In a quick google search I couldn't find a single Baptist or evangelical who linked evolution with salvation. No doubt there are some out there--but if I couldn't find it fast on google in can't be a very significant percentage.

As to genealogies, surely you understand the worry that Evangelicals have about casting them into doubt. That is, unless you think being an inerrantist isn't essential to being an evangelical, or unless you think taking the historical assertions of the Bible as historical assertions isn't essential to being an inerrantist. Methink thou dost protest too much. . .

I do agree that this should be an essentially in-house matter. Debates between Christians over all sorts of things should be an in-house matter. For the most part, this _is_ an in-house matter. The out-of-house matter is ID, mostly because that's a conflict between (basically) Christians and non-Christians (yes, it's a generalization). So of course laundry gets aired there. But, I don't think evangelicals really go on Larry King and talk about how other evangelicals aren't _real_ evangelicals and in fact are going to hell because of their acceptance of Darwinism, do they? This seems more like HBO presenting conservative Christians as sincere but moronic yokels, more to be pitied than hated. I'm not sure it's dirty-laundry-airing. The history of 6-dayers trying to get school curriculum back to 6-day creation is what has created some of this conflict. . .

Also, remember there is a difference between historical sciences and non-historical sciences. I'm much more apt to question the accuracy of historical sciences than non-historical because I recognize that God has acted miraculously in history. We might expect that if God acts miraculously in history then our historical sciences would get all gnarled up at those points. If God acted miraculously in the creation of the universe. . .

I agree with Dave that very few evangelicals link Creationism to Salvation. Many do, and I think rightly so, link Creationism to doctrinal orthodoxy.

This is appropriate because accomodation of Evolution is an excellent, if not foolproof, litmus test for sturdiness of doctrine. If a fellow (or gal) is willing to punt the 6-day Creation Account and 6000 year timeframe under fire from the scientific community, how will he/she stand firm on a virgin birth or resurrection?

I must admit that I am not certain that the existence of the geneologies limits the possible age of the earth to merely 6,000 years. But I don't feel that secular criticism of evangelicals for their "irrational" beliefs should in any way chasten us.

Jake,

I too have been poined to this interesting post. I think you're impression of Creationists is a bit off. First, most of the leading young earth creationists argue their position on much more than geniologies. They look at the six day account in Genesis, and put a lot of focus on the Genesis Flood as a global catastrophic event. They have other arguments about literal Adam, death before the fall, etc.

Furthermore, the science behind many of the leading YEC's is quite interesting stuff if you read it iwth an open mind. (full disclosure: my father in law works full time at ICR). www.icr.org has a lot of great science.

Now, about your main point. I don't question your salvation for buying Darwin, I just think you're very wrong on the scientific merits. Read some Behe, read some Dembski, their arguments are compelling from a science standpoint.

It should not be just an internal debate, in my opinion, and our Christian views shold influence how we view the world and do science. That could look like ICR, or it could look like Behe's biochemistry. Either way, it all calls the neo-Darwinian orthodoxy into question.

I say you are a fool, and a sucker for buying Darwin, but that just means you're like all the oher fools who buy the party line

:)

Cisco

Wow. This is exactly what I'm talking about. I've just been called a heretic and a fool. But at least you're not questioning my salvation!!!

Thanks for weighing in, Cisco. I hope you are well. I saw you guys in the recent alum mag, I think.

You may not be aware, but I went to Southern Seminary for two years and then dropped out. I am very familiar with both Behe and Dembski, and have heard Dembski speak many times as he is a prof at Southern (for now; they have gone more conservative and he is leaving). As someone who did NOT buy the party line at Southern, I became widely familiar with the issues. I read D. Black Box and Darwin on Trial. I agree that naturalism is bunk and that many scientists have a naturalistic worldview, but it does not follow that there is a great conspiracy to suppress God in the entire scientific community except for a few think-tanks funded by evangelicals. Further, Irreducible Complexity is logically self-defeating, as each example can't be proved, but can be disproved. About the catastrophe-flood theory and other apparent-age considerations, it's certainly possible that nature is fooling us, but I don't know a compelling reason to think so.

WOULD OTHER CHRISTIANS PLEASE JUST BE NICE TO ME!

I believe God created and sustains all things. I believe in historical Adam. I don't believe in no plant or animal death before the fall, and yes I have read Rom. 5:12 and 1Cor. 15:21, and yes I believe the Bible is inerrant. The Bible is without error, but we disagree on where it tells history (really just a few words).

I'd rather not rehash all these things here. The point that the Sopranos lached onto is the intolerance. Rather than accept me as a fellow believer who believes and spreads the gospel, I'm a "fool", a "sucker", and unorthodox. My foundation in the virgin birth or the ressurection is questioned.

I'm a baptist. I'm disagree with David on baptism, and probably many of you reading this. Why is that not the litmus test? If I can't get the new covenant right, might I also get the virgin birth and the ressurection wrong? Where's the name-calling for the baptists?

I also believe in salvation by faith alone. I guess I'm a sucker.

Why does CREATIONISM make other Christians hate me, when more important things do not?

Really, please tell me.
.madness.

Personally, evolution's not a litmus test. I am concerned about gradual erosion of inerrancy over time--something which has historically happened all over the place. We're all fools if we don't want for it in our own denominations.

Cisco did include the smilie--I would bet his tone is not nearly as critical as you're taking it--though over the internet these things are hard to discern. I do think you've got a bit of a victim complex going. "I'm not a 6-dayer so all those mean conservatives hate me." I don't hate you, and I don't think these other guys do, either. I could worship with you, be in a church with you, eat with you, etc. But it's not reasonable for you to ask us not to fight for what we're convinced is the Biblical truth. Remember, you picked this topic and then you made it personal. Sounds like you've had some nasty run-ins with some Suth'n Baptists down there and are looking to vent.

I think you end up with an interesting story to tell if you go with standard evolution + historical adam. Do you think that we, through scientific means, can discern some sort of evolutionary jump going from apes to men? Or is there a scientifically indiscernable implantation of a soul?

And, just for the record, I'm a believer baptist, much to my wife's chagrin.

I also view you as a brother, Jake. On many issues, I assure you that I would be nice to you. :)

Let me see if I can turn this around. Why aren't you being nice to me, Jake? Above you said that you place Darwin in the same category as Tesla or Volta: Evolution is just as self-evident as Electricity.

While only implied, you have just called me a fool. Indeed, I believe your "side" is responsible for this internecine squabble. You are frustrated that seculars can ridicule your faith with the Scopes Trial card. So you tell my side to be quiet and let Christian evolutionists be the face of the Church to the world.

The pastor on The Sopranos is not an accurate portrayal. The fact that you believe that he rings true, troubles me. Neither Dave, Cisco or I have challenged your salvation. (And it doesn't get much more crazy than us three. Ha!) There are those who believe evolution is fundamental to an
anti-Christian worldview, but that is a distinct claim.

To sum up, why does accomodating evolution draw arrows from the like of me? Because the faithful are being challenged to capitulate by those who hate the Church and the Gospel on this very issue. A parallel case is that of the morality of homosexual relationships. Breaking ranks and falling back at the direct point of an enemy's attack is an act deserving of criticism.

Fair enough, Dave. I've had some run-ins and yes, as always, this blog lets me vent.

But I'm not alone. I recieved this in an email this evening because of this post:

"But everytime this subject comes up I have a heavy heart for an exchange student girl from Japan that M***** and I knew at V******. She was really nice, smart, and expressed that she really wanted to except Christ. But she just could not believe that the earth was made in 6 days because she knew science, and it was made very clear to her that she had to believe that to be saved. So she went back to Japan in this way. But I still pray for her all the time because I know that God is powerful and will do whatever he wants . . ."

That kind of news just stays with me. It just makes me so, so sad.

On the historical Adam: Adam is presented as history and so I take it as such. I don't know how God breathed life into man, or how he formed him from the dust, but such descriptions do not preclude natural processes. Although it's probably not something to hang your hat on yet, mitochondrial DNA studies suggest that all living people had a common mother, aptly called by the scientific community "Eve". The "soul" is too loaded a word to address quickly, but Genesis uses the same word with animals and angels. I'm not suggesting much beyond we won't get any resolution out of that question. My view allows for some mystery.

And Dave, I'm glad you see the light. We had a long arguement on baptism in SAGA, so many years ago.

Keith-
I chose Tesla for a reason. He was wrong on so many things! He even claimed to have a unified field theory! We use both AC and DC because Tesla and Edison were both right, sort of. Likewise, the scientific community has taken the parts of Darwin's work that has stood repeated testing and explains new evidence correctly, and junked the rest. We'll have more efficient uses and better explainations of electricity in the future, and we'll have better explainations and more efficient uses of biology in the future. I'm not dogmatic about either. Believe me or not, I really was trying to be tolerant in using Telsa.

To your question: electricity is NOT very self-evident. I chose the analogy because it is difficult, and unusable until the modern era. I really don't mind ID or Creationists adding to the scientific debate.

I don't mind that you believe in a young earth. I don't because it's not essential to the gospel. I know some Creationists try to say that all old earth theories are just naturalism, and therefore try to force Creationism to be part of the gospel. They're wrong. Naturalism is definitely bad, but the mechanism God used to create the world is less important than most of the rest of our faith.

This is not similar to homosexuality. First, Paul is repeatedly explicit about the damnable dangers of homosexuality, both to individuals and to societies. Second, homosexuality interferes with the gospel in a way evolution does not. Further, I'm not asking anyone to accomodate their view, as much as for not using it as a litmus test for doctirne or (I know you guys haven't done it, but it does happen) salvation.

I don't understand why this is the hill so many Christians have chosen to die on. Sure, it's easy for an atheist to be an evolutionist. It's also fairly easy to be a Buddhist. I don't see evolution or an old earth view threatening to the church or the gospel.

I appreciate your comments.

Madness?

Isn’t it the height of arrogance to equate one’s own interpretation of the Bible (six twenty-four hour days for creation, when the original word from Genesis is translated for “day,” means literally “a period of time”) with the inerrancy of the scripture? Does this issue allow some Christians to feel “Holier than Thou” which turns off non-Christians and reinforces the stereotype of “those hypocrites”? How does this attitude help save people? When in history has a major conflict between the “Church” and “science” ever come down on the side of the Church? What is wrong with saying that our God is powerful enough to have made the universe in six twenty-four hour days, but if He did the scientific evidence he created, and left for us to discover, points to a much older universe than six thousand years? Is it reasonable to think that there is a world-wide conspiracy among non-Christian scientists to this one issue against the Bible? Does anyone seriously believe that non-Christian scientists even think about Christianity? What did Jesus mean when he said that we come to him through faith like that of a child?

ake,

I am being nice. :) There is a much higher threshold for Cisco to call into question one's salvation.

I would like to echo Dave's comment, it seems to me that you are over-stating how creation/ID people are some sort of rabid dog without a brain for science.

I too do not believe that creationism is part of the gospel, especially not a position on the age of the earth (not the same as Creationism). This does NOT mean that I don't care about the issue, nor that I will avoid from calling good Christian brothers on the table fro being wrong (wrong in my opinion obviously).

You don't mind that I'm creationist, but you mind that I think you're wrong? I don't buy that. If you really believe in some form of evolution and naturalism for science, I hope you care enough to convince me and like-minded Christian non-naturalists that we're wrong.

About calling you a "fool" and a "sucker" I do apologize if you took offense. I thought the smile at the end :) made it clear the comment was to be taken with a grain of blog comment salt.

To be fair, you had written quite a few huge generalizations which I think only invite this sort of hasty-generalization discussion. If you want to have a real discussion about irreducible complexity, radio-carbon dating, fine-tuning, exadaptation, etc, then we can do that. However this blog post seems to be more about generalizations.

Now, you seem to be most upset that YEC people, or ID people care about this issue. I think for purposes of this sociological blog post, we should start distinguishing between 6 dayers (YEC) and ID people.

Before I get into the science, let me be clear. You wrote: "Rather than accept me as a fellow believer who believes and spreads the gospel, I'm a "fool", a "sucker", and unorthodox. My foundation in the virgin birth or the resurrection is questioned."

I accept you as a believer who spreads the gospel, and who is orthodox. I don't question your foundation . . . But, I do think you are dead wrong about the science. I don't see an inconsistency here. Many of my best Christian friends have a different view on origins than I do. I've argued for hours with John Bracht (now an editor wit www.iscid.org's journal) about Hugh Ross's theology about Genesis. He's still a good friend.

Now, onto the science.

Jake, I'm mostly very confused by your sporadic comments. Perhaps this forum isn't intended to get into details. You say IC is "logically self-defeating" because it cannot be proved, and can only be disproved. Well, falsification is a bad criterion anyway. Regardless, what I don't get is what you do with Dembski's DBB examples of IC systems. There are certainly very powerful examples of things the neo-Darwinists truly cannot explain. They have invented even more ad hoc speculative ideas (none of which are really provable, or very testable, BTW). Do you believe Behe is wrong and that the blood-clotting cascade evolved? You would be in good company with Kenneth Miller & Co., but I think you would be mistaken.

You mention that you don't buy naturalism, but science is not a giant conspiracy. I don't think most IC people think that all science is a conspiracy. See Discovery's Dissent from Darwin project. The real problem is that most scientists don't ever use, or rely on Evolution. That aside, there are a lot of very motivated people. Look at Eugenie Scott, Barbara Forrest, Robert Pennock, Richard Dawkins. These people are motivated, and very, very secular. 90% of the NAS are known to be atheists. That's not a complete conspiracy, but it is a very hostile environment.

Furthermore, if you reject naturalism, how would you do science? I think the design inference, and strong push to get rid of methodological naturalism is a good thing. ID is empirical, testable, and a valid scientific paradigm that Christians can and should use.

You hedge that Darwin and Electricity are similar, since it was only recently that electricity was really proven. Do you believe that the evolution story is really just as "proven" as electricity? That's a bold claim.

I think you get my point. The details in this area get very complicated.

Why does it matter? It matters because Keith is right, many people who are "soft on creation" are soft on other areas of doctrine. Not true for you, but true in a lot of cases. Furthermore, if God created the world, told us some things about history in the Bible, then we should believe them. Maybe this means we'll look foolish to the World. Also, many theological foundations come from Genesis. You are able to apparently sever you rejection of the literal creation story from other important doctrine. For many other people, believing in the secular evolutionary story means thinking other Christians are dumb (you also imply that creationists are dumb 'never seen a 6 day story without huge logical leaps').

This is way too long. One last shot. You say you accept literal Adam b/c that's what the Bible says. That looks disturbingly why many people believe God created the world in six literal days. I know these two theological positions are not identical, but think about it. Furthermore, I think trying to hold a literal Adam in the face of a very old earth and passive God who "uses" evolution makes for a strange, or silly story, or worse.

Again, to be clear, I don't HATE you, I just think you are wrong, origins is important, though not salvific. :)

Cisco

Phoenix-

I agree with you in general. Historical faith/science debates (i.e. Galileo) should give us some humility, although we must recognize that Biblical truth correctly discerned will always be the ultimate truth.

Cisco-
I an content with you being a creationist in the same manner I am content with Dave being a prebyterian. I'd love to convert him to biblical congregationalism, but if he wants to obey his elders it doesn't hurt anyone. We hold the same gospel. Likewise, I'd love to explain my hermenuetic and exegesis of Genesis to you (although not in this forum), but six-day people don't hurt anyone, and we all love Jesus.

However, this debate is starting to hurt people, and there is my generalization. I'm sporatic about the science because there are so many issues involved. There are examples in every scientific discipline that cannot be explained- yet.

There ARE scientists with a naturalism agenda, and you've named some good examples. However, I believe the bible first, and science second. I really think that the bible gives us a summary creation account. It's a true account, but incomplete on the mechanism and details of creation. It's similar to Peter's speech after the pentacost event . . . Luke gives a true account of his speech, but indicates that Peter spoke for much longer than the five minutes worth of words we have recorded. I don't think Acts is untrue or inaccurate because I believe Peter spoke for hours instead of five minutes.

I won't hit all of your points, I don't think.

I think the Creationism movement is getting the the way of its own goals. Christ is lost in the fight.

Madness?

Jake,

As someone who may become increasingly more involved in the public debate over this issue, I'd really like to see you explain your position a bit more.

I take your last post to be giving the Ochamist approval of my creationism (yeah).

You make two claims that I frankly don't understand.
1) "However, this debate is starting to hurt people, and there is my generalization."
2) "I think the Creationism movement is getting the the way of its own goals. Christ is lost in the fight."

I want to understand _who_ you mean to be objecting to here. I'm invovled with the Discovery Institute (www.evolutionnews.org), and may do even more formal work for them in the future. Do you mean to condemn or question anything that Discovery, or Discovery Fellows have done? (Behe, Wells, Dembski, Meyer, Berlinski, Nelson, Beckwith, etc.)

I fail to see how any of these ID movers and shakers are hurting people, or getting in the way of goals. If I'm going to do work for someone in the wrong, I would like to know.

Second, regarding creationism and not intelligent design (which I really do think are distinct, though they are being conflated here). Who or what at the Institute for Creation Research have hurt people are lost Christ? As I indicated, I have a close ties with this young earth mover and shaker. I can think of nothing that ICR does which fits your objections.

My point - I thin your objection basically reduces to, 'the un-educated masses who are extremist and question salvation are bad.' HOwever, I also feel a general tenor of "shouldn't all this science stuff, creationism ID, whatever, just go away so we can preach the gospel."

IF the latter is really your claim, I think you have more work to do. If you merely mean to attack the former, then I think your point is weak. The scientists are upset because Behe & Co. are doing real science, and it challenges their Position OF Authoirty. The public controversy, IMO, comes becuase the scientists are very hostile to being questioned at all.

Dear Jake,
You know better than I that precision is important. I said the "Church" views, not "Biblical truth correctly discerned." No Christian would disagree with your statement. But isn't your statement what this entire debate is all about. As a Christian scientist, (notice the lower cap on scientist), with a graduate degree, I would not even join this debate but for the divisive impact it is having on the Body of Believers. Other than you, no one seems to have a handle on any science. As for those who hold that you are not saved if you do not believe the way they do regarding evolution, take time to look up the definition of a cult. You will not like what you see.

Cisco, I'll offer you the low-hanging fruit: Ken Ham. The people who commonly link creationism to salvation are the pastors who show Ham's video tapes or distribute his books.

Well, to the best of my knowledge, Ken Ham himself places great emphasis on the doctrinal foundation (as he sees it) of Genesis. He then believes that many Christians weaken the foundation of their faith by disbelieving in a literal Gensis. This does mean that Ham believes six day creationism is very important (as s sort of litmus test of other Genesis doctrine). Even so, I do not believe Ken Ham would say that six-day creationism is necesary for salvation.

If pastors who show Ken Ham go further than Ham does, that's a problem for the unnamed pastors who show Ham's material.

I do not intend to vouch for all of Ham's doctrine here, or all his rhetoric, but I do believe that you cannot show that Ham links six day creationism to salvation.

If he does, I'll be disappoined, and agree that he would be wrong.

However, the low-hanging fruit is far from the tree of this discussion. I do believe the other two movers and shakers I mentioned are causing much more of the PR explosion about origins. Discovery and ICR. If AIG were to cease existing, this issue would not go away.

-I'm basically on Jake's side here, and have very little new to add. I would point out that I've personally met a great number of Christians who either directly linked salvation with a literal 6 day creation, or insinuated that it spoke poorly of my character. I can name at least 5 people that linked it directly to salvation. I do not believe that the scenario that HBO portrayed is that unrealistic.

-Ken Ham . . . I only know two pastors that use his work, but they definitely insinuate a connection with salvation. That is, beliving in any sort of evolution is a minimum as bad as sleeping around or similar to their minds, you may still be saved, but you're a major league sinner.

-I suspect that a very high number of evangelicals would be very happy if the there was an accepted early church creed had included a line to the effect that the 6 days in genisis were 24 hour days. That is, they rate belief in evolution as dangerous as say, the six theses of Caelestius.

-Sobering thought: I know a very bright biologist (one that many of you know actually) that stopped attending church altogether due to the continual stream of evangelical students that came to argue about evolution. Since they were blatantly questioning his savaltion on a daily basis, he wrote off other christians entirely. There is definitely the possibility to alienate other christians and possible converts over this issue.

-I honestly think that very very few scientists have an agenda to spread atheism. I know that most of us (minus mr/ms phoenix) have argued about this in person, but I still think that it is possible (and good for science) to be a methodological naturalist in the lab, and believe any number of supernatural beliefs. To put it bluntly, I think there are more christians using evolution as a litmus test for salvation than scientists using science to justify atheism.

Thanks, Bob. You've always got sobering thoughts. I wanted to bring up methodological naturalism (or scientific positivism) but did not have the energy to see it through if needed. It's a minor point on the salvation end of the discussion, but a major point on the science end of the discussion.

Ken Ham does link salvation to creationism; he does in several places, but I can give you as a reference chapter two of his book, The Lie.

Here is a picture from THE LIE:
http://ockhamist.com/pics/evolutionreligion.jpg

As far as Behe, Dembski, et al. they seem like ok guys. ID people usually do not link salvation to ID, which makes sense. They do, however, spout the naturalism conspiracy rhetoric. Beyond that I don't really mind them. I've found parts of Hugh Ross useful. Duane Gish is in the same camp as Ham, from where I sit. I've read contradictory stuff about him linking salvation to creationism, but while denying it's essencial, he implies quite a lot.

I know the least about Discovery. Seems fine. About the ICR it's a little more complicated. People I sort of know and people who might have family who read this blog really like ICR a lot and really think I'm hell-bound. I know I can't judge a group by its adherants per se, but where there's smoke . . .

Ham's got some wild stuff. He's the complete straw man for the Dawkins crowd. HBO pegged a Ham-style pastor.

Madness!

Right on Bob! How many of us have heard the question: Do you believe in creation or do you believe in evolution? ALL Christians believe in creation because we believe in the creator.

Evolution is a theory used by scientists to make predictions, and currently is the the most useful, and the most accurate, and has been so for over 100 years. It is not a religious belief and should not be framed as such. As occurs with any leading theory, it is constantly being tested based on empiric evidence and questioned by reputable scientists. So far it has stood the test of time. Until a more useful theory is developed it will remain the leading theory. This is how objective science works. Even the greatest scientific mind in history, Einstein, was not above using his interpretaion of the nature of God to reject Max Plank's theory of quantum mechanics (a theory that rivals Einstein's relativity in importance) by saying God does not play dice. Even Einstein later conceded that he was wrong.

An argument could be made that for most people science is similar to a religious belief because they don't understand science (like electricity) and take it on faith. This does not justify not acknowledging that some may.

Read your Kuhn! Come on guys. Phoenix, Bob, and even the Ockhamist are ridiculing YEC/IDers for saying that all scientist are part of a Vast Scientific Conspiracy. Not at all, dissenters are merely critiquing an established orthodoxy that is intent in hanging on to power. They are not conspiritorial, per se, but they are prejudiced against anti-naturalistic views.

As to Kenny Ham, I don't have the book in front of me, but I might know what you're talking about. Ham, rightly, believes that if you've got Sin and Death before Adam, you lose Romans 5.

"12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned."

Anything, including evolution, which begins to interfere with Christ's defeat of sin and death may get pretty close to undermining salvation writ large. That is his argument, and it is actually a pretty strong one.

All of that being said, I don't think that most Christian evolutionist have made this connection. They are just being sloppy. But when we look at it square in the face, how can we say that death before Adam undermines the power of Christ's sacrifice to undo the victory of death.

It has been a very long time since I read The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, so please don't hold me accountable to every nuance of Kuhn. However, when I think about ID as a possible new paradigm, there appears to be a level of incommensurablity never before seen before in a normal pradigm shift. To the point where ID cannot proceed through the stages of acceptence, etc. You mention that the established orthodoxy wants to keep their power, but at least in earlier pradigm shifts scientists from the previous paradigm could just adust their experimental design a fuzz, and keep using the same equipment. A lot of Newtonian physicists had long careers after adoping relativity, etc. In the past shifts, there was always some sort of a coherent, easy to understand, and significant experiment that sold the majority of scientists from the old paradigm on the new one. I deny that any such experiment is possible with ID, and I deny that existing scientists could operate under an ID paradigm just by some adjustments to the experimental design.

I have fallen behind on the current ID literature, so please suggest any relevant materials, but I've yet to hear a good plan to limit supernatural causation in ID to a limited set of circumstances. If I, for example, buy into Irreduciable complexity arguments at all, I have no bar to start seeing them everywhere. Without such plan, scientists cannot see ID as even remotely good for science.

I've actually talked to a lot of christian evolutionists about Romans 5:12. The general consensus is that logically both entire plant and human cell death clearly existed before the fall, and more than likely animals were dying as well, therefore "death" is specific to humanity. Most of the people I've talked to about it used an argument similar to the one over at god and science: http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/death.html

Dear Keith,
What is meant by death from sin? Is it a physical death or taken in context a spiritual death? What does “dust to dust” mean? If it is a spiritual death, how does this change your argument, or does it? Did Jesus say that his Kingdom was of this world or the next? Words are an imperfect means of communication (especially when translated multiple times over millennia) and therefore as Jake says “context is everything.”

Please explain how evolution “begins to interfere with Christ’s defeat of sin and death,” and “may get pretty close to undermining salvation writ at large.” Could you not make the same argument that modern medicine undermines the physical healing that comes from God (and Jesus did on a regular basis during his earthly ministry) and therefore “begins to interfere with Christ’s defeat of sin and death?” (As Christian Scientists believe). Who is being sloppy here?

David,
I hate to tell you this, but I was told by a pastor's wife that I was not saved because I believe evolution. (I do not believe IN evolution) This was the first, but unfortunately not the last, time I was told such by a "Christian." It happens more than you would like to believe.

Thanks for engaging my points. This has been a good discussion with very few blows below the belt.

Bob, what I meant by referencing Kuhn was that scientists may be very anti-supernaturalist without being conspiratorial. You are right that there doesn't appear to be any naturalistic experiments which could upset the scientific consensus.

Phoenix, I think that the Romans passage speaks of physical death. Because Christ is risen, we have the firstfruits of his victory over death, physical death.

I do want to make clear that I am not a "Ham-ite." I was merely defending the feasibility of his position.

Keith,

I also appreciate the lack of low blows, and the relatively sincere discussion here.

I happen to think that the passage deals only with the physical death of post-Adam humans, it it deals with physical death. More importantly, I think that there are interpretations of it that do not effect salvation, but are compatible with my personal position on evolution. We can probably agree to disagree about how exactly to intrepret "death", but I would hope we could agree that it is not an issue that should come up as part of evangelism.

To broaden the topic a little, I think that one of the bigger weaknesses of most efforts to evangelize a tendancy to focus, or at least touch on issues that are not completely relevant. To get off the evolution issue for a second, I know christians that put too much of an emphasis on apocalyptic issues, such as the possibility of rapture that haved very, very little to do with salvation. There are probably better examples, but you can see how the sopranos could have had much the same episode, but with Tony asking about how the end times would occur, and disagreeing with an evangelical over the rapture.

I recently argued with a an acquaintance who believes my salvation is in question because I do not see that there are clear signs of the end times (specifically I argued that in modern times we've seen nothing approaching the leathality of the plague). If this particular acquaintance of mine talks to other, non-churched people, you can imagine the potential problems.

Bingo. Bob, that's what I was trying to say when I brought up baptism. Apocalyptic issues are a better example. Christians who otherwise seem theologically identical will divide over the end times. It's also for similar reasons: one group thinks they are taking the Bible more "literally" than the other, and that the other is somehow defective or less devout for not understanding the prophetic verses du jour to be without any metaphor or be fulfilled presently.

Also, Phoenix, I say "context is king," but you got the idea.

On physical death, I think we all believe that Christ overcame physical death (1Cor 15) and that Adam and Eve ate, at the least, plants before the fall. Beyond that, I am not sure but I think we can all agree that Adam and Eve were the first humans, and that they did not die before the fall. Therefore, is it significant to the point of division that one of us thinks flora and fauna had physical death before the fall and one of us does not?

No.

Madness!