Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

NPR unwraps Christian Darwinism: Bible matches Huckleberry Finn in authority

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email
NPR

In “Evangelicals Question The Existence Of Adam And Eve” (National Public Radio, August 9, 2011), Barbara Bradley Hagerty translates Christian Darwinism into real world talk:

Asked how likely it is that we all descended from Adam and Eve, Dennis Venema, a biologist at Trinity Western University, replies: “That would be against all the genomic evidence that we’ve assembled over the last 20 years, so not likely at all.”

Venema is a Biologian, that is, a senior fellow at BioLogos Foundation, a group that “tries to reconcile faith and science.” (Which, some say, means “tries to market materialist atheism to gullible Christians, a bit at a time”).

And Venema is part of a growing cadre of Christian scholars who say they want their faith to come into the 21st century. Another one is John Schneider, who taught theology at Calvin College in Michigan until recently. He says it’s time to face facts: There was no historical Adam and Eve, no serpent, no apple, no fall that toppled man from a state of innocence.

They were sure to get round to that, of course. No sin. Always, no sin …

The article assumes something UD News had suspected – that Karl Giberson had to leave Eastern Nazarene because of problems there with his unorthodox views. Never mind, in his own eyes, he’s the new Galileo:

Giberson — who taught physics at Eastern Nazarene College until his views became too uncomfortable in Christian academia — says Protestants who question Adam and Eve are akin to Galileo in the 1600s, who defied Catholic Church doctrine by stating that the earth revolved around the sun and not vice versa.

And when you know that that’s who you are, even if you have never donee anything whatever of importance in science, what other recommendation do you need?

The money quote is from Venema:

But if you read the Bible as poetry and allegory as well as history, you can see God’s hand in nature — and in evolution.

Of course. It then has equal authority with Huckleberry Finn.

Comments
Theistic evolution may be defined as an anesthetic which deadens the patient’s pain while atheism removes his religion. ~ William Jennings Bryanbevets
August 18, 2011
August
08
Aug
18
18
2011
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT
Elizabeth Liddle:
Especially when the actual events are contradictory? (As you’d expect from an oral tradition, of course).
I thought you were going to stop lying.Mung
August 18, 2011
August
08
Aug
18
18
2011
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PDT
Elizabeth, you seem to be approaching this topic with some assumptions that I think we should examine closer. For example, you said here... "And if the biblical narrative is wrong on the numbers (as it must be), why give it “equal consideration”? Especially when it is also wrong on the flood!" Elizabeth, what is the positive evidence that the biblical account of Noah was wrong on the numbers of people surviving the flood? Also, you seem to be very sure the Bible is wrong on the flood. Which flood? A global or a local flood? A local flood is both plausible and well supported in context, but that's not very convenient for someone who is looking for a way out is it? Here you have this to say "And on the timeline, unless you think the bottleneck occurred about 4,000 years ago. If you think it occurred 70,000 years ago, where is the evidence that people were capable of writing down scripture 70,000 ago?" There is no good reason to suggest that I think the bottleneck occured 4000 years ago, since that is not what I believe. And the fact that genetic evidence may show a bottleneck 70,000 years ago has nothing at all to do with when the text was first penned. Please, don't degenerate the discussion to some petty attack on textual inerrancy. Genesis describes some scientific truths unknown to modern science until just recently, like the big bang and cosmic expansion et etc). Since the Bible is true on these scientific facts, wouldn't it be wise to consider other scientific facts as having their best explanation from the biblical narrative instead of holding out for some purely naturalistic science to be more likely, which in some cases (multiverse, macroevolution et etc) requires greater faith if only due to a corresponding lack of positive evidence for such modern day myth-making in the name of science? In any case,since the genetic bottleneck did not take place at the time the text was penned, but thousands of years prior, it would seems to me that attacking the Bible with baseless assertions of it being "wrong on the numbers" and that "it must be wrong" are best explained as your unwillingness to consider the biblical (Noahic) narrative as being true, not because you have made a good case against it, but because perhaps you just don't want it to be true.Bantay
August 18, 2011
August
08
Aug
18
18
2011
07:49 AM
7
07
49
AM
PDT
You're assuming the Gospels are "his written word" in the first place. Maybe they aren't.mike1962
August 18, 2011
August
08
Aug
18
18
2011
05:34 AM
5
05
34
AM
PDT
Bantay:
Rather than deny the biblical narrative out of hand and without good reason, I think that it would be wise to give it equal consideration in this case. The Noahic narrative explains the genetic bottleneck.
Well, no, it doesn't. A bottleneck of several thousand is not a bottleneck of 8. And if the biblical narrative is wrong on the numbers (as it must be), why give it "equal consideration"? Especially when it is also wrong on the flood! And on the timeline, unless you think the bottleneck occurred about 4,000 years ago. If you think it occurred 70,000 years ago, where is the evidence that people were capable of writing down scripture 70,000 ago? And if you think that a bottleneck of 8, 4,000 years ago would leave the same genetic evidence as a bottleneck of several thousand, 70,000 years ago, then there's a heck of a lot of explaining to do before you can claim that "The bottleneck modern science has only recently discovered that fits the biblical (Noahic) narrative perfectly"!Elizabeth Liddle
August 18, 2011
August
08
Aug
18
18
2011
12:33 AM
12
12
33
AM
PDT
As I pointed out, the International Theological Commission does not speak for the teaching Church. Its role is to advise and speculate on matters that the Teaching Magisterium may or may not rule on. The latter does not always accept the advice of the former, which can, and does, make errors. Providing more quotes from this non-authoritative document will not make it authoritative. In this case, (69) the writers are confused because they do not understand that neo-Darwinism is, by definition, an unguided process and cannot, therefore, be reconciled with the Catholic faith. Also, they confuse "contingency," which falls under Divine causality, with radical contingency, which does not. Hence, they misquote and misuse Aquinas' passages, which were in no way meant to justify a radically contingent process. According to Neo-Darwinism, natural causes such as random variation and natural selection can generate biodiversity in the absence of Divine guidance or planning. This is what mainstream evolutionary biologists mean when they speak of the "Neo-Darwinian" view. For good reason, the Catholic Church rejects this view. If, on the other hand, God is thought to have set up, programmed, or directed evolution (defined as common descent), then such a process could be reconciled with a Catholic word view and it would not be a Darwinian process.StephenB
August 17, 2011
August
08
Aug
17
17
2011
09:54 PM
9
09
54
PM
PDT
Perhaps anything at all -- you can fashion it to any form you wish. This is your fundamental, libertarian freedom to decide what is true and what is false in your own personal universe. That's the beauty of Belief, and the treachery of it.material.infantacy
August 17, 2011
August
08
Aug
17
17
2011
08:48 PM
8
08
48
PM
PDT
Perhaps. Jesus, Luke and Paul were talking to spiritual and philosophical babies. Perhaps Origen and Augustine came along later to takes things up a notch, in due season. Who are you to say they didn't?mike1962
August 17, 2011
August
08
Aug
17
17
2011
08:26 PM
8
08
26
PM
PDT
Catholic theology agrees that the material mechanism (true contingency) of Evolution poses no threat nor barrier to Catholicism: 69. The current scientific debate about the mechanisms at work in evolution requires theological comment insofar as it sometimes implies a misunderstanding of the nature of divine causality. Many neo-Darwinian scientists, as well as some of their critics, have concluded that, if evolution is a radically contingent materialistic process driven by natural selection and random genetic variation, then there can be no place in it for divine providential causality. A growing body of scientific critics of neo-Darwinism point to evidence of design (e.g., biological structures that exhibit specified complexity) that, in their view, cannot be explained in terms of a purely contingent process and that neo-Darwinians have ignored or misinterpreted. The nub of this currently lively disagreement involves scientific observation and generalization concerning whether the available data support inferences of design or chance, and cannot be settled by theology. But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence. Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation. According to St. Thomas Aquinas: “The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency” (Summa theologiae, I, q. 22, a. 4 ad 1um). In the Catholic perspective, neo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science. Divine causality can be active in a process that is both contingent and guided. Any evolutionary mechanism that is contingent can only be contingent because God made it so. An unguided evolutionary process – one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence – simply cannot exist because “the causality of God, Who is the first agent, extends to all being, not only as to constituent principles of species, but also as to the individualizing principles... It necessarily follows that all things, inasmuch as they participate in existence, must likewise be subject to divine providence” (Summa theologiae I, q. 22, q. 2).rhampton7
August 17, 2011
August
08
Aug
17
17
2011
06:56 PM
6
06
56
PM
PDT
Canuckian.....I would recommend Ross and Rana's book "Who Was Adam?"Bantay
August 17, 2011
August
08
Aug
17
17
2011
06:47 PM
6
06
47
PM
PDT
Elizabeth, I was not invoking infidelity (although a certain, limited number of incestuous relationships were probably necessary at the beginning, at a time and in such limited numbers that they would not have been harmful to the early human genome), but merely showing that science has discovered the genetic bottleneck that the Noahic narrative explains. The genetic evidence does not have to suggest 8 individuals, only that there was a bottleneck of relatively few individuals. In this sense, the Noahic narrative is what is more clear on the issue, even naming names. In this case, the biblical narrative is more clear than what science itself has revealed. This should not come as a surprise, since the Bible also describes the big bang as coming from nothing (the Hebrew word for "created" in Gen 1 refers to something new, not from pre-existing materials) and later describes the constant expansion of the universe, both of which modern science has only caught on to within the last 70 years. Rather than deny the biblical narrative out of hand and without good reason, I think that it would be wise to give it equal consideration in this case. The Noahic narrative explains the genetic bottleneck.Bantay
August 17, 2011
August
08
Aug
17
17
2011
06:46 PM
6
06
46
PM
PDT
The International Theological Commission does not represent Catholic Magisterial Teaching. It simply serves to advise. In any case, I find nothing in that document that would support "Christian Darwinism." I have already provided the relevant statements with respect to the historical existence of Adam and Eve and the need for God's direct intervention in the creation of the human soul. Christian Darwinism denies both teachings and is not, therefore, a legitimate Catholic world view.StephenB
August 17, 2011
August
08
Aug
17
17
2011
06:36 PM
6
06
36
PM
PDT
COMMUNION AND STEWARDSHIP: Human Persons Created in the Image of God 70. With respect to the immediate creation of the human soul, Catholic theology affirms that particular actions of God bring about effects that transcend the capacity of created causes acting according to their natures. The appeal to divine causality to account for genuinely causal as distinct from merely explanatory gaps does not insert divine agency to fill in the “gaps” in human scientific understanding (thus giving rise to the so-called "God of the gaps”). The structures of the world can be seen as open to non-disruptive divine action in directly causing events in the world. Catholic theology affirms that that the emergence of the first members of the human species (whether as individuals or in populations) represents an event that is not susceptible of a purely natural explanation and which can appropriately be attributed to divine intervention. Acting indirectly through causal chains operating from the beginning of cosmic history, God prepared the way for what Pope John Paul II has called “an ontological leap...the moment of transition to the spiritual.” While science can study these causal chains, it falls to theology to locate this account of the special creation of the human soul within the overarching plan of the triune God to share the communion of trinitarian life with human persons who are created out of nothing in the image and likeness of God, and who, in his name and according to his plan, exercise a creative stewardship and sovereignty over the physical universe.rhampton7
August 17, 2011
August
08
Aug
17
17
2011
04:43 PM
4
04
43
PM
PDT
Which part did he think was silly and why? I gather he does not identify with Catholicism, though is sounds as if he was given some semblance of a Catholic education. (I say "semblance" because American Catholics are typically given inaccurate information about their own Church from Catholic-in-name-only educators).StephenB
August 17, 2011
August
08
Aug
17
17
2011
03:18 PM
3
03
18
PM
PDT
No, it did say that. My son thought it was pretty silly.Elizabeth Liddle
August 17, 2011
August
08
Aug
17
17
2011
02:16 PM
2
02
16
PM
PDT
What constitutes substantially in
substantially after his death
?ciphertext
August 17, 2011
August
08
Aug
17
17
2011
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PDT
To fine tune the point a bit more, the Church's official teaching is that the first human souls "are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis). So, by your report, the teaching materials in that diocese leave out important information, suggesting that perhaps the soul (of which the mind and will are faculties) could have emerged from matter, and may not necessarily have been "directly created" by God. That would be a misrepresentation of the official Catholic position, which is that, regardless of what science may or may not say about the evolution of the body, evolution of the soul is ruled out in principle.StephenB
August 17, 2011
August
08
Aug
17
17
2011
02:02 PM
2
02
02
PM
PDT
You need to familiarize yourself with Jewish oral tradition, and the letters of Paul before you start to ask why "people" think what they think. You can start there. Then familiarize yourself with the historical method, and apply this to the gospel accounts. Using primary and secondary sources, eyewitness accounts, criterion of embarrassment, adverse witnesses, oral tradition, historical impact, and then collect all non-biblical sources and cross reference them with the four gospels. When your done there, take a look at the archeological evidence as it applies to the biblical texts. Take some time and go over the STURP teams work and subsequent peer-reviewed literature on the Shroud of Turin and Sudarium of Oviedo and investigate the applicability to the Gospels, namely the passion event. Then you will understand why claims like, "gospels were written substantially after his death," ridiculously misleading. But before you kick off this investigation, go over the Kalam cosmological argument. Then apply the mathematics of general relativity and the cosmic microwave background radiation emission to premise 2.junkdnaforlife
August 17, 2011
August
08
Aug
17
17
2011
01:52 PM
1
01
52
PM
PDT
Taking the scriptures at face value helps discourage the invention of our own versions of what occurred and what was said. It's our central tendency to fabricate our own versions of reality and to dwell there eternally. If we assume that Jesus could have said any ol' thing then there's not much point in the written record. A God who can speak the universe into existence is not much good if he can't also speak his intention into the written Word.material.infantacy
August 17, 2011
August
08
Aug
17
17
2011
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT
Maybe they just "hooked up" after clubbing one weekend. xpmaterial.infantacy
August 17, 2011
August
08
Aug
17
17
2011
01:40 PM
1
01
40
PM
PDT
Well, the official diocesan teaching in our diocese was that Adam and Eve represent the first humans to have a soul. The handout didn't specify that they were a couple, but sort of implied it.Elizabeth Liddle
August 17, 2011
August
08
Aug
17
17
2011
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT
To make the point a bit more concrete, Pope Pius XII, speaking for the whole Church, taught that a historical Adam and Eve is a non-negotiable article of faith, which would seem to rule out Christian Darwinism in principle.StephenB
August 17, 2011
August
08
Aug
17
17
2011
01:16 PM
1
01
16
PM
PDT
Why do people rule out the possibility that Jesus was not quoted verbatim? The gospels were written substantially after his death, and presumably up till then, stories had been passed on orally. Why regard them as verbatim? Especially when the actual events are contradictory? (As you'd expect from an oral tradition, of course).Elizabeth Liddle
August 17, 2011
August
08
Aug
17
17
2011
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PDT
Well, the point is, CY, that the evidence indicates that the bottleneck may have been down to thousands. In other words, that at its smallest, the human population may have been as small as a few thousand, and one candidate for the catastrophe is the "Toba supercatastrophe", which occurred about 70,000 years ago. The genetic evidence does NOT suggest a bottleneck of 8!Elizabeth Liddle
August 17, 2011
August
08
Aug
17
17
2011
01:12 PM
1
01
12
PM
PDT
rhampton7, A lot of liberal Catholics would have us believe that, but it is not true.StephenB
August 17, 2011
August
08
Aug
17
17
2011
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PDT
If I understand Dr. Rana correctly he's saying the bottleneck indicates a migration after a catastrophic event. Thousands wouldn't then be contradictory. You can get to thousands out of eight eventually, but the bottleneck is still there. That's the only thing the data indicates. It doesn't touch on the specifics of the biblical record as far as I understand. The evidence that's been unearthed could be from hundreds of years after the flood, yet still be indicative of such an event. But I'd have to read up more, as I'm pretty new to the idea.CannuckianYankee
August 17, 2011
August
08
Aug
17
17
2011
12:42 PM
12
12
42
PM
PDT
Who said it does?CannuckianYankee
August 17, 2011
August
08
Aug
17
17
2011
12:08 PM
12
12
08
PM
PDT
But tht doesn't "fit the biblical narrative perfectly"! Yes, of course, the most recent patrilineal ancestor at any given time will tend to be younger than the most recent matrilineal ancestor simply because women tend to have fewer offspring than men. You don't even need to invoke infidelity to see that - until recently, having children was a huge factor in female life-expectancy, whereas the same is obviously not true for men. But simply biologically, a woman is limited to a child a year, and that's pushing it. A man is not. And yes, there is evidence of a population bottleneck, but estimates are in the thousands! Whereas if the ark story was true, the bottleneck would be 8! Not viable, especially as four of them were closely related. BTW, the last common couple, as it were, would be more recent still.Elizabeth Liddle
August 17, 2011
August
08
Aug
17
17
2011
11:04 AM
11
11
04
AM
PDT
Why would I give Origen and Augustine more weight than Jesus, Luke, and Paul?suckerspawn
August 17, 2011
August
08
Aug
17
17
2011
11:00 AM
11
11
00
AM
PDT
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4116168/does_the_genetic_evidence_support_noahs_flood_fazale_rana_phd/Bantay
August 17, 2011
August
08
Aug
17
17
2011
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply