The Lost World of Genesis One (29 page)

6Some may feel that "empirical science" is redundant, but I use the combination just to be sure that I am clear. By empiricism I am trying to
isolate those aspects of science which value an evidentiary base and seek
to focus on that base. In that sense it is distinct from rationalism, though
empirical science has always left room for and indeed encouraged
rational deductions that are made from an evidentiary base. So, for instance, observations concerning a given artifact may indeed lead to the
logical deduction that it was made with a purpose. In a sense this could
be an empirical deduction.

'For additional discussion and a distinction between "teleological evolution" and "dysteleological evolution" see Lamoureux, Evolutionary Creation, pp. 4-5.

'Materialism is the view that the material is all there is (bottom layer
only). Naturalism describes a cause-and-effect process in scientific
terms, with the natural laws as the foundation. Naturalism describes
the operation of the bottom layer (sometimes referred to as methodological naturalism). Materialism says the bottom layer is all there is
(sometimes referred to as metaphysical naturalism). Christians need not
deny naturalistic operations, but they denounce materialism.

9Though the text offers a view of God initially establishing functions
in the past, even in that regard its focus is the present and the ongoing
future.

Proposition 14: God's Roles as Creator and Sustainer Are Less
Different Than We Have Thought

lI am grateful to my colleague Robert Bishop for these observations.

'Not unlike the ancient Egyptian view in which it happened again each
day, though even they differentiated the events on what they referred
to as the "first occasion."

'Terence Fretheim speaks of a beginning (Originating Creation), a
middle (Continuing Creation) and an end (Completing Creation)
(Terence E. Fret-heim, God and World in the Old Testament. A Relational Theology of Creation [Nashville: Abingdon, 2005], pp. 5-9).

4Jurgen Moltmann, God in Creation.A New Theology of Creation and the
Spirit of God (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985), summarized and
critiqued by Francis Watson, Text and Truth (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1997), pp. 227-36.

'Observations and questions posed by Watson, Text and Truth, pp.
226-27. In Watson's belief that the "beginning" must be an absolute
beginning, he does not consider the possibility that the absolute beginning should be viewed against a functional ontology instead of
against a material ontology. This could make a big difference to the
implications of the assertion.

6This is not an attempt to promote "natural theology," which explores
whether God can be perceived in nature without the aid of special
revelation. We are unconcerned here with the revelation question as
we affirm only that God is at work sustaining the world, however that
may be perceived through observation.

7Fretheim, God and World in the Old Testament, p. 5.

'Watson, Text and Truth, p. 228.

'John Stek, "What Says the Scripture?" in Portraits of Creation, ed.
H. J. van Till (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), pp. 203-65, quote on p.
211. On pp. 242-50 Stek looks in detail at the theological (Reformed) traditions that have insisted on a sharp break between creation and
providence. He points out that their theological concerns are clear as
they have sought to insulate God from being the author of evil. But
he then points out many biblical texts that show that the Old Testament is more inclined to merge the two (p. 246).

10The distinction between evolution and evolutionism goes as least as
far back as C. S. Lewis, "The Funeral of a Great Myth," in Christian
Reflections (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967), pp. 82-93 (see especially
p. 83). Thus we might suggest that it is not creation and evolution
that are at odds, but their ideological cousins, Creationism and
Evolutionism.

Proposition 15: Current Debate About Intelligent Design
Ultimately Concerns Purpose

'Orson Scott Card, The Call ofEarth (New York: Tor, 1993), p. 138.

2There is also a significant mathematical element to their position; see
William Dembski, Intelligent Design (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity
Press, 1999).

3There are alternatives out there such as S. Kauffman, At Home in the
Universe: The Search for the Laws of Self-Organization and Complexity
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996). Kauffman proposes that
matter self-organizes, thus making design an expected result intrinsic
to the nature of matter and not dependent on a designer.

4Thomas B. Fowler and Daniel Kuchler, The Evolution Controversy
(Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), pp. 240, 271.

5Ibid., p. 237.

6Ibid., p. 244.

7Ibid., pp. 277-326.

Proposition 16: Scientific Explanations of Origins Can Be
Viewed in Light of Purpose, and If So Are Unobjectionable

'These have been referred to as "suboptimal." See the discussion in
Denis Lamoureux, Evolutionary Creation (Eugene, Ore.: Wipf and
Stock, 2008), pp. 100-101. He includes items such as the blind spot in the eye and the inherent instability of the spine.

'Undoubtedly many will ask the inevitable question concerning genetic
defects, miscarriages and the variety of other things that can go wrong
in this process. If this is the handiwork of God, why can't he get it
right? This takes us back into the why realm, and those are questions
for which we are not given answers. The affirmation that we are urged
to make is that we trust God's wisdom, as difficult as our circumstances become. This is what the book of Job teaches, as does Ecclesiastes (note Eccles 7:14).

'Some press a distinction between macroevolution (change from one
species to another) and microevolution (change within a species), and
the distinction is not insignificant. Nevertheless in this discussion I
would like to focus on the overall concept of evolution.

4See the discussion of the range of usage in John Stek, "What Says the
Scripture?" in Portraits of Creation, ed. H. J. van Till (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1990), pp. 216-20.

'For a discussion of this option and others see D. Young, "The Antiquity and the Unity of the Human Race Revisited," Christian Scholar's
Review 24, no. 4 (1995): 380-96.

6Obviously this issue requires much more in-depth treatment but is
outside of the focus of this book, which is focused on Genesis 1, not
Genesis 2.

Proposition 17: Resulting Theology in This View of Genesis 1
Is Stronger, Not Weaker

'In biblical terms we could point to the four-hundred-year delay in giving the promised land to Abraham's descendants (Gen 15), or even to
the long wait for the return of Christ. Daniel 9 also offers an example
in the long period of time during which restoration of the people of
Israel will occur.

2 Orson Scott Card, Prentice Alvin (New York: Tor, 1989), pp. 260-62,
excerpts used by permission.

'Some paragraphs of this sections have been taken from John Walton
and Andrew Hill, Old Testament Today: A Journey from Original Meaning to Contemporary Significance (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
2004), p. 129.

Proposition 18: Public Science Education Should Be Neutral
Regarding Purpose

'For my definition of empiricism see note 6 in chapter 13 (p. 164).

2Not content with an empirically based methodology, metaphysical
naturalism mandates the restriction of reality to that which is
material.

3National Association of Biology Teachers, "Statement on Teaching
Evolution," TheAmerican Biology Teacher 58, no. 1 (1996): 61

4Ibid. In the list of what they refer to as "tenets of science, evolution and
biology education," the NABT statement read: "The diversity of life on
earth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies
and changing environments."

'Methodological naturalism refers to the self-imposed restriction that no
appeal will be made to supernatural agency. It accepts the premise that
mechanisms themselves are dysteleological without extrapolating
those operating principles to the larger metaphysical enterprise.

6Revised statement from 2004 can be found at Archive/sci.bio.evolution/2006-01/msg00177.html> or another site
Association-of-Biology Teachers>.

7Evidenced in the statements from the NABT, which describe evolution as an important natural process explained by valid scientific principles. They are anxious to "separate science from non-scientific ways
of knowing, including those with a supernatural basis such as creationism. Whether called `creation science,' `scientific creationism,'
`intelligent design theory,' `young earth theory,' or some other synonym, creation beliefs have no place in the science classroom. Explanations employing nonnaturalistic or supernatural events, whether or
not explicit reference is made to a supernatural being, are outside the realm of science and not part of a valid science curriculum" (National
Association of Biology Teachers, "Statement on Teaching Evolution,"
p. 61).

81bid.

'Recognizing that what appears to be irreducibly complex may or may
not actually be so.

loAdvocates of design may be able to claim that it contains no theistic a
priori, but no claim of teleological neutrality can be sustained.

"On the other hand, metaphysical issues cannot and should not be entirely eliminated. Material ontology and the methodological naturalism associated with empiricism are foundational for science, so those
particular metaphysical positions need to be assumed.

12The deduction that something is likely to be the result of design or
random development is itself a stage of rationalism that is the normal
result of empirical science. As such it stands as metaphysically transitionary, with the real metaphysics being engaged only when the discussion moves to the nature of the designer or the absence of one.

""Questions About Science Education Policy," question 3, on the Discovery Institute's website (August 13, 2008) topQuestions.php>.

14Ibid.

15See Hugh Gauch, Scientific Method in Practice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002).

160f course it must be recognized that "teleological neutrality" may be
an impossibility. At least fairhandedness ought to be expected.

"Thomas B. Fowler and Daniel Kuebler, The Evolution Controversy
(Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), p. 355 (italics theirs).

Summary and Conclusions

'See the important article by Timothy Larsen, "`War Is Over, If You
Want It': Beyond the Conflict Between Faith and Science," Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 60, no. 3 (2008): 147-55.

2Thomas B. Fowler and Daniel Kuebler, The Evolution Controversy
(Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), p. 354.

3This despite the inadequacy of natural selection and random mutation
to offer comprehensive mechanisms for the type of prolonged change
over time evidenced in the fossil record and other places. See details in
Fowler and Kuchler, Evolution Controversy, chapter 5, helpfully summarized on pp. 346-47 and the table on p. 348.

4Gerald Runkle, Good Thinking, 2nd ed. (Austin, Tex.: Holt, Rinehart
& Winston, 1981), p. 271.