Undeception

I am aware that a few of my theological positions are considered by many of my evangelical readers to be “liberal” (e.g. my beliefs on origins and biblical inerrancy). But this post will (unfortunately and unintentionally) be likely to cause controversy due to its blatant conservatism. More conservative, it turns out, than most modern evangelicals.

Anyone know right offhand the first directive God is recorded to have issued mankind? Hint: it’s not about which tree to eat from. This one reveals one of God’s chief purposes for the race He created as the crowning constituent of His world:

“Have lots of babies. Raise them to take their place in the administration of My Kingdom.”

This is obviously my own colloquialization of Genesis 1.28, but I’m sure you have guessed the wording of the original command: “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

It has been said that this was “a blessing, not a command,” and indeed, the words quoted above were introduced as a blessing: “Then God blessed them and said…” Now I want you to try to imagine how being blessed is not also an act of commission: how like God would it be to make provision for something He doesn’t care one way or another about? I can’t think of anything in Scripture that sounds anything remotely like, “You know, you may never wish to take advantage of this blessing, but I just want you to know that if you ever want to [blank], I’ve got you covered.” God’s blessings express His heart; far from offering an option subject to be disregarded at our whim, His blessings communicate His plan and His commitment to seeing that plan through to fulfillment.

Even in recent times, right up until and even after industrialization, the pattern God ordained was still maintained on a broad scale. Parents wanted to have children to help out in or around the home or contribute income from other employment as soon as they came of age; children were expected to help provide for their parents and siblings as time progressed. Family was a primary focus of everyone’s life; those for whom this was not the case were looked on as flighty, uncommitted, and frivolous.

But things changed: it was as though humanity decided that its commission to subdue the earth was complete, and so reproduction was optional at best and too downright inconvenient at worst. Too often these days in which self-centeredness is the rule, Americans who start having children early (and by early I mean before their late twenties) are assumed to be either 1) clumsy in their birth control efforts or 2) quaint and old-fashioned. Usually in that order.*

Actually, that first assumption is somewhat justifiable: since the advent of birth control, people have been able to enjoy sex with abandon simply for mutual or self-gratification. Christians with this mindset thank God for the gift of birth control. Birth control may in fact be a gift of God, but one arguably more beneficial to the Kingdom when unbelievers avail themselves of it. Consider the following points.

Continue Reading →

Mike Beidler over at The Creation of an Evolutionist has a post up with a link to an overall excellent interview with the brilliant Denis Lamoureux, author of Evolutionary Creation, conducted by CanadianChristianity.com. Check it out!

On a side note (and I do think that this is just a side note), Lamoureux has spearheaded an effort to change the term theistic evolution (TE) to evolutionary creation (EC). At the same time, he ardently rejects scientific concordism, which assumes agreement between the science reflected in the Bible and the reality as God knows it; the scientific conceptions of the authors of Scripture that bleed through the pages (e.g., the firmament, the fixed earth, the heart as the organ of thought) were never the intended message and so were not under providential review. He maintains that the science and even some of what is nowadays considered (in violation of cultural/literary context) to be historical accounts were merely culturally relevant vehicles for the “Message of Faith”, the spiritual truth that is the subject of the Bible and the manifestation of inspiration (this is theological concordism). I am on board with this. However, in my oh-so-justifiably-humble opinion, trying to change the name of our belief in both evolution and Christianity is helping folks strain at a gnat while insisting that they swallow the camel of what amounts to the rejection of inerrancy that I just described.

I have a feeling Lamoureux would say that he’s not asking for a change in terminology for P.R. purposes, but because he believes that the noun “evolution” in theistic evolution puts the emphasis on evolution and that EC emphasizes “creation”. However, this doesn’t seem to be a particularly cogent argument, since “evolution” is itself a “creation” of God and no more subject to undue exaltation than anything else created.

Because the popular conception of “creationism” is understandably one of pseudoscience, Lamoureux’s effort to name the movement “evolutionary creation” has the potential to be a turn-off label among the seeking unbelievers, with only a minimal gain of sympathy from believers due to the term’s inability to hide the controversial theology underlying a rejection of Genesis 1-11 as literal history. In the comments of Mike’s post, you can see what so far seems to be a one-sided conversation putting in my two cents on this issue.

For what it’s worth, as I mention in passing on the post, I’m not much of a fan of “theistic evolution”, either. Call me a “Christian evolutionist”, or a “non-concordist”, or something else. But I readily admit I could be wrong. Feel free to weigh in, either here or on Mike’s post.

And by all means, read the interview!

I thought it might be a good idea to follow up on the poll I set up for “Why are so many Christian scientists evolutionists?”. Obviously, no poll on such a matter could be even close to definitive, or even representative of my readership. But I thought, given the high traffic the post preceding it gathered, I thought it might show some interesting results. I have to date received 30 votes. Let me break them down a little.

26 voters said that believing scientists accept evolutionary theory simply because that’s what they feel the empirical data shows. This is my position, and the position of the others who linked to my site that brought all the traffic, so this shouldn’t be too surprising.

3 voters chose “other”. These were ostensibly uncomfortable with the choices I listed. Unfortunately, although I asked those who voted this way to explain in the comments, I did not receive any real other alternatives (except for a weak denial of the premise). , but none offered an alternative to what was a fairly straight-forward question.

Only 1 standout voter actually cast his/her vote for the option, “Answer 2: They are compromisers, searing their consciences with what they know is a lie because they are afraid to do otherwise (their careers, reputations, etc.).” Very interesting. I wish s/he’d stuck around to discuss it.

I’m fairly certain that a few of my regulars did not vote, which surprises me. Perhaps they just haven’t been to my site since I posted it. Or maybe they didn’t like any of the options listed, but either didn’t care to or couldn’t come up with an alternative and so refrained from voting “other”.

Thanks for participating! The poll will remain open and accessible from my sidebar (until the next poll) and my polls archive page.

(Note: edited per helpful comments from AMW)

The genetics researchers at the University of Georgia, of which I am currently a graduate student (in a different department), have recently published some important research that’s gaining some attention among the scientific community. The length of the headline makes it clear how complex the research in question was: “New research shows how gene function drives natural selection in important class of genetic elements.” Here are a couple quotes that I understand the most and thus (rightly or wrongly) seem most salient.

Transposons are the Clark Kents of a genome. Apparently mild-mannered and inconsequential but with sudden bursts of activity, these free-floating bits of genetic material have for millions of years been sneaking into the genetic maps of plants and animals, dramatically increasing a genome’s size.

For years, researchers thought that most of this DNA was passive “junk” and knew little about it. New findings, however, are peeling back the odd and baffling world of transposons. Now, researchers at the University of Georgia have just found that natural selection on gene function is driving the evolution of one kind of transposable element called the LTR retrotransposon. (LTR refers to the “long terminal repeat”—a repetition of a recognizable sequence of nucleotides, the chemical bases that make up strands of DNA.)

A good theory has explanatory power.  A large part of the genomes of  both animals and plants is composed of genetic information that does not code for proteins, but are relics of earlier stages in which they did;  this left-over, non-coding DNA has been nicknamed “junk DNA”.  As Stephen Matheson at Quintessence of Dust points out (HT: AMW), scientists have never assumed it was completely useless and knew that it frequently takes on other roles within the genome, but it’s still somewhat remarkable that this relic data would comprise the vast majority of each genome.  Now it’s more understandable why this “junk” sticks around: the new research helps demonstrate that this non-coding, “junk” DNA can actually offer selective advantage, which is not just a “gee whiz” fact, but one that can be quite helpful:

Understanding the evolutionary pressures between host genome and transposable element will in the future be of interest to those studying retroviruses, which evolved from retrotransposons. There are a number of animal and human diseases caused by retroviruses including HIV/AIDS, avian leukosis and feline leukemia.

This is a cracking good quote: evolutionary science is useful in the real world. How many such developments can the ID crowd point to? Many of them still insist that “junk” DNA can’t exist because “God don’t make no junk.” Evolution says that it’s “junk” in the sense that it no longer serves its original purpose, but as this shows, apparently it can become useful in a different function later. The persistence of certain types of apparently junk DNA through reuse makes perfect sense of the data.

“In this study, we specifically wanted to assess the pattern of selection on these elements—a pattern that could derive from the effect of the elements on the host genome, or the effect of host silencing mechanisms on the elements,” Baucom said. “Our expectation was that if the elements are adapting to the host genome, we should see evidence of positive selection in the genes involved in transposition.”

Another feature of a good, useful theory: it makes predictions.

“Overwhelmingly, we found that LTR retrotransposons are under significant evolutionary constraint, by finding strong purifying selection on genes involved in their replication and life-cycle, regardless of the family that any the LTR retrotransposon sequences might belong,” says Baucom.

An even better feature of a theory: it makes predictions that turn out to be correct.

What the scientists found helps explain why these elements can, while lying quiet for millions of years, suddenly amplify within genomes while not causing more long-term harm than to take up space. And yet the observation that a tiny percentage of the elements actually become active parts of genomes provides an intriguing glimpse into how these twin evolutionary pressures can, in rare cases, “sign an armistice.”

Now, I’m the first to tell you that I don’t know all that’s going on in this research. So be sure to read the full article here and let me know if I’m misinterpreting anything.

At the risk of inbreeding, I am compelled to submit this quote from a blogger who has twice linked to my post on why the debate over creationism matters. It states what I believe so much better than I’ve seen it done elsewhere.

This is not to say faith has nothing to do with it – I believe in a ‘First Cause,’ that God created the universe or began or it even guided it – but I also understand geology and biology and have no reason to mix the two up. Even if God is involved in every cell, He seems to be doing it in a way we can generally understand and organize into a science. [emphasis mine] — Gideon Addington, Ground of Being

This gets at the heart of why I have such a problem with the various types of special creationism (young earth creationism, old earth creationism, Ross’s progressive creationism, and Intelligent Design). All of them believe that no matter how systematic and orderly our observation, we will inevitably run into things that, at best, we have no hope of unravelling (’cause God did it) or, at worst, we’ll have all the evidence for and yet be compelled to believe is all a farce (e.g., geological and astronomical appearance of age, the DNA evidence for common descent).

(A preliminary note to the reader: Different believers use different definitions of the term “inerrancy.” When I use that term below I am referring to the hypothesis that the Bible contains no factual errors or contradictions of any kind, scientific or otherwise. If you accept that the Bible contains scientific errors, but consider these to be accommodations to the ignorance of the original author and audience, I do not consider you an inerrantist for the purposes of this post.)

***

If you have read many online debates on the topic of Biblical inerrancy, you may have noticed as I have that they typically go something like this:

Errantist: The Bible isn’t inerrant. It claims that the value of pi is 3, when we all know it’s 3.14159… etc.

Inerrantist: It does no such thing.

Errantist: Yes, it does. Look right here in 1 Kings 7:23. It says Solomon had a circular “Sea” built that was 10 cubits across and “took a line of 30 cubits to measure around it.” That means its circumference was 30 cubits, and its diameter was 10 cubits, and the ratio of the one to the other was therefore 3. But we know that the ratio of a circle’s circumference to its diameter (that is, pi) is about 3.14. Hence, an error. Q.E.D.

Inerrantist: Big deal, the author could have been rounding down. Pi has an infinite number of digits, so you would have to round at some point.

Errantist: If the author had said the line was “about 31 and a half cubits,” or even 31 cubits, you’d have a point. But rounding to the tens? That’s ridiculous.

Inerrantist: Alright, even if he wasn’t rounding, don’t forget that the Sea was a handbreadth in thickness (see verse 26). So if they were measuring the interior circumference of the Sea, there’s no error.

Errantist: Why on earth would they measure the interior circumference? And even if they were reporting the interior circumference, why would they then report the exterior diameter? Face it, it’s an error; simple as that.

Inerrantist: Even if you’re right, there’s another solution. Verse 26 clearly says that the rim flared outward, like a lily. They could have measured the diameter from rim to rim, but measured the circumference lower down around the Sea.

Errantist: This is getting absurd. It’s an error.

Inerrantist: It is not.

Errantist: Is!

Inerrantist: ISN’T!

Errantist: IT IS TOO AN ERROR AND KNUCKLE DRAGGING MOUTH-BREATHERS LIKE YOU ALLOWED HITLER TO COME TO POWER!!

Inerrantist: Hah! Godwin’s Law! I win!!

Continue Reading →

As a followup on my reason number two from Why the debate over creationism matters, wherein I state a couple sources underlying this question, I’d like to get my readers’ take on this question. Check all that apply.

 Loading ...

Note that I refer specifically to those who are actively engaged in the disciplines of scientific research that treat the relevant data, including biology, genetics, geology, anthropology, paleontology, etc. and who conclude that God used natural processes to bring about humanity and the diversification of life without needing to intervene miraculously.