Undeception

A one-minute podcast that often has some interesting little tidbits of historical trivia, generally sharing my perspective, came out with an episode two days ago (March 9) that I just listened to today. Without my telling you, I want you to guess who this podcast is from. This is what was said:

Evolutionists contend that ancient man was intellectually inferior to modern man. This theory does not fit the facts: the intellectual capacity of ancient man is no different from modern man because God created us in His image. We should expect to find evidence of that creative capacity soon after Creation — and we do. No one has been able to duplicate the pyramids in Egypt. Heron of Alexandria [was a remarkable early engineer, a few of whose inventions are briefly described in the podcast.] These are just a few examples of the intellect of ancient man that refute the claims of evolutionists.

Doubtless there will be people who listen to this and, since it comes from the head of a Christian ministry, accept it at face value. Whether they are just happy to accept anything that pooh-poohs evolution (no matter how unjustly it represents it), are lacking critical thinking skills (only a modicum of which would throw the quote above on its head), or are simply gullible (“This person has a Christian ministry, and Christian ministers always say good stuff”), I want to make it clear that I am not targeting them but the actual close-minded individual (notice I didn’t say “nincompoop”, an emotive pejorative I would like to avoid) propagating this nonsense.

People who take on a leadership role in educating Christians should at the very least get one or two facts straight about the subject they’re critiquing. I’m going to spend a whole lot more time on this than it deserves, in part to show how inane and indefensible these sorts of attacks usually are and also to point out an example of someone whose stance on many issues I respect and share but who still requires accountability for spreading stupidity.

Do “evolutionists”, by which this person means virtually everyone involved in the scientific disciplines, claim that “ancient man was intellectually inferior to modern man”? One can’t resort to trying to find a quotation from some scientist saying this sometime in the past, as the barb was quite specific: the claim was that an unqualified group referred to as “evolutionists” contend (present tense) that this is so. But there’s also no small ambiguity in the use of “ancient” vs. “modern” (more on that in a minute).

The argument that “because God created us in His image” necessitates a continuity of intellectual capacity in humans implies something I think this person would reject under different circumstances: are there not humans even today with lower intellectual capacity than many other humans, individuals not capable of engineering pyramids and aeolipiles? Are such individuals not, therefore, made in the image of God? Apart from any scientific objections to common descent, there’s some significant question begging going on with the implied definition of “image of God”; there is considerable debate over what exactly the imago dei is, even among purveyors of folk science. The assumption here seems to be that it is the “creative capacity” (in the next sentence) that is a sign of the image of God, a wildly problematic position considering the evidence of creative capacity (which in the context of the podcast concerns invention) in creatures even outside the particularly intellectual primate family. No, no animal has ever made a primitive engine as did Hero(n) of Alexandria, but then again, neither have — or could — I!  (Of course, one might respond by saying that this is because my own image of God has probably been revoked because of my stance on evolution…)

The next statement, “We should expect to find evidence of that creative capacity soon after Creation — and we do,” is stupefying. If this person expects that the adduced examples of invention are evidence of this capacity “soon after Creation”, we must reckon the creation to have occurred “soon” before the pyramids, c. 2000 BC!  This gives us the creation of the world taking place a shade over four thousand years ago.  Talk about “young earth” creationism — that’s well before even Bishop Ussher’s date!  Considering that we have archaeological evidence of people, ostensibly bearing the image of God also, thousands of years before the pyramids who lived and died without creating such monumental inventions as described in this podcast (and for that matter, people groups discovered in fairly recent times who somehow never got around to exercising their “creative capacity” by inventing the wheel), we have some major problems here.

Moreover, what thinking individual would consider denying, as this person claims that “evolutionists” do, the intellectual capacity of the humans who engineered the pyramids? These humans are only relatively ancient: modern man emerged some 200,000 years ago.

Does this person honestly think that any of that drivel on the podcast makes any sort of credible claim about evolution, or the “intellectual capacity” of those who accept it? First comes a truthful statement, that scientists believe early humans were intellectually “inferior” to humans alive today; surely our species has advanced over hundreds of millennia. Then by sleight of hand worthy of Kent Hovind, this person pretends that evolutionary theory contradicts itself by pointing to a claim that “evolutionists” never considered making (“ancient” Egyptians were too intellectually inferior to create anything complex).

So, do “evolutionists” contend that “ancient man” as defined by the given examples (Old Kingdom Egyptians or Greeks of the first millennium B.C.) was “intellectually inferior to modern man”?  Of course not.  Naturally, this person’s dismissive parting shot, a claim to have refuted this non-existent contention, hit its target, which was also its source: thin air.

This little minute-long rant was either an intentional gross mischaracterization from an individual who is actually informed but bent on misrepresenting the rudiments of evolutionary theory, or it was an unmistakable sign that this individual doesn’t know the topic well enough to even begin discussing it, much less talk about “refuting” anything. I’m undecided. What do you think?  And who was this mysterious podcaster?*  (Keep in mind when answering these questions that this individual has written whole books attacking “Darwinism”.)

* I say “podcaster” — but this person is known more for books, public speaking, and radio shows than for podcasting.

Studies at the St. George Dinosaur Discovery Site at Johnson Farm have yielded startling evidence of the connection between ancient meat-eating dinosaurs and modern-day birds, according to a study released this week.

A team of paleontologists, studying a unique set of 198 million year old fossilized handprints and footprints at the site, contend the prints provide the most compelling evidence yet that some dinosaurs had bird-like arms and hands, with inward-facing palms capable of pivoting up and down. The motion, impossible for humans, is the same motion modern-day birds use to fold their wings.

The prints, first discovered in 2004, were left when a two-legged, meat-eating dinosaur — called theropods — sat down along thee shores of what at the time was a large lake, now called “Lake Dixie.” It extended its arms into the sediment, leaving the prints. The imprints turned to stone over the years, preserving the unique marks.

Andrew Milner, city paleontologist and lead author of the study, said the dinosaur that made the tracks may have been in the lake, walked out and up a shallow slope and sat down.

Other theropod hand prints have been reported in the past, but they were all either shapeless blobs or made by animals with downward-facing palms, said Martin Lockley of the University of Colorado at Denver, an author on the paper and dinosaur track expert.

[Read more here.]

I don’t link to this article because it provides exceptional proof of anything.  I don’t call it to attention as an exciting bit of evidence that appeared out of the blue in favor of an old evolutionary conjecture.  I link to it in order to point out the fact that most folks who don’t follow paleontology would never hear of things like this.  The evidence for common descent usually comes in small, modest bursts of discovery, but it comes quite frequently nonetheless, and from many different scientific disciplines.

To anyone paying attention, scientists’ ever deepening understanding of common descent and evolutionary taxonomy is shown by ongoing research to be on the right track in key areas quite often.  In fact, I myself usually only find out about some of the more exciting discoveries on the occasions that news writers hear about them and reckon them newsworthy; the real action is in the literature or specialized online science sites.  I think most creationists would be surprised by how much work is always being done on this stuff, sometimes confirming, sometimes refuting previous studies (in contradiction to the allegation that scientists are a well-oiled conspiracy suppressing all dissent and discouraging self-criticism).  By contrast, look at the ID movement: from what I understand of their leaders’ books and have seen at sites like the Panda’s Thumb, ID folks are almost wholly obsessed with discussing a small group of biological data that they have compiled which they believe disembowels the whole scientific record that shows remarkable agreement between all relevant disciplines, including molecular biology, genetics, comparative anatomy, paleontology, etc.

I am baffled that so many intelligent people (as relatively small as their camp is) regularly attribute the astoundingly coherent body of scientific evidence to blind ideology; that they would so often make such basic rational mistakes as trying to discredit evolutionary theory upon the basis of its aspects that are currently poorly understood.  In this honest bewilderment, I am apparently quite unlike ID advocates and other creationists, who seem to have no problem believing that all mainstream scientists are off their respective rockers and/or conspiratorial in truth suppression with their acceptance of evolutionary theory.

I just don’t get it.  Probably never will.

I’m going to get to the theology part in a minute, but first let me ask a couple relevant questions.

Why do we have a representative democracy? Why do we not all personally vote for what we believe? The answer is not, “Because that would be a democracy, and democracies are tyrannical.” Pure democracies are tyrannical, and that is indeed why we do not live in a pure democracy, but it is not true that every person voting on every issue would need to be that sort of democracy. If we had a democracy based upon the rule of law (a nomocracy), we’d not have any more tyranny than we do now; in fact, our government would reflect the concerns of the citizenry more closely, and with the lawful constraint on disenfranchisement of minorities, we could theoretically end up having a more just system.

I then considered that the actual reason we don’t have a nomocratic democracy was that such a system would be too unwieldy (especially in the 18th century) and that bundling our interests in local representatives was the only efficient way of going about things; for who has time to vote on every topic that comes up? So, I reasoned, we vote people into office whom we think will best represent our interests, and then go about our daily lives. And that sort of thinking is what led our federal government to become such a Leviathan, doing infinitely more than it was originally delegated to do.

Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.

– Thomas Paine

But you must remember, my fellow-citizens, that eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty, and that you must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing.

– Andrew Jackson

Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people.

– John Adams

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free … it expects what never was and never will be.

– Thomas Jefferson

I cite these men because their warnings were not heeded and it is because of this that our federal government has overreached itself in everything it touches. It is because people believed, as I did, that they could outsource their political interests and depend on the candidates who sounded – and in many cases, actually were – the best and wisest. Our vigilance was not eternal, and so our freedom has proved to be finite as well. We must not be content to vote for people, still less for parties; we must vote for issues. Until we give it a voice, we will have to keep satisfying ourselves with merely “more conservative” than the other, steadily more liberal option. If conservatives these many years had been voting their principles and consciences instead of just whatever party their parents told them or whoever they thought could beat the other guy, we’d not be in the predicament we are today; we’d likely not be stuck with only two parties. We’re not voting to win elections; we’re voting so that what we are convinced is the truth can be made known and our contingent given a voice, for how else will what’s right ever become popular enough for us to win elections with?

I find a parallel in popular theology today.

Josh at the Smoak House asked his readers which modern teachers were their biggest influences. Not surprisingly, among the first mentioned were Chuck Swindoll, Al Mohler, and John Piper. Now, nothing against these guys (one of whom I greatly respect), but this led me to musing: why do we know all these big name preachers, anyway? By my lights, among the failings of the church that most needs to be addressed is the herd mentality that comes from cheering on certain teachers as though they were some sports team. I am convinced that we sit at the feet of these big name preachers because it makes us feel secure in our theology to be able to listen to someone we can trust to lead us into all truth (wait — I thought that was the Holy Spirit…). We outsource our theology to these guys and accept what they have to say simply because they’re “Christian leaders”.

Christians must be taught to think critically. It’s a testament to the opposite trend that this virtue has turned into a pejorative: “Oh, he’s just too critical.” Critical means “judging” and that word nowadays has negative connotations, but Scripture is quite clear that we are to test everything before accepting it; we judge the teachings, not the teachers. Ask yourself, of all those teachers/preachers you listen to, when was the last time you disagreed with something they said? If you don’t come across something you disagree with in every teaching you listen to, perhaps you are not listening critically enough (or you are listening to someone reading directly from the New Testament!). I guess another option is that they are teaching things that you already agree upon, which prompts the question, what good is it doing you aside from shoring up what you already believe? There’s some good in that — although it would help you more if you sought out someone who disagrees and put up your belief against theirs — but we aren’t to camp in comfortable sites of agreement; break up the fallow ground.

The temptation we have fallen under is either to throw out everything or to cling to everything devotedly. If you’re a Wesleyan and the preacher is a Wesleyan, and you are enjoying his agreement with your core beliefs, when he decides to teach you something else that he believes as a result of his Wesleyanism, you don’t have to agree with him. He might be wrong, even if you agree on his underlying principles or on a great part of his justifying arguments. Just because John Piper argues passionately and articulately for something you believe in doesn’t mean you should just accept whatever else he waxes passionate and articulate about, even if he ties it to whatever it is you appreciate about his teaching. At the very least, we should never extend the benefit of the doubt, because no one alive can ever truly be above doubt.

No, we shouldn’t listen to people just to pick them apart; in fact, if you can’t listen to them without ripping them to shreds for sloppy exegesis, bad logic, or shallowness, then what’s the use in listening to them? What I am saying is that the church has by and large not successfully fought the urge to accept in toto what is being said by someone their sect agrees with on key, defining doctrines (so Calvinists listen to Calvinists for how they smack down Arminians, etc.). And unfortunately but understandably, these teachers most often just accept their position on the pedestal because they believe that no one can go wrong believing what they do, since they assume (naturally) that what they believe is true. I’m not faulting these leaders for saying things that are compelling enough to attract regular listeners; in fact, most of them would probably advise you to critically think about what they’re teaching you.

As I believe Josh does, the sort of influence I most respect does not generally come from the teachings themselves, but from the educational philosophy of the teacher: as in any area of life, a good teacher is one who doesn’t get so bogged down teaching facts that he forgets to teach how to learn. R.C. Sproul is a good teacher, because he uses a broad range of sources to base his teaching on, including philosophy, ancient history, and various traditions within church history. Somehow with all this, I am no less inclined to hang on his every word but all the more inspired to follow his example in my own study. Sproul’s sources are the very ones we should all use when interpreting Scripture; instead, we are essentially encouraged to stick with “me, my Bible, and the teacher du jour” in order stay safe and keep away from the dangers of critical thinking. But even “me, my Bible, and a vetted teacher like R.C. Sproul” isn’t enough. People like Sproul are not fishmongers: they’re trying to teach us how to fish for ourselves. And yes, one of the “lures” we should avail ourselves of is the consultation of good teachers, but no combination of Christian teachers alone is going to give the level of understanding we should be expecting.

Do you see the link I’m making? Outsourcing our theology and refusing to recognize that even our favorite teachers frequently make weak assertions and outright errors will prove to have been as detrimental as the political naiveté I described above. Cults of personality, in lesser and greater degrees, control most Americans humans. Republican evangelicals are sickened by the amount of fawning over Obama from the Left, but make no mistake: if the other ticket had won, a great number of these same people would fawn over Sarah Palin, glossing over many of her mistakes and sometimes even adopting them in order to defend her (much the same way that so many of them currently uncritically fawn over Rush Limbaugh and/or Sean Hannity). We can’t, as responsible Christians, simply accept certain people as our leaders and theological proxies, and then unquestioningly trust them to always do or say the right thing (even Christian leaders!). Acknowledging this is crucial; no less crucial is the realization that those we respect the most are probably outrageously wrong every now and again and that we’ll follow them down the wrong paths if we’re not vigilant.

We’ve got to do better at lovingly, respectfully, but unfailingly holding our political and our theological leaders accountable for their positions; decent leaders won’t mind, and good ones will want you to.  If I may paraphrase President Jackson’s comment about government: Eternal vigilance by the church is the price of Truth.

The hyper-(not hypo-)critical Mike Beidler http://thecreationofanevolutionist.blogspot.com