Posted on 06/17/2014 6:17:41 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Whenever I engage in conversation with people I meet for the first time I try to avoid being asked the question, “What do you do for a living?” But if I am asked I say, “I am a minister.” Generally, the one who asks then inquires, “What denomination?” or “What kind of church?”
Here is where I always have to clarify, depending on the most recent news headline involving Christian leaders: “I am a Baptist minister, but I am not a science-denying Baptist minister who thinks that dinosaurs lived alongside humans a few thousand years ago.”
What a strange irony that a 30-foot-long fossil of an Allosaurus will be on display at the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Ky., where museum founder, Ken Ham, recently debated science educator Bill Nye. Ken Ham and his colleagues think it defends the book of Genesis and supplies evidence of Noah’s flood. Good grief.
Unfortunately, this is real life, not a Charlie Brown cartoon. According to a recent survey by the Associated Press, 77 percent of people who claim to be born again or evangelical say they have little or no confidence that the universe began 13.8 billion years ago with a big bang. And 76 percent of evangelicals doubt that life on Earth, including human beings, evolved through a process of natural selection.
Educated evangelicals know better. According to Newsweek 99 percent of America’s earth and life scientists hold to some form of evolution. Darrel Falk, a biology professor at evangelical Point Loma Nazarene University, told Cathy Grossman of the Religion News Service, that many biblical (evangelical) scholars do not see a conflict between religion and science. He noted: “The story of the cosmos and the Big Bang of creation is not inconsistent with the message of Genesis 1.”
I suspect that many (if not most) educated evangelical biblical scholars who subscribe to some form of biblical inerrancy (and sign faith statements testifying to that fact) believe what professor Falk believes.
They know there are different kinds (genres) of biblical literature which call for different approaches other than a literal interpretation of the text. They know that the creation stories are parabolic in nature and are not chronicles of history or reports conveying scientific data. They know that these stories are spiritual, metaphorical and theological stories and, while not factual, they certainly teach truth about God and God’s relationship to the world.
They know Ken Ham’s claim that “no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record” is utter foolishness.
Harvard theologian Harvey Cox tells about the time the student leader of Harvard’s atheist group on campus took one of his theology classes. This otherwise bright student wrote a very weak paper in which he sought to discredit the God of the Christian and Jewish faiths by attacking and dismantling a literal interpretation of the Genesis flood story. He thought that by proving the story could not have happened the way the story says it happened, he would thus disprove the reality of God.
Dr. Cox said to the student, “Don’t you know a story when you read one?”
Educated evangelicals know that the creation stories were never intended to be history lessons or science reports, because the Bible is not a history or science book.
Educated evangelicals also know:
• That evangelical Christians need not fear or deny the enormous amount of scientific data supporting evolution.
• That the story of evolution and the biblical story are not mutually exclusive.
• That a healthy faith welcomes and is informed by science.
So why do so many evangelicals deny evolution and believe in a literal interpretation of the creation stories in Genesis?
Apparently what educated evangelical professors know and believe is not getting down to the people in the pew.
Why aren’t educated evangelical pastors teaching their churches these things? Are they afraid of being shunned or looked down upon by their peers? Are they afraid to rock the evangelical boat? Are they afraid of facing conflict in their churches or losing their jobs? Are the professors actually teaching what they believe and know to their students?
Whatever the reasons, it’s time for evangelicals who know the truth to come out and proclaim the truth. If the truth sets us free, as Jesus said, then many of our evangelical sisters and brothers need to hear a liberating word from their pastors.
OPINION: Views expressed in ABPnews/Herald columns and commentaries are solely those of the authors.
Chuck Queen is pastor of Immanuel Baptist Church in Frankfort, Ky., and author of Being a Progressive Christian (is not) for Dummies (nor for know-it-alls): An Evolution of Faith.
Well, I, for one, believe it -- and I do care.
(You may recall our discussing that I shared a similar, stunning, visionary experience -- one that determined the direction and purpose of my entire career as a scientist...)
Yes I do... well not everybody(then).. LoL..
I know AG and BB are visionary in some sense known to them..
What is a vision”.?..
It could metaphorical, imaginary, or even a hallucination..
OR one in the bibical sense.. gave this some thought..
All I know is what I actually “SAW”...
Hard to be critical of others “specters”..
One interesting fact is during my “vision” not a word was spoken..
Totally image centered.. but then what is a metaphor but a picture in words hopefully in mental images..
The reverse is what I experienced..
I also believe and care and have had similar experiences!
I remember some of “it”...in that distant convo.....
The content of which might only intrigue someone with similar experience(s)..
One thing still intrigues me about my experience that I can share.
That in the “phase shift” language will become obsolete..
Only those that are cursed to remain human will need it..
Opens up a whole range of "mental figments" considering how one could communicate without language..
The "remaining human" meme is another issue that is related..
I see no payoff to go into this in detail... so won't..
I so agree — "evolution" has acquired so much foolish baggage by now that it's difficult to think of the term absent the presuppositions of a purely material or physical universe, which "mutates" randomly in space and time, with the help of "natural selection." [I wonder: What exactly is the definition of "natural selection?" I mean, exactly who or what is doing the "selecting?"]
If the universe were so — purely physical and essentially mechanical in its operations — then "evolution" might make some sense. But it seems very plain to me that no merely physical description of the universe can possibly account for what is in the real world of human observation and experience. Though one cannot measure intangibles — e.g., life, mind, consciousness — this is no proof that they do not exist. Darwin's evolution is totally silent about such things.
Dear brother in Christ, you propose "development" as the better word to describe the cosmic process, which has a Beginning in God's Word, and an Ending in His Final Judgment. That is, the Creation has a first cause and a final cause which science is largely blind to. You wrote:
By "development", I mean orderly progression, controlled by Divine (largely mathematical) rules, and managed, as required, via direct intervention by our Creator."Happenstance" vs. "development" — a most useful contrast! If everything's an "accident," then how can anything actually BE or MEAN anything? "Development," on the other hand, implies both mind and will at work in the achievement of purposes and goals. Human beings do this sort of thing all day long: This is both an epistemological and empirical fact. How can science leave this consideration out of its basic presuppositions about the fundamental character of the world without undermining its own fundamental logical position?
IOW, I view "evolution" as chaotically stumbling and bumbling "happenstance" — versus "development" — which is as precisely controlled as are the industrial processes....
And yet, seemingly, this is what many scientists do. Consciously, even aggressively: As Harvard's Richard Lewontin put it, "we cannot allow the Divine Foot inside the door [of science]." (I classify Lewontin as a metaphysical naturalist and determined atheist.)
So, count me in on adapting the use of "development," rather than "evolution."
Or maybe we could speak of "emergence?" The Logos is First to Last, the Alpha–Omega, specifying everything that happens in-between in space and time. From the Beginning it realizes its Purpose.
And there does seem to be a good deal of mathematics involved in the development of that pattern!
Thank you so very much, dear brother in Christ, for your illuminating essay/post!
“If the universe were so — purely physical and essentially mechanical in its operations ...” Um, excuse me, but the very essence of observer effect, since Physics cannot find ANY known way that the observer is effecting the physical nature of the experiment and yet the observer has been proven to do so, well then, there has to be some ‘non-physical’ aspect unknown to these same Physicists yet they wish to use their magic thinking and dismiss what they have proven to be the facts. In essence, they have proven that the Universe is more than the mechanical in its operations.
When what isn’t, may be what “IS”.. and what is, may be what “ISN’T”..
Example: a Chimp considering a Rolex watch..
The very fact that such "Physicists" think they can "stand outside the physical" in order to observe (measure) the "physical" is a non-starter position. [And then they try to defend this absurd position by saying that "all things supervene on the physical".... Talk about a non sequitur! That particular "defense" must come at the sacrifice of their own evaluative minds, must cost them any possible understanding of their own being and thinking.]
It should be obvious that this epistemological commitment requires that the "observing" or "measuring device" itself must be entirely outside the "physical" which it is attempting to "measure." Which is something quantum theory has already demonstrated with high credibility never happens.
Nonetheless, you are correct to note these guys inadvertently, already, "have proven that the Universe is more than the mechanical in its operations." That is to say, whether they wanted to or not.
The problem is: Somehow they have entirely excused themselves from the purely "physical" in order to make this determination. As if they, themselves, were wholly lacking in any physical component. [Which as mortal beings, they most assuredly do have.] Still, somehow, unaccountably, they persist in being oblivious to this quite obvious fact... about the very nature of themselves, and how human beings actually engage with their world.
Which brings us to the "observer problem," or as you put it, the "observer effect."
What quantum theory shows is that the presence of an observer and his measuring instruments are parts, already fully implicated, in the "whole" which is under investigation. It maintains that such presence has direct effect on possible outcomes of a given total experimental situation, in that the introduction of an observer with his instruments not only distorts the given physical situation [by introducing unforeseen additional elements at the physical level], but also specifies, or directs, what is looked for, or is anticipated, in the results of any given experimental situation.
To put this "observer" issue into perspective, I'd like to cite the famous dispute between two excellent friends, Albert Einstein (relativity theory) and Niels Bohr (quantum mechanics theory).
As their mutual biographer, Abraham Pais, put it, Einstein loved to twit his friend, by saying: For Niels, the moon does not exist at all, unless Niels has personally observed it.
But I daresay, all "Niels" was saying, was that phenomena do not depend on human observation in order for them to be "real" phenomena; all "Niels" was saying was that if we have not directly observed, experienced, a phenomenon in Nature, then we have no right to speak about what we have not, in fact, directly seen.
In other words, man's observation does not determine events in Nature, as Einstein seemed to conclude from Bohr's remarks on the subject. All Bohr was saying is that "observations" of nature must all eventually be cast into human language in order to be communicated successfully to other human beings. At the same time, Bohr seems painfully aware that one cannot legitimately speak with authority about things one has never seen directly.
And nothing in the quantum world can be seen "directly." Its functioning ever goes on below the threshold of direct human awareness. If humans could be aware of this at all, it could only be at a sub- or un-conscious level. [And that problem is beyond the scope of the present writing.]
Here's the "big picture" problem, as I see it: Absolutely everything at the physical level that exists in God's Creation obtains its material, physical basis out of the universal quantum field....
I gather that it is the constant, on-going collaboration between this field and the Logos that creates and continuously maintains the Creation that God made in the Beginning.
As Isaac Newton put it, God is not only Creator of everything that exists, but He also engages directly in the world of His making, "from time to time," as needed.
Newton's model of the universe was a mechanical one. Because he knew that mechanical things, by their very nature, will accumulate "errors" over time that affect the performance of the machine, God would have to intervene, as needed, to set matters aright again....
To Newton, God is eternally "the Lord of Life, with His creatures." His modus of communication with the Creation He made in the Beginning Newton designated as the sensorium Dei.... Which, to me, strikes as having a sort of universal "field-like" nature, all by itself....
Just some musings, my dear brother in Christ. Thank you ever so much for inspiring them!
Your summary explanation of the observer problem is perfect! Thank you!
In my experience, it is rare for a person to complete a sentence to his aspect as observer, e.g. "the universe is almost 14 billion years old from my present space/time coordinates."
Or "these numbers without context appear to be random."
Corresponding to not finishing sentences is implying or inferring that what is unobservable (unmeasurable) cannot possible exist. How absurd!
We cannot say a field, particle or dimension does not exist simply because it does not have a measurable direct or indirect effect!
Thank you oh so much for your kind words re: my "take" on the "observer problem!"
Linear thinking — instrumental reason — is "bean-counting" thinking that ever ignores the context in which events occur. It just wants to find out what happens between A and B; as if the context in which the relation of A and B occurs is irrelevant.
Which most definitely is not the case. Without some larger context — without which events cannot occur — how can A and B be brought into relation in the first place? Without such relation, cause-and-effect processes do not occur. This seems clear enuf to me.
And I expect, clear enuf to you, too, my dearest sister in Christ. [But please correct me if I'm wrong about this.]
The method of my madness behind making such a statement is my reliance on Aristotle's laws of causation. I note that the currently regnant scientific method addresses only two of Aristotle's four causes, the material and the efficient. Most scientists (I gather) get a case of hives just thinking about first and final causes — and so they have been effectively abolished from the purview and practice of science....
It seems the enormous prestige and influence of "scientific thinking" in our world today has infiltrated all modes of human thought. It is taken as the "best model" for discovering and analyzing the world and human existence.
The problem with that is neither life nor consciousness is explicable on the basis of material (matter) and efficient (energetic exchange) causes only.
Taken together, material and efficient causes by themselves can describe inorganic and mechanistic behavior in Nature very well. But they can explain nothing essential about those parts of Nature called biological organisms; for they only answer the question, "What does a thing look like?" They cannot answer the question "Why does this thing exist?" Which is to ask: "What caused it?" (its formal cause) and "What purpose does it seek to fulfill?" (its final cause).
In Metaphysics, Aristotle famously said that the final cause — peras, "limit," or "goal" — is the cause "for which all the other causes exist." It is that purpose or goal towards which the formal cause was primed in the first place.
I gather scientists routinely hate this sort of thing; for it suggests the operation of a cause "from the future" — which Newtonian mechanics absolutely forbids.
This might strike a reader of these lines as an exercise in pure, abstract wool-gathering. But to any such person, I would reply: Aristotle's model of causation — Formal–Material–Efficient–Final — is fully realized in the most basic and necessary biological functions of living organisms.
So, how come "orthodox" Neo-Darwinists routinely ditch the Formal and Final causes?
You know me, dearest sister in Christ — an my detestation of the absurdly reductionist Darwinian evolutionary view of biology.
Biology is supposed to about the "science" of Life. But Darwinists will not touch Life (or Mind) with a ten-foot pole. They are content to dwell on material and efficient causes only; and thus manage to produce a plausible account/description of the speciation of already existent organic life. Where that life "came from," its origin; and towards what end or purpose or goal it is was primed for, they consider not only inadmissible questions, but totally irrelevant ones.
While I'm whacking the Darwinists, and contemporary biological science as it is generally practiced nowadays, let me add one more thing: Since Darwin's revolutionary On the Origin of Species [1859] was published, there have been not one, but two, world-transforming scientific revolutions: Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, and Niel's Bohr's [et al.] Quantum Theory.
Has anybody out there noticed that the biological sciences have taken the stunning findings of these great thinkers into effect???
Certainly, I haven't. And yet, if biological organisms have a material basis (which I do not dispute they have), then certainly, one would think that the observations of the quantum theorists have definite bearing on biological questions.
WRT Relativity theory, I would argue it definitely has a direct bearing on biological issues as well. It is generally understood that relativistic effects only become "tangible" as a phenomenon approaches the speed of Light. Which seems remote enough to us for all practical purposes.
But what is fascinating to me is increasingly, I've been reading scientists specializing in physics (not biology!) who have suggested that biological entities, ultimately, are "organized" by means of non-local causes.
Which gets us back, not only to quantum theory, but also to relativity theory.
If Darwinism as it is presently understood could be adjusted so to take into effect these stunning discoveries from physics, what would it look like?
My best guess: We will never know, 'cause Darwinists — slaves to the observer problem — think that relativity and quantum theory are completely irrelevant to their problems.
They will find only what they seek. Within an amazing constrained, reduced understanding of the natural world.
Well, JMHO, FWIW.
It is so good to hear from you again, my dearest sister in Christ!
Or "these numbers without context appear to be random."
Corresponding to not finishing sentences is implying or inferring that what is unobservable (unmeasurable) cannot possible exist. How absurd!
There is also an inherent arrogance in the person who is making the statement that he is an objective observer and that he is stating a fact.
In doing so, he makes the unspoken claim that he knows everything, that what he knows is correct, and that he knows he is correct.
lol... right
Which most definitely is not the case. Without some larger context — without which events cannot occur — how can A and B be brought into relation in the first place? Without such relation, cause-and-effect processes do not occur. This seems clear enuf to me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Logic will get you from A to B.
Imagination will take you everywhere. - Albert Einstein
** If the spirit does not imagine, what does?..
And I expect, clear enuf to you, too, my dearest sister in Christ. [But please correct me if I'm wrong about this.]
Indeed, I often say that in the absence of time, events cannot occur and in the absence of space, things cannot exist. Both are required for physical causation.
Those who want to deny God are stuck with that context of physical causation. According to CMB measurements going back a half century, there was a beginning of real space and real time. Ergo there was a Creator ex nihilo.
And of course I very strongly agree with you on biology trying to ignore first and final cause which is absurd since biological systems service a purpose, often leading to the survival of a higher autonomous organism of which the system is a part and also of which it is obviously not "aware" in the mental sense.
I would strongly recommend Rosen's "Life Itself" to those who cannot accept these insights from the philosophical or theological experts. Perhaps Rosen's math would convince them?
Thank you oh so very much for your illuminating essay-posts, dearest sister in Christ!
God alone sees all that there is, all at once - every where and every when.
He, and He alone, searches the hearts and minds.
Indeed, if He did not care to do so there would be no such thing as justice since He alone knows objective truth, He alone speaks objective truth.
He IS truth because when He says a thing, it is. It is because He said it, e.g. "Let there be light."
Every other being is merely an observer.
Indeed. Thank you for that great quote, dear hosepipe!
Amen!!!
Perhaps! Anyhoot, Rosen's Life Itself was a real eye-opener for me....
Also, if one is interested in the truly BIG picture, I strongly recommend David Bohm's Wholeness and the Implicate Order....
On a personal note, Attila's birthday is July 4th. So I sent him a copy of Bohm's work. While I was at it, I also got one for you. It's headed your way! I hope you will enjoy it!
Thank you so much for writing, dearest sister in Christ!
"Only the fool, fixed in his folly, thinks he turns the wheel on which he himself turns." — T. S. Eliot
Thanks, dear sister in Christ, for your spot-on observations.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.