View
27
Download
0
Category
Tags:
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
Steve Badger & Mike Tenneson. Origins Master 2012. Table of Contents (links). Resolving a dispute T/B survey data ID & finely tuned universe Truth theories Meaning of evolution Punctuated equilibria Evidences for evolution Catastrophism/uniform? Discussing productively. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
1 1
Steve Badger & Mike Tenneson
Origins Master2012
2 2
Table of Contents (links)• Resolving a dispute• T/B survey data• ID & finely tuned universe• Truth theories• Meaning of evolution• Punctuated equilibria• Evidences for evolution• Catastrophism/uniform?• Discussing productively
• Knowledge, belief, truth• God’s two books• Graph: Five camps• Integrative models• Naturalism/Supernaturalism• Measuring…attitudes/beliefs• Roger Cotton’s insights
3 3
Settling a Disagreement
4 4
Resolving a Dispute
We have taught for over 20 years, and we don’t agree on
everything.
5 5
Return to TOC
6 6
Survey Data
7 7
Denomination Survey year
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
% of Respondents
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America20012009
Presbyterian Church (USA)20012009
Disciples of Christ 20012009
United Methodist Church20012009
Reformed Church in America20012009
Mennonite Church USA 20012009
Christian Reformed Church20012009
Southern Baptist Convention20012009
Lutheran Church (Missouri Synod)20012009
Assemblies of God 20012009
13%9%
20%26%
18%22%
34%35%
16%9%
16%15%
24%22%
12%23%
31%30%
18%10%
19%14%
21%26%
12%17%
31%32%
17%11%
37%25%
23%28%
13%17%
20%24%
7%8%
34%37%
30%32%
11%15%
17%15%
8%
44%41%
26%27%
12%17%
14%11%
41%51%
31%32%
14%11%
12%
91%77%
5%14%
87%80%
8%13%
92%89% 6%
Clergy agreement that evolution best explains human origins by denomination, 2001-2009
Evolution best explanation for human originsStrongly agreeAgreeNot sureDisagreeStrongly disagree
8 8
Evolutionary Biologists Critical of Macroevolutionary Explanations
• Stern, David L. “Perspective: Evolutionary Developmental Biology and the Problem of Variation,” Evolution 2000, 54, 1079-1091. A contribution from the University of Cambridge. “One of the oldest problems in evolutionary biology remains largely unsolved…Historically, the neo-Darwinian synthesizers stressed the predominance of micromutations in evolution, whereas others noted the similarities between some dramatic mutations and evolutionary transitions to argue for macromutationism.”
• Simons, Andrew M. “The Continuity of Microevolution and Macroevolution,” Journal of Evolutionary Biology 2002, 15, 688-701. A contribution from Carleton University.”A persistent debate in evolutionary biology is one over the continuity of microevolution and macroevolution — whether macroevolutionary trends are governed by the principles of microevolution.”
9 9
Return to TOC
1010
Knowledge, belief, & truth
1111
Truth Belief
Knowledge
All Propositions
Knowledge is justified belief—that is… A belief you have reason to think is true
1212
Return to TOC
1313
God’s two books
1414
God’s Two BooksGod
NaturalScience
BiblicalTheology
Hum
an
inte
rpre
tatio
n Human
interpretation
1515
Return to TOC
1616
Graph: Five camps
1717
Five Camps
1818
Return to TOC
1919
Can Christians Agree to Disagree?• August 2010 A/G position paper statement (AG Website):
• “As a result, equally devout Christian believers have formed very different opinions about the age of the earth, the age of humankind, and the ways in which God went about the creative processes. Given the limited information available in Scripture, it does not seem wise to be overly dogmatic about any particular creation theory.”
• Ken Ham response (Ken Ham blog, accessed 9/10/2010).:
• “…they have now succumbed to the view—prevalent in the church today—that is undermining the authority of God’s Word, and ultimately is significantly contributing to the collapse of Christianity in our Western world.”
2020
ID & finely tuned universe
2121
Truth Theories
2222
Meaning of evolution
2323
Five integrative models
2424
NaturalScience
BiblicalTheology Biblical
Theology
Natu
ra lSc
ienc e
BiblicalTheology
NaturalScience
Two WorldsComplementarism
ConcordismBiblical
TheologyNaturalScience Natural
ScienceBiblical
Theology
Conflict: Science Wins Conflict: Theology
Wins
2525
NaturalScience
BiblicalTheology Biblical
Theology
Natu
ra lSc
ienc e
BiblicalTheology
NaturalScienceTwo Worlds Complementari
sm
ConcordismBiblical
TheologyNaturalScience Natural
ScienceBiblical
Theology
Conflict: Science Wins Conflict: Theology
Wins
2626
Return to TOC
2727
Summary on Origins Beliefs• Recognize your opinions
regarding gaining reliable knowledge.
• Genuine Christians hold different positions on Origins.
• Opinions on Biblical interpretation and the trustworthiness of science affect conclusions about Origins.
2828
Finely Tuned Universe and Intelligent Design
2929
• Life as we know it could not exist if some of the “parameters” of our universe were even a little different!
• Our universe seems to be designed for life—especially human life.
• The Anthropic Principle.
A “Just Right” Universe
3030
Many fine-tuned parameters to our galaxy, solar system, and planet:• distance of Earth from the
sun• size, temperature, & type of
sun• size, axial tilt, rotation
speed, moon, & composition of earth
• stability of Jupiter and Saturn
A “Just Right” Universe
3131
Intelligent Design• Living things possess complex
structures.• Cannot be explained by naturalistic
theories.• Must have been specially created.• Evidence of a designer.
31
3232
Early Proponent: William Paley
• “…intelligent causes are necessary to explain the complex, information-rich structures of biology and… these causes are empirically detectable.” William Paley, Natural Theology; or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, 12th ed. (London: J. Faulder, 1809), p.1.
3333
Early Antagonist: Darwin“An innocent and good man stands under a tree and is killed by a flash of lightning. Do you believe…that God designedly killed this man? … If you believe so, do you believe that when a swallow snaps up a gnat that God designed that particular swallow should snap up that particular gnat at that particular instant?”Hunter, C.G. (2001). Darwin’s God. Brazos Press, Baker Book House: Grand Rapids, MI.
33
3434
Early Antagonist: Darwin“I believe that the man and the gnat are in the same predicament. If the death of neither man nor gnat are designed, I see no good reason to believe that their first birth or production should be necessarily designed.”
34
Hunter, C.G. (2001). Darwin’s God. Brazos Press, Baker Book House: Grand Rapids, MI.
3535
Darwin’s Challenge
“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not
possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight
modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”
Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species p. 15435
3636
Evidences for ID• Specified Complexity• Irreducible Complexity
36
3737
Specified Complexity• Living things are complex
in ways that undirected random processes could never produce.
• William Dembski– mathematician/philosopher– Professor of Science and
Theology, Southern Seminary, Louisville, KY
37
3838
Specified Complexity: DNA• New complex specified
information cannot be generated by natural mechanisms (evolution) involving chance.
• Natural processes can only shift around or lose information, they cannot produce it.
38
3939
Irreducible Complexity• Proposed by Michael Behe
(Lehigh U. biochemistry professor).
• Darwin’s Black Box, Christianity Today’s 1996 “Book of the Year.”
• Irreducibly Complex Systems– Complex systems are composed of
interacting parts that contribute to function.
– Removing any one of the parts causes system to cease functioning.
– No functional intermediates.
39
404040/54
One Example: Bacterial Flagellum
4141
Bacteria Swimming
Flagella Movement
Flagellum Self Assembly
4242
ID Scientific Predictions1. “Natural structures will be found that
contain many parts arranged in intricate patterns that perform a specific function…”
2. “Forms containing large amounts of novel information will appear in the fossil record suddenly and without similar precursors.”
3. “Convergences will occur routinely. That is, genes and other functional parts will be re-used in different and unrelated organisms.”
4. “Much ‘junk DNA’ will turn out to perform valuable functions.”
Luskin 2007, p1
4343
ID and Evolution• Many ID proponents think the unity
and diversity of life are the result of both evolution and design.
• All accept microevolution.• All reject ateleological
macroevolution.
43
4444
Dembski: Evolution Is a Given
“Intelligent Design does not so much challenge whether evolution occurred but how it occurred. In particular, it
questions whether purposeless material
processes—as opposed to intelligence—can create
biological complexity and diversity.”
44
4545
Objections to ID• Not science or not good science
– It invokes supernatural factors (AAAS).– It is poor quality science (Miller).
• Not Biblical (Ham)– Too watered down.– Doesn’t explicitly name the designer as the God of
the bible.– Some ID proponents accept macroevolution.
• God of the Gaps (Collins)– ID explains only what science cannot.– This can undermine confidence in the Bible.
45
4646
Criticism: Supernatural“…Intelligent Design … is in fact religious,
not scientific…”
“…AAAS Board underlined the inappropriateness of teaching
Intelligent Design in the science classroom because of its ‘significant conceptual flaws in formulation, a lack of credible scientific
evidence, and misrepresentation of scientific facts.’“
46
4747
Criticism: Not Christian“What good is it if people believe in intelligence? That’s no different than atheism in that if it’s not the
God of the Bible, it’s not Jesus Christ, it’s not salvation.”
(Ken Ham)
47
4848
Criticism: God of the Gaps
“…But I'm not an advocate of intelligent design, either…I think intelligent design sets up a ‘God of the gaps’… scenario…”
(Francis Collins in PBS interview with Tucker Carlson, 4/8/2005)
48
4949
Bottom Line• Theists tend to overlook the theory’s
weaknesses.• Atheists tend to overlook the theory’s
strengths.• Creationists are split…some favor it
while others oppose it.
49
5050
• Ecklund EH, Scheitle CP. 2007. Religion among academic scientists: distinctions, disciplines, and demographics. Social Problems 54(2):289-307.• Total participants: 1,646• No religious affiliation: 52% • Do not believe in God: 31% • Do not know if there is a God: 31% • Have not attended religious services during preceding year: 56%• “No doubts about God’s existence”: 9.7%• • Kosmin BA, Keysar A. 2009. American religious identification survey [ARIS 2008] [summary report]. [Hartford (CT)]: Trinity College. p. 1-26.• Total participants: 54,461• Americans with no religious affiliation: 15%• Ages 18-29 with no religious affiliation: 22%• Identified themselves as Christians: 76%• Believe in a personal God: 70%• Claim to be atheists/agnostic: 12%• Claim to be deists: 12%• • Stark R. 2008. What Americans really believe: new findings from the Baylor surveys of religion. Baylor University Press.• Institute for Studies of Religion at Baylor University: Gallup Organization• Percentages related to those who answered affirmatively for the possibility of superstitious elements including dreams foretelling future,
existence of Atlantis, places being haunted, and possibility of communicating with the dead.• Those with religious affiliation: 8%• Those with no religious affiliation: 31%
5151
0%
100%0%
100%Reality does not include matter & energy (thus only super-natural explanations are acceptable since naturalistic science cannot fully under-stand or explain any phenomenon).
Reality includes only matter & energy (thus,
only naturalistic science can fully understand or
explain any phenomenon, and supernatural ex-
planations are irrelevant). P
erce
nt S
uper
natu
ralis
m Percent Naturalism
Reality includes more than matter & energy
(thus, only science integrated with
religious faith can hope to fully understand or
explain any phenomenon).
Presupposition Continuum: Naturalism & Supernaturalism*
The figure above attempts to illustrate a person’s presuppositions about reality. These are represented along a continuum from absolute supernaturalism on the left to absolute naturalism on the right. Precisely where theists should be on each axis is debatable, but since they believe both the Special Revelation and the General Revelation describe reality, we should be in the middle somewhere.
* Adapted from Boehlke et.al., (2006) Zygon 41:2, 415-425.
5252
Return to TOC
5353
Publications
5454
5555
5656
5757
Return to TOC
5858
Self-Reported Positions
5959
Self-Reported Position 2004 A/G (n=224)* 2008 Pentecostals (n=70) 2009 A/G (n=145)*
Young Earth Creationists 34.8% 24.3% 23.4%
Old Earth Creationists 30.8% 38.6% 41.4%
Evolutionary Creationists (TE) 12.1% 25.7% 19.3%
Undecided and Blank 21.4% 10.0% 15.8%
Atheistic Evolutionists 0.8% 1.4% 0%
Self-Reported Position PercentYoung Earth Creationists 25%Old Earth Creationists or Reluctant to Commit 48%Evolutionary Creationists 27%
Self-Reported Position 2004* (n=763) 2009* (n=185)Young Earth Creationists 51.1% 42.7%Old Earth Creationists 17.6% 23.2%Evolutionary Creationists 8.5% 15.7%Undecided and Blank 22.5% 18.3%Atheistic/Deistic Evolutionists 0.2% 0%
Position nA/G Leader 1Pastor 17Physician 1SS Teacher 2
Self-Reported Position May 2010 (n=21)Young Earth Creationists 9 (43%)Old Earth Creationists 6 (29%)Evolutionary Creationists 5 (24%)Undecided and Blank, Other 1 (5%)
Self-Reported Position N=20Young Earth Creationists 6 (30%)Old Earth Creationists 8 (40%)Evolutionary Creationists 0 (0%)Undecided and Blank, Other 6 (30%)
A/G Faculty Responses to the Origins Survey (Badger and Tenneson)CCCU Biology Faculty 2005 (n=67 CCCU schools): Sutherland, J.C. (July 1, 2005) “Evangelical Biologists and Evolution.” Science 309:51A/G College StudentsResponses to Enrichment Article Spring 2010CCCU Survey results from online article (September 2010)
6060
6161
Mike Tenneson, PhDSteve Badger, PhDEvangel University
American Scientific AffiliationBaylor UniversityAugust 1, 2009
Attitudesand Beliefs about Origins
6262
Origins Camps
6363Reliability of the scientific method
View
of c
reat
ion
acco
unt i
n Ge
nesis
low confidence high confidence
GCA is ancient myth
GCA is part historical narrative
with poetic elementsGCA is historical
narrative & scientifically accurate
YECOEC
EC
DE
AE
GAP THEORY
GCA is ancient
science, not historical narrative
63/49
6464
The Online Origins Surveys
6565
Purposes
• Investigate the Origins views of Pentecostal faculty, staff, and students.
• Evaluate and improve instruction in science and theology classes.
6666
Desired Characteristics
• Valid
• Reliable
• Convenient
• Anonymous
6767
Three Surveys
• 2004
• 2008
• 2009
6868
2004: Five Mental ConstructsFacto
rStudents (n=763) Faculty (n=224)
1 Evolutionary Creation Old Earth Creation
• Scree plots and eigenvalues indicated five factors.
• Varimax orthogonal rotation resulted in highest factor loadings.
• Factor loadings >0.40 are moderate to high.
6969
2004: Five Mental ConstructsFacto
rStudents (n=763) Faculty (n=224)
1 Evolutionary Creation Old Earth Creation
2 Old Earth Creation Evolutionary Creation
• Scree plots and eigenvalues indicated five factors.
• Varimax orthogonal rotation resulted in highest factor loadings.
• Factor loadings >0.40 are moderate to high.
7070
2004: Five Mental ConstructsFacto
rStudents (n=763) Faculty (n=224)
1 Evolutionary Creation Old Earth Creation
2 Old Earth Creation Evolutionary Creation
3 Young Earth Creation
Science Over Theology
• Scree plots and eigenvalues indicated five factors.
• Varimax orthogonal rotation resulted in highest factor loadings.
• Factor loadings >0.40 are moderate to high.
7171
2004: Five Mental ConstructsFacto
rStudents (n=763) Faculty (n=224)
1 Evolutionary Creation Old Earth Creation
2 Old Earth Creation Evolutionary Creation
3 Young Earth Creation
Science Over Theology
4 Historic/Scientific Accuracy of Genesis Young Earth Creation
• Scree plots and eigenvalues indicated five factors.
• Varimax orthogonal rotation resulted in highest factor loadings.
• Factor loadings >0.40 are moderate to high.
7272
2004: Five Mental ConstructsFacto
rStudents (n=763) Faculty (n=224)
1 Evolutionary Creation Old Earth Creation
2 Old Earth Creation Evolutionary Creation
3 Young Earth Creation
Science Over Theology
4 Historic/Scientific Accuracy of Genesis Young Earth Creation
5 Fiat Creation Anti-Deism• Scree plots and eigenvalues indicated five factors.
• Varimax orthogonal rotation resulted in highest factor loadings.
• Factor loadings >0.40 are moderate to high.
7373
2008 Survey
• n=70 Pentecostal educators.• Most believe:
– The universe is billions of years old.– All life did not have a common ancestor.– One theistic position has more support than the others.– Arguments for intelligent design (ID) are convincing.
• They are divided on:– Whether new life has arisen since creation.– Macroevolution should be taught as the unifying
concept of biology.
7474
2008: Pentecostal Faculty
Self-Reported Position (n=70)
Young Earth Creationists 24.3%
Old Earth Creationists 38.6%
Evolutionary Creationists 25.7%
Undecided and Blank 10.0%
Atheistic Evolutionists 1.4%
7575
2009: Mental ConstructsFacto
rStudents (n=185)
Faculty (n=145)
All Respondents
(n=390)
1 Old Earth Creation
Old Earth Creation
Old Earth Creation
•The four identified factors explained 54.8% of the total variance.
•The mental constructs correspond to our theoretical expectations.
7676
2009: Mental ConstructsFacto
rStudents (n=185)
Faculty (n=145)
All Respondents
(n=390)
1 Old Earth Creation
Old Earth Creation
Old Earth Creation
2 Evolutionary Creation
Young Earth Creation & ID
Evolutionary Creation
•The four identified factors explained 54.8% of the total variance.
•The mental constructs correspond to our theoretical expectations.
7777
2009: Mental ConstructsFacto
rStudents (n=185)
Faculty (n=145)
All Respondents
(n=390)
1 Old Earth Creation
Old Earth Creation
Old Earth Creation
2 Evolutionary Creation
Young Earth Creation & ID
Evolutionary Creation
3 Young Earth Creation & ID
Evolutionary Creation
Young Earth Creation
•The four identified factors explained 54.8% of the total variance.
•The mental constructs correspond to our theoretical expectations.
7878
2009: Mental ConstructsFacto
rStudents (n=185)
Faculty (n=145)
All Respondents
(n=390)
1 Old Earth Creation
Old Earth Creation
Old Earth Creation
2 Evolutionary Creation
Young Earth Creation & ID
Evolutionary Creation
3 Young Earth Creation & ID
Evolutionary Creation
Young Earth Creation
4 Intelligent Design Gap Theory Intelligent Design
•The four identified factors explained 54.8% of the total variance.
•The mental constructs correspond to our theoretical expectations.
7979
Factor 1: Old Earth Creation
Item # 18 33 7 19 20 10 2 13
FL 0.801
0.796
0.776
0.740 0.721 0.70
7 0.688 0.622
Item # 12 23 25 27FL 0.618 0.427 0.417 –0.630
8080
Factor 2: Evolutionary Creation
Item # 21 4 16 30 11FL 0.816 0.803 0.731 0.709 0.572
Item # 24 6FL -0.687 -0.749
8181
Factor 3: Young Earth Creation
Item # 15 17 1 32 27FL 0.757 0.630 0.625 0.613 0.439
Item # 10 12 13 23FL -0.433 -0.458 -0.521 -0.603
8282
Factor 4: Intelligent Design
Item # 26 14 9 3 5FL 0.781 0.697 0.658 0.628 -0.602
8383
2009: Reliability
Mental Construc
tReliability
()
1 0.9222 0.8603 0.8714 0.721
• Measures precision of the assessment of the affective characteristic.
• Cronbach’s alpha >0.70 is evidence of reliability.
8484
8585
8686
Return to TOC
8787
Findings
8888
Respondent Demographics
2004 2009Respondents (n) 1,032 390Students 63% 47%Educators 19% 32%Staff 11% 11%Administrators 3% 5%A/G Affiliated 74% 80%
8989
FacultySelf-
Reported Position
2004 A/G (n=224)*
Young Earth Creationists 34.8%Old Earth
Creationists 30.8%Evolutionary Creationists 12.1%Undecided and Blank 21.4%Atheistic
Evolutionists 0.8%*p≤0.05, comparing 2004 and 2009
samples. χ2=11.066, df=3 (AE and DE omitted) 89/49
9090
FacultySelf-
Reported Position
2004 A/G (n=224)*
2008 Pentecostals
(n=70)Young Earth Creationists 34.8% 24.3%Old Earth
Creationists 30.8% 38.6%Evolutionary Creationists 12.1% 25.7%Undecided and Blank 21.4% 10.0%Atheistic
Evolutionists 0.8% 1.4%*p≤0.05, comparing 2004 and 2009
samples. χ2=11.066, df=3 (AE and DE omitted) 90/49
9191
FacultySelf-
Reported Position
2004 A/G (n=224)*
2008 Pentecostals
(n=70)2009 A/G(n=145)*
Young Earth Creationists 34.8% 24.3% 23.4%Old Earth
Creationists 30.8% 38.6% 41.4%Evolutionary Creationists 12.1% 25.7% 19.3%Undecided and Blank 21.4% 10.0% 15.8%Atheistic
Evolutionists 0.8% 1.4% 0%*p≤0.05, comparing 2004 and 2009
samples. χ2=11.066, df=3 (AE and DE omitted) 91/49
9292
A/G Faculty
YEC OEC EC0
102030405060708090
100
34.8 30.8
12.123.4
41.4
19.3
2004 2009
Camp Affiliation
Perc
ent
9393
CCCU Biology Faculty (2005)
Self-Reported Position Percent
Young Earth Creationists 25%
Old Earth Creationists or Reluctant to Commit 48%
Evolutionary Creationists 27%
n=67 CCCU schools
Sutherland, J.C. (July 1, 2005) “Evangelical Biologists and Evolution.” Science 309:51
9494
A/G Students
Self-Reported Position
2004* (n=76
3)
2009* (n=185
)Young Earth Creationists 51.1% 42.7%Old Earth Creationists 17.6% 23.2%Evolutionary Creationists 8.5% 15.7%Undecided and Blank 22.5% 18.3%Atheistic/Deistic Evolutionists 0.2% 0%
*p≤0.01, χ2=14.933, df=3
9595
A/G Students
YEC OEC EC0
102030405060708090
100
51.1
17.68.5
42.7
23.215.7
2004 2009
Camp Affiliation
Perc
ent
9696
Do you embrace the theory of Intelligent Design?
Response Faculty Student
sYes 84.1% 83.2%No 4.1% 3.8%Blank 11.7% 13.0%
9797
Do you embrace the Gap Theory?
Response Faculty Students
Yes 22.8% 15.7%No 38.6% 54.6%Blank 38.6% 29.7%
9898
Stated Positions & Knowledge of Core Concepts, 2009
Camp
SA or A 4 of 5 Top
Items
SA or A 5 of 5 Top
Items
SA or A 4 or 5
of 5 Top Items
YEC 68/138 (49%) 3/138 (2%) 71/138 (51%)
OEC 16/122 (13%) 12/122 (10%)
28/122 (23%)
EC 13/62 (21%) 1/62 (2%) 14/62 (23%)
9999
Stated Positions & Knowledge of Core Concepts, 2009
Camp
SA or A 4 of 5 Top
Items
SA or A 5 of 5 Top
Items
SA or A 4 or 5
of 5 Top Items
YEC 68/138 (49%) 3/138 (2%) 71/138 (51%)
OEC 16/122 (13%) 12/122 (10%)
28/122 (23%)
EC 13/62 (21%) 1/62 (2%) 14/62 (23%)
100100
Usefulness in Teaching
• Evaluate the development of critical thinking skills– Willingness to change one’s viewpoint in light of new
evidence.
– Holding positions that are internally consistent.
• Gain insights into students’ preexisting opinions before a unit of instruction.
101101
Applications
Used by faculty teaching:– Biology
– Theology
– Bible or religion
– Psychology
102102
Pentecostal Contributions• Pentecostals:
– Have not developed a distinctive theology of origins.– Have embraced Evangelical & Fundamentalist
positions.
• Amos Yong:– Integrates emergence theory with pneumatology.– Expresses a dynamic role of the Spirit in creation via
evolution.
• Pentecostals should be open to divine creation via evolution.Yong, A. 2006. "Ruach, the Primordial Waters, and the Breath of Life:
Emergence Theory and the Creation Narratives in Pneumatological Perspective," in Michael Welker, ed., The Work of the Spirit: Pneumatology and Pentecostalism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans), 183-204.
103103
Conclusions
• The Online Origins surveys are valid and reliable.
• Pentecostal students and educators today have diverse views on Origins.
• Ancient creation views are gaining prominence among Pentecostals in higher education.
• Responses to survey items are often inconsistent with self identified camp affiliation.
104104
Acknowledgements• Dr. Amos Yong, Regent University
• Dr. Robert Cook, The Alliance for AG Higher Education
• Dr. Marilyn Abplanalp, The Alliance for AG Higher Education
• Dr. Robert Spence, President, EU
• Dr. Glenn Bernet, VP Academic Affairs, EU
• Dr. Mike McCorcle, Chair, Department of Science & Technology, EU
105105
Return to TOC
106106
Questions? Comments?
107107
Usefulness in Teaching
• Evaluate consistency between stated camp affiliation and bases for holding these views.
• Evaluate the effectiveness of various instructional approaches.
108108
Recommendations to Teachers• Explain the effects of the following on
beliefs about Origins:– epistemology– presuppositions– theories of the natural sciences– worldviews
• Teach that a position on Origins should be based on an honest attempt to integrate the biblical creation accounts and the findings of science.
109109
Recommendations to Teachers• Let the advocates for each Origins camp
speak to that view’s strengths, and let the detractors summarize the weaknesses.
• Teach that intelligent, informed, genuine Christians embrace different positions on Origins.
110110
Recommendations to Teachers• Show people the evidences and arguments
and insist that they think and arrive at their own conclusions.
• The areas of agreement among YEC, OEC, and EC are greater and more important than the areas of disagreement.
• Christians should stop fighting and dividing over Origins and work together to address other important issues.
111111
Propositions, Beliefs, & Truths
Among the Three Theist Positions on Origins
112112
All propositions regarding Origins
Beliefs
BeliefsBeliefs
SharedBeliefs
YEC OEC
EC
113113
All propositions regarding Origins
TruthBeliefs
BeliefsBeliefs
YEC OEC
EC
114114
YEC OEC
EC
All propositions regarding Origins
Truth
Beliefs
BeliefsBeliefs
115115
All propositions regarding Origins
Truth
Beliefs
BeliefsBeliefs
YEC OEC
EC
116116
All propositions regarding Origins
Truth
Beliefs
BeliefsBeliefs
YEC OEC
EC
117117
Return to TOC
118118118/26
Uniformitarianismand
Catastrophism
119119
Two Major Presuppositions• Catastrophism
• Georges Cuvier (1760-1832)• Earth was affected by sudden, short-lived, violent events
(e.g. Noah’s Flood).• Dominant view of scientists and theologians until late
1800s.• Age of Creation = young (thousands of years).
• Uniformitarianism• James Hutton (1726-1797), Charles Lyell (1797-1875),
Charles Darwin (1809-1882).• Natural processes occur in the same way and rates today
as they did in the past.• Dominant view of contemporary scientists and non YEC
theologians.• Age of Creation = very old (billions of years).
120120
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0 1 2 3 4 5120
Empirical sc
ience
Predictive
science
Historicalscience
Uniformitarianism suggests all three produce valid results
Catastrophism: science can deal only with the here and now
121121121/26
Theories of Truth“Major Theories of Truth”
From Geisler and Feinberg’sIntroduction to Philosophy:
A Christian Perspective
122122122/26
Ways to Knowledge Things Known
Authority (testimony) The past, transmitted culture
The Senses Things perceived via the senses
Reason Logical truths, deductions, inferences
Self-revelation Persons
Phenomenology General or universal ideas
Intuition Friendship, love, hunches
Apprenticeship Skills, connoisseurship
123123123/26
The Correspondence Theory of Truth• Something is considered true if
the proposition corresponds to the elements and a similar structure.
• The truth of a statement is determined only by how it relates to the world, and whether it accurately describes (i.e., corresponds with) that world.
124124124/26
The Correspondence Theory of Truth• Presupposes an objective world • Antagonistic to theories that reject
objectivity (such as skepticism or relativism).
• Truth means correspondence with the facts or reality.
125125125/26
The Coherence Theory of Truth
• A statement is true if and only if it coheres (is consistent) with all of the other statements of that system.
• Law of non-contradiction…• Coherence is a necessary condition
of truth, but not a sufficient condition.
126126126/26
Verification Principle• For a statement to be meaningful
(true) it must be either 1) purely definitional or else 2) verifiable by one or of more of the five senses.
• All other statements (theological, ethical, etc) are nonsense or meaningless
• A.J. Ayer (1910-1970)• Self-refuting
127127127/26
Falsification Principle• Anthony Flew & Karl Popper• Flew used it to challenge belief in
God• But Flew changed his mind (2004)
Karl Popper Anthony Flew
128128128/26
Falsification Principle• Any statement or proposition is
meaningless unless it is subject to falsification (at least in principle)
• Self-refuting
129129
Presuppositions
• Textbooks rarely identify presuppositions held by scientists.
• These presuppositions largely control which conclusions a person reaches.
129/26
130130
Presuppositions: A Short List• The physical realm exists independently of
the mind.• The physical world is orderly and knowable.• Our senses and mind yield reliable
information.• Inductive reasoning is reliable.• The laws of logic (e.g., law of
non-contradiction) are true.
130/26
131131
Presuppositions: A Short List
• Human observations of physical phenomena are trustworthy (the correspondence theory).
• Measurements yield accurate and useful information.
• Physical constants of the universe have not changed over time (uniformitarianism).
• Our presuppositions largely control our conclusions.
Moreland, J.P. (1989) Christianity and the Nature of Science. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 108-133.
131/26
132132
Presupposition #1:Creation accepted on faith
By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.
Hebrews 11:3, NIV
132/26
133133
Presupposition #2The creation reveals God
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has
made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and
divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are
without excuse. Romans 1:18-20, NIV
133/26
134134
Evidences for Evolution
135135
Seven Evidences for Macroevolution
1. Age of the earth.2. Evidences for natural selection.3. Biogeography.4. Fossil record.5. Comparative anatomy.6. Comparative embryology.7. Molecular biology.
136136
1. Age of the Earth
• Ancient earth is prerequisite for macroevolution.
• Radiometric dating and relative dating (geologic strata formation) rarely differ by more than 5%.
• Vast majority of scientists (theists, non-theists) conclude the physical realm is billions of years old.
137137
2. Natural Selection: Galapagos Finches
138138
3. Biogeography
139139
3. Biogeography
140140
4. Fossil Record
141141
5. Comparative Anatomy
142142
Comparative Anatomy
Hind limb rudimentation in a Spotted Dolphin embryo
Wright whale skeleton with pelvic bones
Basilosaurus, extinct whale with hind limbs
143143
6. Comparative EmbryologyHa
ecke
l’s R
use
144144
6. Comparative Embryology
145145
7. Molecular Biology: DNA
• High DNA similarities between living organisms and their apparent close relatives based on fossil studies.
• 98.8% similarity between 77,000 DNA base pairs examined for humans and chimpanzees.
146146
Summary
1. Evolution as change over time is not antithetical to creationism.
2. Evolution as common descent is controversial.3. Natural selection and microevolution are
universally accepted.4. Macroevolution is not.5. The foundational issue is materialism and
theism not evolution and creation.
147147
What Evolution is NOT
• Darwinism– Evolution is primarily due to natural selection.– Not goal driven.
• Evolutionism– Evolution is the universal mode of change.– For life and non-life.– Goal driven.
• Materialism/Naturalism – Only the physical realm exists.
148148
What Evolution Is NOT
• Scientism – Methods of science are the only path to certain
knowledge.• Atheism
– There is no supreme being.• Origin of Life
– Evolution assumes life exists; it doesn’t speculate on how it came to exist.
149149
Evolution and Natural Selection
Not the same thing…Natural selection is the mechanism
that causes evolution.
150150
What Evolution Is…
1. Genetic change with time.
2. Common descent (the famous “tree of life”).
151151
Microevolution
• Small changes.• No new “kinds.”• Accepted by all creationists
and non-creationists.
152152
Macroevolution
• Large changes.• Results in new “kinds.”• Rejected by some because it:
– depends on an ancient physical realm.– depends on uniformitarianism.– depends on species plasticity.
153153
Punctuated Equilibria
154154
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 330
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Punctuated Equilibria vs. Gradual Evolution
Time
Gen
etic
Cha
nge
(Tra
it C
hang
e)
Gradual Evolution Punctuated
Equilibria
Gradual?
155155
Seven Evidences for Macroevolution
1. Age of the earth.2. Evidences for natural selection.3. Biogeography.4. Fossil record.5. Comparative anatomy.6. Comparative embryology.7. Molecular biology.
156156
1. Age of the Earth
• Ancient earth is prerequisite for macroevolution.
• Radiometric dating and relative dating (geologic strata formation) rarely differ by more than 5%.
• Vast majority of scientists (theists, non-theists) conclude the physical realm is billions of years old.
157157
2. Natural Selection: Galapagos Finches
158158
3. Biogeography
159159
3. Biogeography
160160
4. Fossil Record
161161
5. Comparative Anatomy
162162
Comparative Anatomy
Hind limb rudimentation in a Spotted Dolphin embryo
Wright whale skeleton with pelvic bones
Basilosaurus, extinct whale with hind limbs
163163
6. Comparative EmbryologyHa
ecke
l’s R
use
164164
6. Comparative Embryology
165165
7. Molecular Biology: DNA
• High DNA similarities between living organisms and their apparent close relatives based on fossil studies.
• 98.8% similarity between 77,000 DNA base pairs examined for humans and chimpanzees.
166166
Summary
1. Evolution as change over time is not antithetical to creationism.
2. Evolution as common descent is controversial.3. Natural selection and microevolution are
universally accepted.4. Macroevolution is hotly debated.5. The foundational issues are materialism and
theism not evolution and creation.
167167
Application to Apologetics:
Suggestions for Productive Dialogue
Steve BadgerMike Tenneson
Evangel University
167November 2007
168168
Productive Dialogue
• Identify your goals. • What is your purpose in
debating theories of Origins? • Are you seeking “truth” or
trying to win an argument? • Have you honestly considered
the arguments of your friend? • Or have you considered only
one side of the debate?168
169169
Productive Dialogue
• Understand yourself before you try to understand your friend.
• Do you embrace your position because this is the only way to understand the evidence—or for other reasons?
169
170170
Productive Dialogue• Don’t misrepresent your friend’s position by
bringing up discarded arguments that are no longer used (fossilized human and dinosaur footprints in the same stratum).
• Don’t make your position the litmus test for scientific or religious orthodoxy.
• Don’t assume you know your friend’s motive for embracing his/her position.
170
171171
Productive Dialogue• Become familiar with the biblical
and scientific evidences for the age of the universe/earth.
• Carefully evaluate the patterns of integrating faith and science.
• Don’t relegate science & religion to two domains (NOMA).
171
172172
Productive Dialogue
• Don’t think only Christians use faith and only scientists use reason.
• Both use both.• Natural science can neither prove nor
disprove God’s existence.
172
173173
Productive Dialogue
• Don’t confuse the biological theory of macroevolution with the philosophy of evolutionism, which claims everything (not just life) is getting better (i.e., progressing).
• Don’t assume that a person who accepts one of these necessarily embraces the other.
173
174174
Productive Dialogue
• Each of you must train yourself to listen.
• People often are trying to think of and remember what they will say next rather than really listening to the other person.
• Discipline yourself to listen to your friend the same way you want him/her to listen to you.
174
175175
Productive Dialogue
• Define your terms. Be sure that you both mean the same thing by a particular word.
• Is one of you using a popular definition and the other a technical one?
• How are people using these terms in the literature today (as opposed to 50 years ago)?
175
176176
Productive Dialogue• Be willing to admit and reveal your
presuppositions, both to yourself and to your friend. Then use this knowledge in your discussion.
• If you are a Christian who considers the Bible to be God’s Word and your friend doubts God’s existence and has no respect for the Bible, you are not likely to convince that person by citing Genesis.
176
177177
Productive Dialogue• Help your friend identify his/her bias. • If you embrace a creation theory and your
friend thinks the scientific method is the only way to gain reliable knowledge about Origins, you will need to discover scientific challenges to the theory of macroevolution.
• If you’re scientifically illiterate, your friend will probably not listen to your arguments for long.
177
178178
Productive Dialogue
• Discuss the merits of evidence and conclusions instead of attacking the other person.
• Even if you think people in other camps are less informed, less intelligent, or less spiritual than you, don’t talk or act like it.
178
179179
Productive Dialogue• Educate yourself. • Read articles and books by those
who hold opinions different from yours.
• Try to discover their presuppositions and any agenda they may have. (Everyone who writes has a bias and an agenda.)
179
180180
Productive Dialogue• If in the end neither of you can
convince the other of his/her position, admit that you have this difference of opinion and learn to accept each other—especially if you’re both Christians.
180
181181
Productive Dialogue• Many genuine Christians who agree that the
Bible is God’s Holy Word disagree on the genre of the creation account in Genesis.
• Your position should not be the litmus test for orthodoxy.
• Many orthodox Christians believe there is considerable evidence that the universe is billions of years old.
181
182182
Productive Dialogue• Accepting an old Earth theory of Origins
does not mean that you accept a theory of macroevolution.
• The theory of macroevolution is not “known” in the same way that the speed of light is “known.”
• Some respected scientists today admit to problems with macroevolutionary theory.
182
183183
Productive Dialogue• The SM is not the only way to gain reliable
knowledge and cannot find the answer to every question or the solution to every problem.
• The fact that most scientists accept macroevolution may say more about our methods of education than it says about the merits of the theory or the amount of supporting evidence.
183
184184
Productive Dialogue
• Teachers need to remember that good teachers try to let the evidences speak for themselves.
• This is true in the Academy.• Is it true in the church?
184
185185
Productive Dialogue• We think that teachers should present
evidences for the various theories of Origins along with the unavoidable uncertainty of the scientific method, the unavoidable effect of worldview on data interpretation, and the alternative theist explanations.
• Show students the options and give them freedom to think and arrive at their own conclusions.
185
186186
Productive Dialogue
Is arguing Origins really the best way to lead a non-believer to faith in Christ?
186
187187
Return to TOC
188188
The Question of The Days in
Genesis 1
By Roger Cotton, Th.D.
189189
1. Do the statements of evening and morning and numbering the days in Genesis 1 intend to say the earth as we know it was created this way in six 24-hour days, as we know them? A separate but often related question is did this take place less than 10,000 years ago?
190190
2. Most Bible believers have taken it this way, until recently.
(see #11 below)
3. The Bible clearly makes the pattern of a week important for marking time and for rest.
191191
4. The Hebrew word for day is sometimes used for long periods of time, but here it does not seem to be. Some commentators have suggested the wording could be understood as stylized and not literal (Hamilton, NICOT, 121). Certainly, Genesis 2:4 summarizes the creation week as a “day,” and in 2:2 God left the 7th day open.
192192
5. There is evidence from the Hebrew that the days may be understood as a list and not a chronological sequence (Waltke, Comm., Zondervan, 76; Sterchi, JETS 39).
6. There is strong literary evidence for purposeful arrangement of the days (whether the sequence is literal or not, Wenham, Comm., Word, 6-7).
193193
7. Generalities about genre must not be used to avoid dealing with specific issues? (“It is poetry so it should not be taken literally.”) However, genre is an important factor in interpretation.
8. Chapter 2 describes more events than seem possible for a 24-hour sixth day.
194194
9. If the account is consistently taken literally, then the first three days did not have the sun to mark daylight and night, and plants grew without sunlight.
195195
10. Can/should believers reconcile the creation account with the millions of years the scientists see portrayed in the universe and the earth? If the universe is not as old as it appears, is this a deception built in to the universe by God?
196196
11. Our purpose must be to be sure we have understood what God intended to say, not to harmonize the Scriptures to the theories of science. However, some of the latter theories may cause us to take another, more careful, look at our understandings of the Bible.
197197
12. Did God reveal the truths of creation to Moses more as a video or a symbolic
animation?13. The question must be the
intent behind the text of the Scriptures, not the ability of God.
14. Be sure to give priority to the clear, primary message of any Bible passage, and not to our issues.
198198
Return to TOC
199199
What Genesis Clearly Says
200200
1. There is a God who has created all things and has, in this book, revealed the truth
about the origins of everything (a real beginning), especially people, suffering and death, and his plan to restore from death, which would work through the
people he would establish as the nation of Israel.
201201
2. God, whose name is YHWH, is totally sovereign, yet personal,
good, and purposeful.
3. God is personally involved with his creation, forming it, communicating with it, blessing it, and intervening to deal with it.
202202
4. The creation process was in distinct steps called days, which show symmetry and purposeful
progression. In the creation week God modeled ceasing from one’s work every seventh day.
203203
5. God considered the creation good, which includes
functioning as intended, until the disobedience of the
humans.
6. The focus of God’s concern and of the book of Genesis is on humans and God’s personal relationship with them.
204204
7. All humans and only humans are created in the image of God; this
means they have a special capacity for communion and
communication in language with God and the reflective
understanding of, and ability to make choices in regard to,
responsibility and accountability that he gives them. Thus, God put
them in charge over the rest of the earth.
205205
8. People were created male and female and intended
to have a one-flesh relationship between one man and one woman, for
life.
206206
9. Brokenness in relationships, suffering, and death for all
humans, came into the world through people’s selfish,
distrusting, violation of the relationship with God. The
ground was cursed because of this fall of humans.
207207
10. All humans have been born outside of the Garden of Eden
—the original place where Adam and Eve lived in perfect
harmony with God, in ideal conditions.
11. All people are graciously offered the blessing of restored fellowship with God through faith in the promised descendent of Abraham.
208208
12. Selfish, cruel behavior keeps increasing as the
population increases and God intervenes to
restrain it and punish it, as well as save a faithful
remnant.13. God holds accountable all
who take a human life.
209209
14. The focus of the rest of Genesis (and the OT and
the Bible) is on God’s plan accomplished
through one who would be a ruler of His nation,
Israel.
210210
Return to TOC
211211
Further Observations
212212
1. The precise dating of the events is not a concern in the Bible.
2. The creation days are described in an unusual way.
3. There are descriptions of events for the creation days, which do not seem to fit a 24-hour period.
4. There is a question of the introduction of the lights in the sky after light was created and plants were produced.
213213
5. Darkness and the sea which ancient peoples associated with
chaos are clearly under complete control and are even used for God’s purposes. Also
the heavenly bodies are polemically demythologized as simply giving light and marking
time for the earth.
214214
6. Most of the categories used in Genesis are different from modern, western, scientific
ones, and the descriptions are phenomenological.
215215
7. There is an emphasis on divinely established
separations in nature and kinds of life.
8. Genesis is not told like ancient myths and, though it has poetic elements, it is not pure poetry.
216216
9. Genesis 2 elaborates on day six from chapter 1 and uses a different style to tell the story of the creation of Adam and
Eve, their ideal state, and the prohibition they were given.
10. The Kingdom or Rule of God is an important theme.
217217
Return to TOC
218218
My View of the Issue of the Genesis
Days of Creation in Relation to Science
By Roger Cotton, Th.D.
219219
1. I believe the Genesis 1 and 2 creation account can legitim-
ately be interpreted in at least these three ways,
concluding that the days are: 1) 24 hours; 2) represent long
ages of time; or 3) have nothing to do with time but
are literary constructs.
220220
2. If we agree that Genesis is God’s Word, then, whatever we
conclude about the days, we should be able to agree on the primary message of Genesis 1 and 2 and that that is what is
important.
221221
3. I believe God did not intend the Bible to teach details about
how He created the world in relation to modern, scientific, questions, observations, and
conclusions.
222222
4. I believe that generally, the Bible and science are dealing with
different subjects. Sometimes they both look at the same thing from different perspectives. I believe
when they occasionally deal with the same subject good science and
good Bible interpretation do not conflict. I propose when issues
appear to conflict, they are inadequately understood from one
or both perspectives.
223223
5. I believe we have to consider all new facts and reevaluate our
former theories or interpretations, admitting that we are capable of making mistakes but that that does not nullify the
certainty of God’s truths, nor does that have to be seen as bending one to fit the other.
224224
6. I believe Christians should never fear truth, facts, or true science. Problems come from
partial truth, inadequate information, incomplete study, faulty reasoning, or theories claimed as facts, besides lies
and distortions.
225225
7. I believe that Christians who hold to a different
under-standing of Genesis 1-3 are not necessarily
rejecting the Word of God.
226226
Return to TOC
Recommended