Steve Badger & Mike Tenneson

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeOyg90It5w

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeOyg90It5w

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1j2VOY3eRk8&feature=related



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




2 Old Earth Creation Evolutionary Creation




7070





3 Young Earth Creation

Science Over Theology




7171







4 Historic/Scientific Accuracy of Genesis Young Earth Creation




7272







4 Historic/Scientific Accuracy of Genesis Young Earth Creation

5 Fiat Creation Anti-Deism• Scree plots and eigenvalues indicated five factors.



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


rStudents (n=185)

Faculty (n=145)

All Respondents

(n=390)


Old Earth Creation

Old Earth Creation

2 Evolutionary Creation

Young Earth Creation & ID

Evolutionary Creation



7777


rStudents (n=185)

Faculty (n=145)

All Respondents

(n=390)


Old Earth Creation

Old Earth Creation




3 Young Earth Creation & ID


Young Earth Creation



7878


rStudents (n=185)

Faculty (n=145)

All Respondents

(n=390)


Old Earth Creation

Old Earth Creation




3 Young Earth Creation & ID


Young Earth Creation

4 Intelligent Design Gap Theory Intelligent Design



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


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


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


TruthBeliefs

BeliefsBeliefs

YEC OEC

EC

114114

YEC OEC

EC


Truth

Beliefs

BeliefsBeliefs

115115


Truth

Beliefs

BeliefsBeliefs

YEC OEC

EC

116116


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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Antony_Flew_headshot.jpg

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

Documents

Steve Badger & Mike Tenneson