If you desperately want to label me with one of the common labels, then "young-earth creationist" or "six-day creationist" would probably be most appropriate. Except that I don't think the earth is young or that God created everything in six days.

Theological issues

1. The basic narrative of the Bible is creation–fall–redemption. The "physical" history of life, the universe and everything is inseparably part of that narrative. The creation was good, was corrupted at the fall, and is being restored and renewed following the redemptive work of Christ. (Listen to this talk by Steve Lloyd on Creation and the Story-Line of the Bible.)
2. Human death, and other things such as cancer, agony and violent death in humans or animals, are not good, were not present before the fall, and will be abolished when all things are renewed in the resurrection. (See the Steve Lloyd link above, and his points in a debate on creation and evolution.)
3. All human beings are descended biologically from Adam and Eve (and only Adam and Eve), who were created thousands (not millions) of years ago. (See this book chapter by Michael Reeves on Adam and Eve. That almost rhymed.)
4. It was necessary for Jesus to undergo human physical death in order to deal with the problem of sin, because human physical death is a consequence of sin.
5. It follows from points 2 and 3 that all fossil-bearing rocks (or at least the vast majority of them) were laid down after the fall, probably during or soon after the flood, thousands (not millions) of years ago.
6. Compared with the above points, the age of the universe and of planet earth are issues of little significance for Christian theology and biblical interpretation. Even if the universe and planet earth are old, that doesn't necessarily mean that the biosphere is old, or that the fossil-bearing rocks are old. My working hypothesis is that God created plants and animals on earth a few thousand years ago, prior to which the earth had existed without life for billions of years.

Scientific issues

1. "Faith" and "science" cannot be isolated from each other. There is a deep interaction between the two, which is relevant at every level.
2. Evolutionary models for biology and geology have significant unresolved issues. This perhaps hints that there are scientific grounds (and not just theological grounds) for exploring alternatives. However, these unresolved issues do not imply that those models are wrong, or that they are bad science. (See my post on Evidence for young-age creationism.)
3. Scientific models built on young-age views have major unresolved issues. But they also seem to show some signs of possessing explanatory power in certain areas in which the evolutionary models are weak. This perhaps hints that there are scientific grounds (and not just theological grounds) for continued research into young-age models. But, even if those models have strengths, they are currently far from compelling. (Again, see my post on Evidence for young-age creationism.)
4. The truth about the origins of everything cannot be determined simply by looking up the definition of the word "science" in a dictionary.

There's plenty of evidence that fits more comfortably with billions of years of evolution than with a young-age creation model. For example, looking at the evidence, it seems that a huge amount of radioactive decay has taken place. If the bulk of this took place during the Flood (as current young-age models would claim), it would have generated enough heat to "potentially vaporize the earth's oceans, melt the crust, and obliterate the surface of the earth", according to young-age creationist Larry Vardiman. Models involving billions of years don't have this particular problem.

But there also appears to be plenty of evidence that fits more comfortably within a young-age framework.

The Carrying the Creation Torch day in Leicester yesterday featured four talks focusing on the scientific evidence for young-age creation, sandwiched by two talks by David Catchpoole of Creation Ministries International (CMI), focusing on the theological side of the issue. (I missed both of those talks.)

Dominic Statham, speaker for CMI, spoke about Migration after the Genesis Flood. In the standard evolutionary framework, it seems that a lot of biogeography (the geography of plants and animals) is best explained by migration by sea. This fits in with the Flood, which would have left lots of floating rafts in the oceans. Interesting stuff, presented clearly and fairly.

Stuart Burgess next, on Hallmarks of design 12 years on. Burgess is a professor of engineering design, specialising in spotting excellent engineering solutions in living things, and then copying them. The existence of "irreducible mechanisms", such as the four-bar mechanism in the knee, is a challenge to evolutionary models, but fits comfortably in young-age creation models, in which complex or optimum design is no surprise.

Philip Bell, from CMI, spoke on Let the Rocks Speak: Evidence for the Flood from Fossils and Geology. Large-scale geological features fit the young-age view better than the long-age view. Vast sedimentary rock layers, spanning continental scales, speak of continental-sized catastrophic processes. There seems to be very little time between layers (no signs of erosion on the lower layer where they join), rapid burial of fossils, folding of (necessarily soft) rock layers on huge scales, and features such as flat-topped mountains and water gaps that would be expected to be produced by the receding waters of a global flood.

Finally, Vij Sodera, a surgeon, gave a talk entitled, Biology agrees with the Bible. I think he overstated his case, but he made it convincing that it is very difficult to imagine how the mammalian diaphragm or the human big toe could have evolved through a step-by-step process, in which each step would be viable and convey some advantage (or at least no major disadvantage).

All in all, a stimulating day. My only major concern is that someone could have come out at the end of the day not appreciating that the young-age creation model still has major unsolved problems. I'm not surprised about that, but I would love it to be the case that people on both sides of the issue didn't feel threatened by that sort of thing. Just because a scientific theory has huge gaping holes in it (as most of them do), that doesn't mean the theory is wrong (pace Popper, and most protagonists in the creation/evolution debate). Nor does it mean people should abandon that theory. It just means more research is needed.

The Colossian Forum is some new thing trying to promote discussion on issues of science, culture and Christian faith. They invited young-age creationist Todd Wood to write an article for them on What I Would Like to Hear an Evolutionary Creationist Say. So what would Todd Wood like to hear an evolutionary creationist say?

"I don't know."

Perhaps when people ask if Christian theology is compatible with evolution, the first answer should be, “I don’t know.”

He continues,

As a young age creationist, let me take this opportunity to follow my own advice and publicly express my ignorance. If creationism is true, why can we see starlight from stars millions of light years away? I don’t know. If creationism is true, what does radiometric dating mean? I don’t know. If creationism is true, why do humans and chimpanzees have nearly identical genomes? I don’t know. Just like evolutionary creationists wrestling with theological issues, though, young-age creationists have proposed all sorts of answers to the above questions. Some weren’t very good ideas, but others are quite intriguing. And just like evolutionary approaches to theology, there is no single creationist scientific model that most creationists would accept.

And in conclusion,

When it comes to the origins fight, maybe the key is to follow Christ’s example. Maybe the only way we’ll ever resolve the war is through surrender. Maybe in surrender, we’ll find out what real victory is. Maybe we’ll find that confessing ignorance is the first step towards finding God’s truth. Maybe we’ll discover that asking for wisdom is just what God wanted us to do all along. Most important of all, maybe we’ll find that we can humbly ask for wisdom together, and in doing so, the world really will see something different about us.

Is there a distinctively Christian view of astronomy? Or is astronomy "neutral", and untouched by Christian faith?

The Reformational stream of Christian thinking emphasises that all areas of life, reality and culture are created by God, affected by the Fall, and will ultimately be put right by Christ. This means that for any area, such as astronomy, Christian faith ought to make a radical difference.

The aim of this talk is to look at astronomy from a distinctively Christian perspective. How might Christians look differently at the universe? How might Christians look differently at the academic discipline of astronomy? And how might Christians look differently at the place of astronomy in society? The talk may or may not succeed in answering those questions, but a liberal sprinkling of pictures of stars and galaxies will ensure that it is an awe-inspiring evening!

No idea what I'm going to say yet. Suggestions welcome in the box below...

More details about the talk are on the WYSOCS events page. Maybe see you (both) there?

After re-loading your website home page a few times, I found on it the following quote by Ariane Sherine: "All children should be free to grow up in a world where they are allowed to question, doubt, think freely, and reach their own conclusions about what they believe." As an evangelical Christian, I wholeheartedly agree.

However, you recently acted as signatories to a statement about creationism and 'intelligent design' that asserted that

There should be enforceable statutory guidance that [creationism and 'intelligent design'] may not be presented as scientific theories in any publicly-funded school of whatever type.

This strikes me as contradictory. Many people believe that creationism or intelligent design are scientific theories. (Moreover, some people also believe them to be true!) Will you encourage children to reach their own conclusions on the matter?

Yours sincerely,

Anthony Smith

Update 22 Sep 2011: Todd Wood has written a Letter to Great Britain in response to the campaign. It's a good read!

I have been trying to argue:

1. That ID is basically anti-evolutionism
2. That, as anti-evolutionism, ID is half an argument for creationism
3. That the question of whether ID is science is actually quite dull
4. That ID proponents are right to point out the speculative nature of most Darwinian explanations
5. That science can, in principle, point towards an Intelligent Designer
6. That arguments about complexity are perhaps quite complex, and
7. That educating people about all of this might not be a bad idea.

Now, in conclusion, I want to use Bayes' theorem to settle this once and for all.

We're going to look at the plausibility (probability) of Darwinism, given the data, and the plausibility of ID, given the data, and see which is more plausible.

To cut a long story short, we are interested in the

\[\mathrm{Pr}(D|M_i)\]

Now, for a Darwinian model, assuming everything the ID proponents say is true, the probability of observing the data that we do observe is extremely small, because of irreducible complexity and the like.

But what is the probability of observing the data under the ID model? Here it gets interesting. The ID model is that some Intelligent Designer(s) has/have done some stuff to our genomes between the origin of life and the present day. The model therefore has a rather large number of free parameters, at least one parameter for each opportunity the Intelligent Designer(s) had to make one change to a creature's genome. Okay, the model has an infinite number of free parameters. Now, the probability that we observe the data that we do observe, with some specific values for these free parameters, is, of course, 1.0. The Intelligent Designer(s) just made it like that. But we don't know in advance what the values of those free parameters are. So we have to take an average. And the average probability of the data being observed, considering all the possible values for this infinite number of free parameters, is, of course, zero (or infinitesimally close to zero, if you want to be pedantic).

Now, to find out which model is favoured by the data, whether Darwinism or ID, we simply divide the first number by the second. So we have the odds in favour of Darwinism over ID being: (an extremely small number) / 0 = infinity. That is, given the choice between Darwinism or ID, the data suggest overwhelmingly that we should root for Darwinism.

All of the above is just a very long way of saying that ID, being utterly vague about the nature of the Intelligent Designer(s), has essentially no explanatory power, and therefore offers no reason for anyone to believe it.

So, in summary, the anti-evolution arguments employed by ID proponents are helpful, and suggest that we should explore other possibilities. But ID proponents should turn their attention to constructing models: who/what is/are the Intelligent Designer(s)? When did they alter the genomes of living creatures, to what end, and in what way? It is only when we move from vague ethereal ideas to specific models that it is possible to make specific predictions, and it is only when we have specific predictions that there is any hope of coming up with something more compelling than Darwinism.

Many people in the UK believe in Intelligent Design (that is, they don't believe in modern evolutionary theory), 51% according to one report. This in itself is a good reason to expect children at least to be familiar with the term and what it means.

They should learn about some of the arguments for ID (i.e., the arguments against modern evolutionary theory), and why most scientists reject those arguments.

They should use it to learn something about the sociology of science, and how ideas gain acceptance by the scientific community (or not, in this case).

They should use it to learn something about the philosophy of science, relating the pursuit of knowledge through the sciences to the pursuit of knowledge by other means, and applying that to ID.

And since the language in which the discussion about ID is conducted is the language of science, it should be the science teachers primarily who teach about ID.

Now have I said something controversial…?

(Of course, this wouldn't work in the USA, since they have a strange principle called the "separation of church and state", or something like that. Whatever it's called, this is what it seems to mean: public resources shall not be used to expose anyone to any argument that might be expected to lead to the adoption of any belief generally rejected by secular humanists. Now, secular humanists generally don't believe in an Intelligent Designer, so this means public schools cannot criticise modern evolutionary theory, because rejecting modern evolutionary theory generally leads to belief in an Intelligent Designer.)

That may be true, but I'm nervous about that kind of argument. The reason is that I'm not sure we properly understand complexity. There are examples of complex systems that behave in apparently extremely improbable ways, if we calculate the probabilities in a straightforward manner. Complex systems are well-nigh impossible to model, so I'm very uneasy about saying, "The probability that a complex system will do X is 0.0000000000000001."

Here's an example of complex biological systems doing extremely "improbable" things, courtesy of Ard Louis and BioLogos:

This is all plainly obvious. A consequence of this is that science shouldn't claim to be restricted by definition to natural things. That's a stupid definition of science, and one that hinders empirical enquiry.

But what frustrates me about the ID movement is that its proponents seem determined not to say this. Yes, they say, science can be used to point to a designer in some vague sense, but no, science cannot tell us anything about the identity and nature of that designer. I can't make any sense of that.

The only reason I can think of to take that sort of position is in the context of bizarre political restrictions about what can or cannot be discussed in certain specific contexts. But more about that later…

"We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity, but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations" (Franklin Harold, The Way of the Cell, 2001, p. 205).

That's not to say Darwinism is necessarily complete nonsense; clearly it isn't. But it does mean you don't have to be completely barmy to consider the possibility that it might not be the whole story.

And it's worth pondering what this "principle" is that rejects ID "as a matter of principle".

Enough! I don't care whether or not ID is science; I want to know whether it is true!

But there is a connection.

Intelligent Design (ID), being essentially anti-evolutionism, is half of an argument for creationism.

Basic scientific arguments go something like this:

1. You are wrong.
2. I am right.

Or, in more detail:

1. Your model does a poor job at explaining the data.
2. My model does a better job at explaining the data.

So one might argue for creationism as follows:

1. Your model of evolution (by random mutation and natural selection) does a poor job at explaining the data (life in all its complexity).
2. My model of creationism (old-earth, young-earth, whatever) does a better job at explaining the data.

Anti-evolutionism is the first half of that argument.

So ID is not creationism. But it is half an argument for creationism, which is why creationists tend to like ID.

Incidentally, as long as ID remains as just half an argument, I don't think it will get very far. People will always believe something rather than nothing. If you tell people that the thing they believe is wrong, they will continue to believe it regardless, until you provide a solid alternative. If you decide you want to leave your current town, you don't just pack up and get in the car, but you find somewhere else to live and then you pack up and leave. ID says you should leave your current town, but it doesn't show you somewhere better to live, so I don't think many people will listen.

I thought I'd use that as an excuse for a series of blog posts about "Intelligent Design" (ID), as Michael Behe is one of the biggest names in that movement. It's not something I know much about, but this is my blog, and what is the purpose of a blog if not to give me an outlet for my ignorant waffle? I'm just thinking aloud; don't take this too seriously.

So let's begin: what is ID?

Here's what Behe said:

Design is the purposeful arrangement of parts.

We infer design whenever parts appear arranged to accomplish a function.

The strength of the inference is quantitative.

I don't think this is any different to the "explanatory filter" of ID proponent William Dembski, which goes something like this. Can it be explained by physical laws and necessity? (No.) Can it be explained by a combination of law and chance processes? (No.) Then the reasonable inference is that an intelligent agent has been involved.

I've chewed over this a bit, and in an attempt to capture the thrust of ID, I offer the following as a summary:

The theory of evolution by random mutation and natural selection does a pretty bad job at explaining the complexity we see in living things. So, hey guys, maybe we should try thinking up some other ideas one of these days?

And since these "other ideas" would all involve the purposeful activity of an external agent, we can lump them together under the name "Intelligent Design".

In other words, it seems to me that ID is essentially anti-evolutionism with the addition of the (trivial) statement, that if, whenever we attempt to explain life (in all its complexity) without the intervention of an external intelligent agent, our attempts fail, then that suggests that an external intelligent agent might well have been involved.

That's not to say ID is not without value. But basically ID is anti-evolutionism.

(* = my recommended listening, to avoid too much repetition of material.)

First, a few video clips by John Walton over at BioLogos:

(*) Understanding Genesis. We need to think carefully about how an ancient audience would have heard Genesis 1. When they heard about God "resting", they would have immediately thought of a temple, as temples are places where gods rest. So the cosmos is pictured as a temple, with everything in its rightful place, in which God takes his seat in order to govern the world.

On Myth and Meaning. Ancient people genuinely believed their myths and used them to answer the big questions: who are we and how does the world work? (For us, science can function as a kind of "mythology", answering those same big questions.) This way of communicating was part of the "cognitive environment" of the ancient Israelites, so it is no surprise that God's revelation in the book of Genesis sometimes reflects this and has a similar function.

Science, Scripture and the Creation Narrative. Reading science into the Bible or reading science out of the Bible inevitably ends up making the text mean things that it would never have meant to its original audience. Whereas we tend to think about Genesis 1 in terms of material origins, this is not what the ancient Israelites would have been interested in. Instead, the questions in their minds would have been about the function of the creation and about who is in charge of running it.

Now some full-length talks, in chronological order:

Genesis and Cosmology, lecture at a conference on Scientific Cosmology and Christianity at Wheaton College, Illinois, 26-27 March 2003

(52 minutes + 10 minutes Q&A, in-depth.) All of the standard approaches to Genesis 1 assume that creation in Genesis concerns making things. This is not the best way to view the text. Genesis 1 is about God bringing order (functionality) out of disorder (non-functionality). For the original audience, "existence" is defined by having a function, not by having a material structure. "Beginning" refers to the initial period. "Create" refers to establishing functions (not manufacturing things). "Formless and empty" points to a creation not lacking matter but lacking order. Genesis is not interested in the material structures that allow the functions to operate. The details of the days of creation fit with this view (see below). Comparison with ancient literature shows a similar interest in the function of creation rather than the material structure. The cosmos is presented in Genesis 1 as a temple (see below).

Why Didn't God Call the Light "Light"?, sermon at Blackhawk Church, Madison, Wisconsin, 18 September 2005

(45 minutes, more accessible.) We must learn to read the Bible on its own terms. "Creation" is about causing things to exist, but what does it mean to "exist"? For us, we immediately think about physical structure, but this was not something the ancients were interested in. For them, "existence" was a matter of having a function and a purpose. So on Day 1 God called the light "day", not "light", because God was creating a function: time. Then on Day 2 the function in mind is weather, and the text is so disinterested in physical structures that it even uses their incorrect view of the structure of the cosmos (with a solid "firmament" holding back the waters) to communicate its message about function. (Similarly, the Scriptures make no effort to correct the incorrect belief that humans think with their hearts or with their guts, rather than with their brains.) And on Day 3 the function in mind is food. Then Days 4 to 6 speak of functionaries operating in the spheres of certain functions. So what is the whole thing about? This is the seven-day dedication of the cosmos as God's temple, with the functions declared, the functionaries installed and the deity taking his place within that temple.

How Can We Understand What the Bible Really Says, and What Does it Say About Creation?, lecture at Blackhawk Church, Madison, Wisconsin, 24 March 2007

(45 minutes, substantial but accessible.) There is a danger of treating the Bible as a modern text. It is an ancient text, communicated into an ancient historical context, with an ancient language and an ancient culture. God spoke to people using the (not necessarily correct) beliefs they had about the way things are physically structured. God is seen as being involved in "nature" and history, with everything having a goal and purpose. (Case study: intelligent design; ID.) Genesis 1: existence, function, creating, Days 1-6, temple, God's rest (summaries as above). Science is a friend.

Genesis One as Ancient Cosmology, Logos Lecture Series, 23 June 2008

(60 minutes + 22 minutes Q&A, in-depth but gently paced.) Reading Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) literature helps us to understand how ancient people thought, which helps us to understand the Old Testament. Creation in ANE texts and in Genesis 1: functional origins rather than material, temple, existence (as above). Genesis 1 doesn't tell us about the age of the material earth.

The Lost World of Genesis One, lecture at Blackhawk Church, Madison, Wisconsin, 10 October 2009

(*) Part 1 (49 minutes, accessible). Reading Genesis 1 from an ancient worldview (as above): ANE literature, temple. The "rest" of God, in his cosmic temple on Day 7 and throughout the Bible, is linked with his rule being established and order prevailing over chaos. The temple is a "micro-cosmos", and this is reflected in its design. Creation in Genesis is revealed in terms of the science of the ancient Israelites: accommodation to their own ways of thinking without revealing any new science to them. Thinking with the heart (as above). Function and material structure, creating (as above). Solomon's temple took years to build (material), but was not created as a temple until the dedication, with the functionaries installed and with God taking his place. It is the same with the cosmic temple in Genesis 1. Days 1-6 (as above).

Part 2 (45 minutes, accessible). The Bible does not tell us how or when God created the earth or the cosmos. Young-earth interpretations of Genesis 1 can be barriers to people believing the Bible, as Bruce Waltke has discussed in an essay. (There are theological problems with accepting human evolution, however.) Young-earth creationism and ID. All of creation has a purpose, but teleology is outside of the realm of science (except in ID). Teleology (its absence or presence) should not be the focus of science education. Science is not a threat to God but an opportunity to discover more about his work. God's "rest" (temple rule) is not something so much to be imitated as to be acknowledged. Implications for the Sabbath.

Initial reflections on all this material...

One of the new things (to me) presented here is the temple imagery shaping Genesis 1. This is excellent stuff, and clearly shows the benefits of exploring the cultural background of the ancient world.

Another new thing (to me) is the discussion about what the ancient people believed about the nature of reality. On this matter I'm a little confused. On the one hand, it seems that the ancients had almost no interest at all in the creation of material structures, so that asking Genesis 1 to tell us about these things is asking questions that it was never intended to answer. But then, on the other hand, they apparently had (incorrect) beliefs about the material structure of reality, believing that there really was a solid dome up there in the sky, and believing that we really do think with our guts and hearts. So they clearly had some interest in material structures. How are structure and function related, and does this distinction apply equally outside of Genesis 1?

Finally, one can get the impression that a different interpretation of Genesis 1 can remove all or even most of the apparent conflict between science and the Bible regarding origins. This is far from the case: see my report on the Creation or Evolution discussion from June.

This question (also the title of a recent book by Denis Alexander) is one over which evangelical Christians often sharply disagree. Some ("young-earth creationists") maintain that the Bible makes it crystal clear that life, the Universe and everything have had their beginning within the past few thousand years. Others ("theistic evolutionists") are less willing to overthrow the overwhelming scientific consensus, being convinced that the Bible, when interpreted correctly, is perfectly compatible with an evolutionary origin of all that there is, over billions of years.

Sadly, with such widely separated and strongly held convictions, the church often responds with immaturity. Rival factions are formed, each with its own societies, meetings, books and magazines, which exist to strengthen the conviction of their constituents that those on the other side are not only wrong but obviously and dangerously wrong. Encounters are generally heated and unproductive, with one side viewing the other as compromisers on the verge of unbelief and the other reciprocating with embarrassment and frustration at how these simpletons are making the faith look ridiculous. In the midst of this, those of a more conciliatory disposition do their level best to avoid the issue altogether.

It was under this same question that some 60 or 70 people crammed into a small church building in Brighton on Saturday 15 May 2010, to try something more constructive, as Calvary Evangelical Church hosted a debate on the subject of creation and evolution. What took place was a robust yet measured and respectful discussion between two brothers in Christ, with the audience heeding the encouragement of the chair for the evening, Prof. Richard Vincent, to approach this enormous subject with grace and great humility.

First to present his case, after the toss of a coin, was young-earth creationist Dr Steve Lloyd, formerly a researcher in materials science at Cambridge University, and now a pastor at Hope Church in Gravesend and a part-time speaker and writer for Biblical Creation Ministries. Rather than focusing on the "days" of Genesis 1, as might have been expected, the crux of his 20-minute opening presentation was that the biblical narrative and the evolutionary narrative are fundamentally incompatible. The biblical narrative tells the story of a good creation, spoiled by sin and restored by the work of Christ. This can be expressed as a history of physical death: human physical death entered the world as a consequence of sin, and this explains why Jesus, in solving the problem of sin, had to undergo human physical death. In contrast, the evolutionary narrative sees physical death, including human physical death, as part of the original created order, and not as a consequence of sin. Attempts to combine the evolutionary and biblical narratives therefore make it far from obvious how Christ's physical death has any connection with the problem of sin. Instead, the primary purpose of Christ's physical death and resurrection seems to be to usher in a new created order of which physical death will not be a part.

Presenting the other side of the argument was theistic evolutionist Dr Ard Louis, a Reader in Theoretical Physics from the University of Oxford who has strong links with organisations such as Christians in Science, The Faraday Institute, The BioLogos Foundation, and The Templeton Foundation. The first part of his presentation was on the issue of biblical interpretation. We must be very careful to distinguish what the Bible actually teaches from what we read into the Bible because of our cultural assumptions. Science, though not dictating how we should interpret the Bible, can help us to recognize when we have misunderstood Scripture. For example, many used to be convinced that the Bible taught geocentrism. Then, when science showed us that the Earth is not the centre of the Solar System, these people looked more carefully at the biblical text and concluded that those passages should have been interpreted differently. This process can be applied to the creation accounts in Genesis. There are various clues in the passages that they are not supposed to be interpreted journalistically (as books such as Luke's Gospel should be). For example, the sun and moon are created on Day 4, after the creation of light on Day 1, and Genesis 1 displays a careful literary structure. The second part of the presentation was about science. There are many Christians involved in science who see no conflict between their Christian faith and their beliefs in the great antiquity of the earth. Moreover, there is strong evidence for this antiquity, such as that derived from ice cores. And we should not be afraid of ideas of deep space and time, which can be welcomed as displaying the grandeur of the glory of God.

Following these opening statements, the speakers each had ten minutes to respond, after which audience members were invited to place written questions in a box, which formed the basis for around 30 minutes of discussion, led by the chair. Various matters were covered, such as biblical interpretation, the "days" of Genesis, evidence for pre-historic man and genomics. Two further issues deserve some reflection.

The first is the importance of the question itself. Louis made the point that from his perspective the "how" of creation is of secondary importance: the main teaching of Genesis is clear and doesn't depend on how God created. Having said that, the debate does have some importance, because many Christian students struggle with reconciling their faith with their beliefs about science. In contrast, for Lloyd the "how" of creation is itself of great importance, being, as he sees it, very closely connected with the core elements of the gospel message. This makes the debate difficult, as one side sees the issue as important for understanding the gospel while the other side sees it as relatively unimportant.

The second issue is the way "ordinary" Christians respond to hearing experts disagree about the Bible. How are they supposed to have confidence in the Bible if those who study it seriously can reach such different conclusions? This is not easy to deal with. But it is important for "ordinary" Christians to be equipped to interpret the Bible for themselves, so they can have confidence in what they believe and why they believe it, instead of relying on "experts" to interpret the Bible on their behalf.

My own reflections on the two positions are that Lloyd presented some strong arguments on how we understand the cross of Jesus that were not adequately addressed, while Louis clearly had the upper hand scientifically, in that creationist models of earth history are very under-developed and go against the overwhelming consensus of Christians (and others) with expertise in these areas. But, in summary, the debate for me exemplified the kind of serious but respectful dialogue that is utterly vital if the church at large is to make progress towards unity and maturity in this area.

(A recording of the debate is available from the website of Calvary Evangelical Church, Brighton, www.calvary-brighton.org.uk and on bethinking.org.)

Contrasting his model with the standard approach to science he writes:

This model begins with the assumption that science is an open-ended search for truth, and is not willing to accept any rules that will restrict the search. Science as a game, following an arbitrary set of rules, does not interest me. One such arbitrary rule, the philosophy of naturalism rejects any hypotheses that imply supernatural intervention in the universe at any time, past or present. But the absence of unique events (supernatural or otherwise) should not be assumed, but should be a hypothesis to be tested. If we wish to consider whether there were such interventions, and to examine evidence relevant to that question, naturalism must be set aside so that the search can proceed unhindered (p. 30, see also p. 14f.).

Many Christians adopt methodological naturalism, seeing science and theology as "parallel but separate" ways of seeking knowledge. How does this work out in practice?

For them, science must generally proceed without interference, and religion seeks answers only to questions that science cannot address. Religion and science are kept separate, but actually they are only partially separated by a one-way door. In their system religion can learn from science, but science does not learn from religion, and religion does not “correct” science (p. 17).

As an alternative, Brand advocates a real two-way dialogue between science and religion:

This model encourages active interaction between science and religion in topics where they make overlapping claims, because both are accepted as sources of cognitive knowledge about the universe. Allow feedback between them, to encourage deeper thinking in both areas and provide an antidote to carelessness on both sides. Both religion and science can make factual suggestions to the other, which can be the basis for careful thought and hypothesis testing. This model respects the scientific process, but also recognizes truth in Scripture (p. 13).

The approach developed in more detail in the article, but this diagram captures the essence (p. 33):

Working this out in practice will be far from trivial, but I'm convinced this is the kind of approach Christians should be taking as scientists.

1. Of course, Adam and Eve were specially created by God, and were the biological progenitors of the entire human race.
2. Hold on, that doesn't seem to fit with the scientific evidence. But anyway, aren't we being a bit too literalistic with Genesis? Maybe they weren't historical individuals, but rather a metaphor for the entire human race, for example?
3. I'm not sure about that—if they weren't historical individuals, then does the Christian doctrine of the Fall really make sense? (E.g., Henri Blocher)
4. Fair point, so it seems they were historical individuals. But perhaps they were not actually the biological progenitors of the entire human race? Could they not have been just two members of a long-established population of human beings, but those to whom God chose to reveal himself in a special way? (E.g., Denis Alexander)
5. But how then are we to understand the nature of the connection between Adam and the rest of humanity? And what does this do to the traditional Christian understanding of sin and death? Does Jesus death on the cross still make sense? (E.g., Steve Lloyd, Michael Reeves)
6. To be continued...

What prompted me to write this was reading the chapter by Michael Reeves, which has been recently been published online at Reformation21. He raises some issues that I hope will be addressed before long (if they haven't already been addressed elsewhere). Also, Steve Lloyd presented some of his arguments at a debate held at my church on Saturday (MP3 available)—watch this space for a report...

But in the meantime, over to you...

Perhaps not.

Have a read of this extract from Alvin Plantinga's entry on Religion and Science in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (dealt with at more length here):

In crafting our cognitive faculties, natural selection will favor cognitive faculties and processes that result in adaptive behavior; it cares not a whit about true belief (as such) or about cognitive faculties that reliably give rise to true belief. ... What our minds are for (if anything) is not the production of true beliefs, but the production of adaptive behavior: that our species has survived and evolved at most guarantees that our behavior is adaptive; it does not guarantee or even make it likely that our belief-producing processes are for the most part reliable, or that our beliefs are for the most part true. That is because our behavior could perfectly well be adaptive, but our beliefs false as often as true. Darwin himself apparently worried about this question: "With me," says Darwin, "the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?" (Darwin 1887) ...

Now naturalism entails that evolution, if it occurs, is indeed unguided. But then, so the suggestion goes, it is unlikely that our cognitive faculties are reliable, given the conjunction of naturalism with the proposition that we and our cognitive faculties have come to be by way of natural selection winnowing random genetic variation. If so, one who believes that conjunction will have a defeater for the proposition that our faculties are reliable—but if that's true, she will also have a defeater for any belief produced by her cognitive faculties—including, of course, the conjunction of naturalism with evolution. That conjunction is thus seen to be self-refuting. If so, however, this conjunction cannot rationally be accepted, in which case there is conflict between naturalism and evolution ...