On more than one occasion teachers have spoken with me about the way we are to teach evolution at our Reformed schools. The ministry of education makes evolution an obligatory subject, but there is more than one way of complying with the demand. Evolution can be taught and evaluated in a straightforward manner as a well-established biological theory that has weaknesses as well as strengths. It can also be taught and then explained away – and I am afraid this is done at some of our schools – as lie and deception, the devil’s own work. Related to this second approach is enlisting the help of certain videos and other material provided by young-earth-creationism. As one principal told me, these “creation-science” products are quite popular in our schools. Indeed, young-earth creationism is widely upheld as “Reformed doctrine.” Often, the principal wrote, schools use the material to make evolution look “stupid,” something we can chuckle about; which of course does little, he added, to prepare our students for what they will meet in their studies at secular institutions.
So far there had been little public discussion of the matter. On October 29, however, it was the topic of a workshop I gave at the annual convention of the Canadian Reformed Teachers Association Ontario, held in Fergus on October 29, 2009. In this workshop I recommended the first of the three approaches mentioned above. I made clear that I am not a Darwinist; that for me there are not only theological, but also scientific reasons to question the theory, and that I would give these reasons. At the same time I pointed out that there is strong evidence in favour of evolution and common descent and that we have to deal honestly with that evidence. It is the only way not only to understand the theory, but also to be able to criticize it (wherever such criticism is called for) in an honest, intelligent, and convincing manner.
The paper on which I based my workshop presentation can be found on this blog under “Collected Papers” (see side bar; direct link here). After a brief introduction as to WHY we should teach evolution in the manner suggested and after some remarks about the way we should read Genesis 1, I deal with the question HOW evolution should be taught. I begin here with an account of the scientific evidence for neo-Darwinism and then proceed with some of the questions that can be raised in connection with that evidence. Some final remarks deal with the nature of science, the subjective element in science, but also with the fact of science’s impressive track record.
In both the introduction and the conclusion of my paper I make clear that evolution ought to be taught only in the senior grades, but that in all grades we should cease condemning modern science (which indeed has had negative consequences but which in God’s providence has also brought us very many blessings) as the work of the powers of darkness. Instead our students should, from grade 1 onward, hear from us the central message of Genesis 1, namely that God is the all-powerful creator, that He was and is involved in every aspect of creation, and that His handiwork proclaims his glory. I further emphasize that our task is not completed by teaching the strengths and weaknesses of neo-Darwinism. We must also give attention to the use that is being made of this theory as a basis for an overall evolutionist and anti-Christian worldview. This implies, among other things, the urgent need to organize courses in apologetics or philosophy for our older students. Here they must be taught about ‘scientific’ atheism, about the social and economic abuse of evolutionary theories, and about the reductionism to which materialistic science has led.
I am well aware of the challenge we as Christians face is in connection with the theory of evolution. As again became clear during the discussion at the workshop, Christian teachers, pastors, and parents must make time to discuss the implications and repercussions of teaching evolution, and do so in a serious manner, in much detail, and with a willingness to listen to each other. I hope and pray that the workshop and the accompanying paper may initiate such discussions. In my opinion it is high time.
I should add that the paper is followed by a lengthy glossary, which should enable also those who are not acquainted with some of the scientific terms related to evolution and evolutionism to participate in the discussion.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Friday, October 9, 2009
Biblical Inerrancy
Biblical inerrancy (the idea of an absolutely errorless Bible) found many adherents in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, especially in the North-American evangelical movement. The renewed stress on inerrancy at that time was largely a result of the spread of biblical criticism, the rise of secular science (including the theory of Darwinism), and the rapid secularization of American society. Although the belief in inerrancy was strongest among the conservative branches of North-American evangelicalism, which would soon form the so-called fundamentalist movement, the idea gained followers also among Reformed theologians, within and outside North America.
Dutch theologian Dr. Ad de Bruijne has pointed out (in Woord op Schrift, pp. 185f.), that among Reformed theologians in the Netherlands there have been two approaches to the issue in the past century or so. One group held, with American fundamentalism, that the Bible as the Word of God is by definition without errors in all its details. If errors or discrepancies are found, they must be blamed on the copyists; the original manuscripts (which we no longer possess!) were absolutely faultless. Other Reformed theologians criticized this theory as impossible of proof. They also asked why God would have allowed the perfect original manuscripts to disappear while preserving the imperfect copies with the discrepancies. These theologians continued to speak of biblical infallibility, a term that is not easy to define, but that has generally been interpreted as implying not factual inerrancy, but the Bible’s absolute trustworthiness in matters of doctrine, faith, and morals.
Although there were exceptions, the Reformed community as a whole has long continued to speak of an infallible Bible, rather than an inerrant one. This was true not only in Holland but also in Canada. In recent years, however, inerrantism is being affirmed by some Canadian Reformed churches and church leaders. We can read about this development in a paper by Tyler Vandergaag, titled “Inerrancy: A Reformed Doctrine?” (see under “collected papers” in the sidebar; direct link here). Tyler is a graduate student at Trinity Western University, where he is working on an M.A. in Biblical Studies, focusing specifically on Justin Martyr’s use of the Hebrew Scriptures. Currently, he teaches a Catechism class at the Langley Canadian Reformed Church, where he, his wife Keri and their son Jayden are members. In his paper Tyler analyzes the doctrine of inerrancy, summarizes its history, and comes with a variety of arguments to show that we would do well to abandon the term. Inerrantism, as he points out, leads to exegetical problems and is in conflict with the Reformed tradition about the place and function of Holy Scripture. Nowhere do the Reformed confessions use the word inerrancy.
Tyler’s paper is well-researched and very readable. In view of the doctrine’s spread among us, it is also timely. As Tyler points out, the term even occurs in the draft of an official church paper, namely in the preamble to the Proposed Joint Church Order (of the CanRC and the URC) that will be submitted to the Canadian Reformed Synod of 2010. It is time for a serious discussion on the matter. Tyler’s paper can serve as an excellent starting point.
Dutch theologian Dr. Ad de Bruijne has pointed out (in Woord op Schrift, pp. 185f.), that among Reformed theologians in the Netherlands there have been two approaches to the issue in the past century or so. One group held, with American fundamentalism, that the Bible as the Word of God is by definition without errors in all its details. If errors or discrepancies are found, they must be blamed on the copyists; the original manuscripts (which we no longer possess!) were absolutely faultless. Other Reformed theologians criticized this theory as impossible of proof. They also asked why God would have allowed the perfect original manuscripts to disappear while preserving the imperfect copies with the discrepancies. These theologians continued to speak of biblical infallibility, a term that is not easy to define, but that has generally been interpreted as implying not factual inerrancy, but the Bible’s absolute trustworthiness in matters of doctrine, faith, and morals.
Although there were exceptions, the Reformed community as a whole has long continued to speak of an infallible Bible, rather than an inerrant one. This was true not only in Holland but also in Canada. In recent years, however, inerrantism is being affirmed by some Canadian Reformed churches and church leaders. We can read about this development in a paper by Tyler Vandergaag, titled “Inerrancy: A Reformed Doctrine?” (see under “collected papers” in the sidebar; direct link here). Tyler is a graduate student at Trinity Western University, where he is working on an M.A. in Biblical Studies, focusing specifically on Justin Martyr’s use of the Hebrew Scriptures. Currently, he teaches a Catechism class at the Langley Canadian Reformed Church, where he, his wife Keri and their son Jayden are members. In his paper Tyler analyzes the doctrine of inerrancy, summarizes its history, and comes with a variety of arguments to show that we would do well to abandon the term. Inerrantism, as he points out, leads to exegetical problems and is in conflict with the Reformed tradition about the place and function of Holy Scripture. Nowhere do the Reformed confessions use the word inerrancy.
Tyler’s paper is well-researched and very readable. In view of the doctrine’s spread among us, it is also timely. As Tyler points out, the term even occurs in the draft of an official church paper, namely in the preamble to the Proposed Joint Church Order (of the CanRC and the URC) that will be submitted to the Canadian Reformed Synod of 2010. It is time for a serious discussion on the matter. Tyler’s paper can serve as an excellent starting point.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Natural Evil and Evolution
In a previous essay entitled “The Image of God and Common Ancestry,” I explored the question whether humans can exist in the image of God and share ancestors with animals. In a new essay entitled “God, Natural Evil, and Biological Evolution” (listed in our “collected papers” in the sidebar; direct link), I explore how evil and suffering in nature can be reconciled with the character of God, that is, with God’s goodness and perfection. Briefly, natural evil refers to natural catastrophes, disease, pain and biological death in so far they are not produced by humans and do not involve human responsibility. But if natural evil and suffering are brought about by God, does that not turn it into moral evil, and does this not exclude the existence of a good God? How can humans be considered the result of an evolutionary process and the biblical teachings about the historical reality of Adam and Eve and the Fall into sin be true? This essay does not provide a survey of all the answers that have been given to the question of evil. Nor does it offer a comprehensive discussion of the large variety of interpretations given to Genesis 1-3 apart from the question of evil. Rather it aims to show how one can hold the realities of divine creation, fall and redemption together with the natural evil associated with biological evolution and not distort the text of Scripture or the understanding of nature. My guiding principle is that this perceived conflict between nature and scripture cannot be real because they have one Author. If there appears to be a conflict, it must be due to errors in the interpretation of the one or the other or both. We will see, however, that even after errors have been removed as much as possible, the origin of both natural and moral evil remains a mystery.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Ken Ham and Reformed Perspective
Many of our readers also read Reformed Perspective or are at least aware of it. It is a monthly magazine to which many members of the Canadian Reformed churches look to for guidance and leadership on matters of Christianity and culture. The following is a Letter to the Editor I submitted after receiving the September issue.
Recently, Reformed Perspective has been recommending books by Ken Ham. The latest is Already Gone: Why your kids will quit church and what you can do to stop it. According to Sarah Meerstra [“Nota Bene: News worth noting”, v. 28, n. 11 (September 2009), p. 5, under “Why young people leave the church”], it claims that “When children are taught to doubt the historical truth of the Genesis account...the entire authority of Scripture is questioned [and] young people come to question the truth of the Bible and its relevance for their lives.” Of course, Ham (a charismatic and dynamic young-earth creationist [YEC] evangelist) is referring to the notion that one must defend at all costs the YEC agenda which claims that Genesis 1 must be regarded as teaching the technical chronological details of our material origins. The standard rhetoric includes a reference to Psalm 11:3: “If the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?” The implication is that if we doubt their approach to Genesis 1, we might as well toss out the whole Bible.
It is well known in Christian higher education circles that creationism can indeed lead to a crisis in a young person’s life. However, YEC itself is the problem. Many who grow up with YEC and then in their college and university education begin to see its all-too-clear failures to grapple with the scientific evidences of an ancient creation are ill equipped to handle the tension, and dispense with YEC and along with it Biblical faith in its entirety, because YEC requires of its followers a particular interpretation of Genesis 1. There are even tragic cases of suicide triggered by this tension.
It should not be, though, that the truth of the Bible is questioned when scientific evidence is considered; it is instead the authority of leadership who promote YEC which should be questioned. Must we really tie ourselves to a particular way of linking Genesis 1 and science? Must we seek scientific evidence for what we think are the scientific details of the Genesis record? Why does the YEC approach have so much draw, even in our own Canadian Reformed circles, when we have instead a rich heritage of pursuing the careful analysis of the historical, textual, and cultural context of Scripture (including Genesis 1), relying on the redemptive historical hermeneutic approach, and letting Scripture interpret Scripture? Thankfully, many Reformed academics have written excellent books from a Reformed perspective which can help restore intellectual, scientific, and theological vitality, including C. John Collins, Vern Poythress, David Snoke, Tim Morris & Don Petcher, W. Robert Godfrey. It is to these that we must turn, not to authors like Ken Ham.
Recently, Reformed Perspective has been recommending books by Ken Ham. The latest is Already Gone: Why your kids will quit church and what you can do to stop it. According to Sarah Meerstra [“Nota Bene: News worth noting”, v. 28, n. 11 (September 2009), p. 5, under “Why young people leave the church”], it claims that “When children are taught to doubt the historical truth of the Genesis account...the entire authority of Scripture is questioned [and] young people come to question the truth of the Bible and its relevance for their lives.” Of course, Ham (a charismatic and dynamic young-earth creationist [YEC] evangelist) is referring to the notion that one must defend at all costs the YEC agenda which claims that Genesis 1 must be regarded as teaching the technical chronological details of our material origins. The standard rhetoric includes a reference to Psalm 11:3: “If the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?” The implication is that if we doubt their approach to Genesis 1, we might as well toss out the whole Bible.
It is well known in Christian higher education circles that creationism can indeed lead to a crisis in a young person’s life. However, YEC itself is the problem. Many who grow up with YEC and then in their college and university education begin to see its all-too-clear failures to grapple with the scientific evidences of an ancient creation are ill equipped to handle the tension, and dispense with YEC and along with it Biblical faith in its entirety, because YEC requires of its followers a particular interpretation of Genesis 1. There are even tragic cases of suicide triggered by this tension.
It should not be, though, that the truth of the Bible is questioned when scientific evidence is considered; it is instead the authority of leadership who promote YEC which should be questioned. Must we really tie ourselves to a particular way of linking Genesis 1 and science? Must we seek scientific evidence for what we think are the scientific details of the Genesis record? Why does the YEC approach have so much draw, even in our own Canadian Reformed circles, when we have instead a rich heritage of pursuing the careful analysis of the historical, textual, and cultural context of Scripture (including Genesis 1), relying on the redemptive historical hermeneutic approach, and letting Scripture interpret Scripture? Thankfully, many Reformed academics have written excellent books from a Reformed perspective which can help restore intellectual, scientific, and theological vitality, including C. John Collins, Vern Poythress, David Snoke, Tim Morris & Don Petcher, W. Robert Godfrey. It is to these that we must turn, not to authors like Ken Ham.
Friday, August 21, 2009
John Calvin and the Natural World
Those of us who have the privilege of teaching science in a Christian college or university have to work hard at helping students see science from a Christian perspective. In this book review essay Dordt College physics professor Dr. John Zwart describes these experiences in working with students in his non-majors physical science class.
In addition to describing his work with scientifically uninitiated students, John also discusses Calvin’s knowledge of and thoughts about science. He reviews Davis Young’s recent book John Calvin and the Natural World (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2007), which examines what Calvin wrote about science.
This essay will appear in the September 2009 issue of the Dordt College publication Pro Rege but we have been given permission to post it ahead of time since it is relevant to our discussions and a helpful summary of Calvin's views.
In addition to describing his work with scientifically uninitiated students, John also discusses Calvin’s knowledge of and thoughts about science. He reviews Davis Young’s recent book John Calvin and the Natural World (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2007), which examines what Calvin wrote about science.
This essay will appear in the September 2009 issue of the Dordt College publication Pro Rege but we have been given permission to post it ahead of time since it is relevant to our discussions and a helpful summary of Calvin's views.
Parting ways with Calvin?
At last! A substantive critique of my paper on Creation Science and Scripture! Dr. John Byl, in his cleverly named blog, Bylogos (not to be confused with the website Biologos, which was set up by Francis Collins and which argues for theistic evolution), claims that I have misinterpreted the concept of the organic inspiration of Scripture and that I have misinterpreted Calvin. I have responded a bit to the first part on his blog but want to address his (and my) comments on Calvin on our own blog.
I’d like to thank John for pointing out Calvin’s comments on the goodness of creation in his commentary on Genesis 2:2, which I hadn’t noticed earlier. Here Calvin says, referring to the fact that the world was very good before the Fall but not anymore,
“It is subsequently that we shall find God saying, Let the earth bring forth thorns and briers, by which he intimates that the appearance of the earth should be different from what it had been in the beginning. But the explanation is at hand; many things which are now seen in the world are rather corruptions of it than any part of its proper furniture. For ever since man declined from his high original, it became necessary that the world should gradually degenerate from its nature. We must come to this conclusion respecting the existence of fleas, caterpillars, and other noxious insects. In all these, I say, there is some deformity of the world, which ought by no means to be regarded as in the order of nature, since it proceeds rather from the sin of man than from the hand of God. Truly these things were created by God, but by God as an avenger. In this place, however, Moses is not considering God as armed for the punishment of the sins of men; but as the Artificer, the Architect, the bountiful Father of a family, who has omitted nothing essential to the perfection of his edifice. At the present time, when we look upon the world corrupted, and as if degenerated from its original creation, let that expression of Paul recur to our mind, that the creature is liable to vanity, not willingly, but through our fault (Romans 8:20), and thus let us mourn, being admonished of our just condemnation.”
Clearly Calvin thinks that the nonhuman creation has fundamentally changed (deformed) from its original created state and that this change is due to man’s sin. The evidence for this change is “the existence of fleas, caterpillars, and other noxious insects.” While I sympathize with his view of fleas, which must have been much more of a pest in his day, I wouldn’t say the same about caterpillars, whose adult forms perform vital ecological functions in pollination. This raises the question of Calvin’s knowledge about science and the natural world. Davis Young has written a book about just that question (John Calvin and the Natural World (Lantham, MD: University Press of America, 2007), which is reviewed by J.W. Haas (in Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith v. 59, n. 4 (2007), pp. 307-9 available online here ) and by Dordt College physics professor Dr. John Zwart (soon to be published by Pro Rege but available here. More on this review in a separate post).
I haven’t read the book yet but I understand that Calvin’s knowledge of biology was considerably less than of astronomy (which itself was largely Aristotelian). I think it’s safe to say though, that his view of the effects of the Fall on creation differ from mine, including the existence of carnivory before the Fall, which I affirm but Calvin denies.
When I look at the depictions of carnivory and predation in Scripture, I see no indication that this is a result of the Fall. Psalm 104:21 is an obvious example but so are the depictions of the fierceness of many creatures in Job 39-41. Nowhere do we read that such behavior is sinful, in fact the message to Job is that these are God’s works and we should not question him on things we do not understand.
Thus I do part ways with Calvin on his understanding of the effects of the Fall on creation, but I suspect his views would have been different if he were able to take a course in ecology, to see the importance of the food chain (or web), including carnivory, for the stability of ecosystems.
But how does Calvin respond when there is an apparent contradiction between science and Scripture? Since his knowledge of astronomy was better than that of biology, he saw the contradiction between the depiction of the firmament in Genesis 1 and what was known about the sky in his day and his response was that Genesis does not teach astronomy. I suspect his comments about the effects of the fall would be different and a little less simplistic if he had a better knowledge of biology.
But what does Paul mean in Romans 8:22 when he says that the whole creation groans awaiting redemption? A look around at our society and what we’ve done to our environment should make that clear. Genesis 3 shows how all of Adam’s relationships - with God, with Eve and with the ground - have been marred by the Fall. Adam had a sort of “reverse Midas touch” - everything he did (and everything we do) was marred with sin. So while the creation is not inherently defective as a result of the Fall, it certainly suffers from our sin.
Thus while I disagree with Calvin on the effects of the Fall, I don’t blame him for his lack of knowledge and consequent simplistic statements. In the same way God doesn’t blame us for our lack of knowledge when he reveals himself to us, but “lisps to us as little children” (Calvin’s words).
I’d like to thank John for pointing out Calvin’s comments on the goodness of creation in his commentary on Genesis 2:2, which I hadn’t noticed earlier. Here Calvin says, referring to the fact that the world was very good before the Fall but not anymore,
“It is subsequently that we shall find God saying, Let the earth bring forth thorns and briers, by which he intimates that the appearance of the earth should be different from what it had been in the beginning. But the explanation is at hand; many things which are now seen in the world are rather corruptions of it than any part of its proper furniture. For ever since man declined from his high original, it became necessary that the world should gradually degenerate from its nature. We must come to this conclusion respecting the existence of fleas, caterpillars, and other noxious insects. In all these, I say, there is some deformity of the world, which ought by no means to be regarded as in the order of nature, since it proceeds rather from the sin of man than from the hand of God. Truly these things were created by God, but by God as an avenger. In this place, however, Moses is not considering God as armed for the punishment of the sins of men; but as the Artificer, the Architect, the bountiful Father of a family, who has omitted nothing essential to the perfection of his edifice. At the present time, when we look upon the world corrupted, and as if degenerated from its original creation, let that expression of Paul recur to our mind, that the creature is liable to vanity, not willingly, but through our fault (Romans 8:20), and thus let us mourn, being admonished of our just condemnation.”
Clearly Calvin thinks that the nonhuman creation has fundamentally changed (deformed) from its original created state and that this change is due to man’s sin. The evidence for this change is “the existence of fleas, caterpillars, and other noxious insects.” While I sympathize with his view of fleas, which must have been much more of a pest in his day, I wouldn’t say the same about caterpillars, whose adult forms perform vital ecological functions in pollination. This raises the question of Calvin’s knowledge about science and the natural world. Davis Young has written a book about just that question (John Calvin and the Natural World (Lantham, MD: University Press of America, 2007), which is reviewed by J.W. Haas (in Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith v. 59, n. 4 (2007), pp. 307-9 available online here ) and by Dordt College physics professor Dr. John Zwart (soon to be published by Pro Rege but available here. More on this review in a separate post).
I haven’t read the book yet but I understand that Calvin’s knowledge of biology was considerably less than of astronomy (which itself was largely Aristotelian). I think it’s safe to say though, that his view of the effects of the Fall on creation differ from mine, including the existence of carnivory before the Fall, which I affirm but Calvin denies.
When I look at the depictions of carnivory and predation in Scripture, I see no indication that this is a result of the Fall. Psalm 104:21 is an obvious example but so are the depictions of the fierceness of many creatures in Job 39-41. Nowhere do we read that such behavior is sinful, in fact the message to Job is that these are God’s works and we should not question him on things we do not understand.
Thus I do part ways with Calvin on his understanding of the effects of the Fall on creation, but I suspect his views would have been different if he were able to take a course in ecology, to see the importance of the food chain (or web), including carnivory, for the stability of ecosystems.
But how does Calvin respond when there is an apparent contradiction between science and Scripture? Since his knowledge of astronomy was better than that of biology, he saw the contradiction between the depiction of the firmament in Genesis 1 and what was known about the sky in his day and his response was that Genesis does not teach astronomy. I suspect his comments about the effects of the fall would be different and a little less simplistic if he had a better knowledge of biology.
But what does Paul mean in Romans 8:22 when he says that the whole creation groans awaiting redemption? A look around at our society and what we’ve done to our environment should make that clear. Genesis 3 shows how all of Adam’s relationships - with God, with Eve and with the ground - have been marred by the Fall. Adam had a sort of “reverse Midas touch” - everything he did (and everything we do) was marred with sin. So while the creation is not inherently defective as a result of the Fall, it certainly suffers from our sin.
Thus while I disagree with Calvin on the effects of the Fall, I don’t blame him for his lack of knowledge and consequent simplistic statements. In the same way God doesn’t blame us for our lack of knowledge when he reveals himself to us, but “lisps to us as little children” (Calvin’s words).
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Humankind: The Image of God and Animal Ancestry
The other day I was driving with my granddaughter to the aquarium store. Like her grandfather she loves the beauty of God’s creatures. Then there comes this curve ball from the backseat. Opa, we were reading the story of Adam and Eve. Why was Cain afraid of other people and where did his wife come from? There is never a dull moment with your grandchildren. How was I going to convey what was most crucial in this story and avoid the complexities that would only confuse a ten year old?
I did what most teachers do under such circumstances. To gain time I told her that she was asking a very good question. It had been asked for the first time more than 300 years ago in 1655 when a French Calvinist by the name of Isaac La Peyrère published a book entitled “Prae-Adamitae”, or “Men before Adam”. Never mind that. The crucial point to get across was that Adam and Eve are the first parents of all humanity. So I told her that Adam and Eve may have had other children and that the Bible did not tell us much about them except that they existed. The point of the story of Cain and Able was not to tell us everything that could be known about that time. Rather it was to show that the disobedience of Adam and Eve had become the disobedience of their children and so also of us. End of story.
Parents cannot be prepared for every question their children throw at them. But this one is to be expected when we read the Bible at the dinner table. The new essay entitled “Humankind: The Image of God and Animal Ancestry” raises some questions surrounding these contemporaries of Adam and Eve. I want to thank Tony Jelsma, Freda Oosterhoff and Arnold Sikkema for helpful comments on a previous draft. They do not bear responsibility for anything I wrote. The paper can be found in “collected papers”, listed in the sidebar of the blog.
I did what most teachers do under such circumstances. To gain time I told her that she was asking a very good question. It had been asked for the first time more than 300 years ago in 1655 when a French Calvinist by the name of Isaac La Peyrère published a book entitled “Prae-Adamitae”, or “Men before Adam”. Never mind that. The crucial point to get across was that Adam and Eve are the first parents of all humanity. So I told her that Adam and Eve may have had other children and that the Bible did not tell us much about them except that they existed. The point of the story of Cain and Able was not to tell us everything that could be known about that time. Rather it was to show that the disobedience of Adam and Eve had become the disobedience of their children and so also of us. End of story.
Parents cannot be prepared for every question their children throw at them. But this one is to be expected when we read the Bible at the dinner table. The new essay entitled “Humankind: The Image of God and Animal Ancestry” raises some questions surrounding these contemporaries of Adam and Eve. I want to thank Tony Jelsma, Freda Oosterhoff and Arnold Sikkema for helpful comments on a previous draft. They do not bear responsibility for anything I wrote. The paper can be found in “collected papers”, listed in the sidebar of the blog.
Monday, August 17, 2009
A Global Warming Primer
Among members of the general public, and also in many corners of Christianity (including both evangelicalism broadly as well as the Canadian Reformed churches) there is much skepticism about global warming. This might be due to the democratization of knowledge, in which everyone has (or thinks they have) access to all the same information, and in which one can find apparently eminent proponents of every possible point of view. Scientists, specifically, are viewed by the public in a curiously bipolar way: awe and amazement on the one hand and disdain and dismissal on the other. Medical science, with its knowledge and techniques, is held in high esteem especially by those in need of diagnosis or treatment for themselves or their loved ones. Simultaneously, public immunization programmes (or sunscreen) are vilified by many as being conspiratorial, socialistic, and dangerous, especially if one can find a website authored by a “PhD” or “MD” highlighting the risks.
On global warming, everyone is an expert. One says, “Al Gore sure is smart; we’re doomed!” The other counters, “It was cold this summer; global warming is a hoax.” Instead of joining either bandwagon, the reformed academic ought to weigh evidence carefully. Even within our community there are scientists whose expertise we can tap, brothers and sisters whom we can trust, who are familiar with the scientific literature and who do not rely on the popular press. We are not all experts on every topic, but just as we expect ministers to know the most about Scripture, and farmers about agriculture, electricians about household wiring, practicing scientists can give leadership in interpreting scientific discoveries.
Since global warming is a culturally important topic, touching on issues from personal lifestyle to global politics, we present an article written for Reformed Academic by Rick Baartman, a physicist working at TRIUMF in Vancouver and a member of Maranatha Canadian Reformed Church in Surrey, BC. Rick served on the Brazil Mission Board (1992-1998), is a board member of the prison ministry M2W2, and also board member of the Geneva Society for Reformational Worldview Studies. He and his wife Sara have five adult children and three grandchildren. Rick has reviewed the primary scientific literature on global warming, and has put together a valuable popular piece which we invite our readers to engage fruitfully. It is available in our “collected articles” in the sidebar, entitled “A Global Warming Primer”.
On global warming, everyone is an expert. One says, “Al Gore sure is smart; we’re doomed!” The other counters, “It was cold this summer; global warming is a hoax.” Instead of joining either bandwagon, the reformed academic ought to weigh evidence carefully. Even within our community there are scientists whose expertise we can tap, brothers and sisters whom we can trust, who are familiar with the scientific literature and who do not rely on the popular press. We are not all experts on every topic, but just as we expect ministers to know the most about Scripture, and farmers about agriculture, electricians about household wiring, practicing scientists can give leadership in interpreting scientific discoveries.
Since global warming is a culturally important topic, touching on issues from personal lifestyle to global politics, we present an article written for Reformed Academic by Rick Baartman, a physicist working at TRIUMF in Vancouver and a member of Maranatha Canadian Reformed Church in Surrey, BC. Rick served on the Brazil Mission Board (1992-1998), is a board member of the prison ministry M2W2, and also board member of the Geneva Society for Reformational Worldview Studies. He and his wife Sara have five adult children and three grandchildren. Rick has reviewed the primary scientific literature on global warming, and has put together a valuable popular piece which we invite our readers to engage fruitfully. It is available in our “collected articles” in the sidebar, entitled “A Global Warming Primer”.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
