This is a continuation of our response to an article entitled “Ten Reasons Why Evolution is Dangerous and Evil” published in Clarion in January. See this introductory response for the context and our approach. In the interest of clarity, and to avoid further unnecessary polarization, we presented these responses in advance to the authors of “Ten Reasons” to provide an opportunity to identify any misunderstanding or misrepresentation. No response was received.
Original from Clarion [numbered for our responses below]
Evolution devalues human life
In the early part of the twentieth century the province of Alberta and other Canadian jurisdictions enacted eugenics laws on the basis of evolutionary theory.[24] Those with congenital disabilities were regularly sterilized to promote the development of the human race – in Nazi Germany, they were euthanized. Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, built her pro-abortion ideology upon an evolutionary foundation. Even in the history of the Christian Reformed Church, an embrace of evolutionary dogma has often been associated with a denial of what the Bible teaches about the value of the unborn. Evolution[25] teaches a materialistic view of humanity in which we are essentially bags of chemicals.[26] Such a view, consistently held, results in the devaluation of human life from conception onward. (WB)
Evolution requires death before the Fall
The process of natural selection within the theory of evolution requires thousands, if not millions, of generations of our ancestors, many who were not quite human. They all lived, reproduced and then died. In this process, dominant characteristics developed only by chance[27] and others disappeared. It all led to progressively higher forms of life until human beings finally appeared on earth.
What the Bible teaches us is that not only did God create man, He created him very good. Then, in Genesis 2:17, He warned the first man and woman that if they disobeyed him and sinned, this would lead to their death. The testimony of Romans 5:12 is that since sin entered the world through the one man Adam, death came to all men after him.
If death has no basis in sin (as the theory of evolution says[28]), then what is the role of Jesus Christ as our Redeemer? Romans 5:17 tells us that He came to bring righteousness and life to those who die because they are descendants of the one man Adam.
When those who believe in the theory of evolution reject what the Bible teaches us about the origin of death as the consequence of sin, it’s not just a matter of whether to take the first three chapters of Genesis literally.[29] This actually throws into doubt the truthfulness of the rest of God’s Word, including what he did for us through Christ as our Mediator. (WG)
Responses by Reformed Academic
24. That some distort the biological theory of evolution and claim it as a foundation for their godless philosophies does indeed call for discernment, as discussed in earlier remarks.
25. The biological theory of evolution says nothing of this sort; this again is the naturalistic philosophy of evolutionism.
26. We join WB in opposing reductionism in all forms (see remark 19).
27. The nature of “chance” was discussed in previous remarks (15 & 16) as well.
28. The biological theory of evolution cannot account for the special character of humanity. Christians who support the theory generally acknowledge that human death is a consequence of human sin. Scripture nowhere claims that animal death is a consequence of human sin, or that animal death is evil. Life was promised for obedience, and this was rejected by man. Some of these matters are discussed at length by Dr. Jitse van der Meer in his paper, “God, Natural Evil, and Biological Evolution” (Reformed Academic, 6 October 2009; see this blog posting).
29. Again, we at Reformed Academic affirm the historical character of Genesis.
Showing posts with label reductionism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label reductionism. Show all posts
Monday, April 5, 2010
Saturday, April 3, 2010
Response to “Ten Reasons” – 4 and 5
This is a continuation of our response to an article entitled “Ten Reasons Why Evolution is Dangerous and Evil” published in Clarion in January. See this introductory response for the context and our approach. In the interest of clarity, and to avoid further unnecessary polarization, we presented these responses in advance to the authors of “Ten Reasons” to provide an opportunity to identify any misunderstanding or misrepresentation. No response was received.
Original from Clarion [numbered for our responses below]
Evolution surrenders the historicity of Adam and Eve
Many people who hold to the theory of evolution don’t believe in a literal Adam and Eve. For them we today are simply[19] the result of millions of years of evolving from lower forms.
However, God’s Word in Genesis 2:7 tells that He created the first man out of the dust of the ground and the first woman from a part taken out of the man. They were made specifically by God and in his image.
If there was no literal Adam and Eve,[20] then what about the fall? Where did sin come from? Without a fall into sin, do we still need a redeemer? Without Adam and Eve, then who is Jesus Christ?
What we learn from 1 Corinthians 15:22 is that not only was there a first Adam but that because of his sin, the sin that affected not only him but all his descendants too, there had to be a second Adam.
If we start with God’s Word and if we believe the testimony that it gives us about what He did in creation and in redemption, then there couldn’t have been development from pre-human ancestors. If we begin with God’s Word, common ancestry with modern primates is out of the question.[21] (WG)
Evolution eliminates the antithesis
Our first parents’ tragic fall in Paradise destroyed the unity of humanity. When man fell, the united, God-honouring human race was permanently divided into two groups – the “seed of the woman” and the “seed of the serpent.” “I will put enmity between you and the woman,” the Lord told the serpent in Genesis 3:15, “and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.”
In subsequent history, that antithesis became clear, as the history of the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent is recounted on the pages of God’s Word. At many points in the history of God’s people, this antithesis has come under attack, as God’s people have attempted to make peace with the enemy, or have simply forgotten about the importance of this “great divide.”
“What does all of this have to do with the issue of Darwinian evolution[22] as it relates to the Christian faith?” you ask. And the answer is, “Everything!” In Romans 1:18-25, the Apostle Paul informs us in no uncertain terms about the nature of those who reject the one, true God: “For although they knew God, they did not honour him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.”
We must never forget the antithesis, the vast chasm that God has placed between his people and unbelievers for our own benefit, and for his glory. Scientists who begin by denying God and his role in the creation and preservation of the universe are, to use the words of Scripture, “the seed of the serpent.” Claiming to be wise, they are actually fools. Beginning with the presupposition that there is no God, they become futile in their thinking. There is no middle ground; we must maintain the antithesis in every area of our lives, for the sake of God’s people, and ultimately to the glory of the Almighty Himself.[23] (JW)
Responses by Reformed Academic
19. The “simply” which WG cites is an example of reductionism, and reductionism is part of the overarching worldview of evolutionism, not part of the biological theory of evolution. We fully oppose all reductionistic forms of anthropology, which make such claims. For more on reductionism, see this blog posting. Certainly the human person is far more than whatever processes or materials were used by God in his/her development, and that is true for Adam as well as for us today.
20. We at Reformed Academic accept Adam and Eve as historical. See this blog posting (comment dated 4 June 2009).
21. Better put, as Calvin would have it: one who wishes to investigate questions of common ancestry, not addressed by Scripture, “let him look elsewhere.”
22. At the risk of being somewhat repetitive, it is not Darwinian evolution which is “the enemy,” opposed to Christianity, but evolutionism. The issues raised in the section are otherwise exactly on the mark.
23. We glorify God also by exploring the works of His hands, as He has revealed Himself in the “creation, preservation, and government of the universe” (Belgic Confession, Article 2). We deny Him glory if we care not one whit for the evidence of processes which He has ordained and overseen. We are perplexed by the enormity of the accusations (“Scientists…denying God…the seed of the serpent”) among people who confess the same faith, but we will take them as well-intended. It is clear, though, that there is a significant degree of misunderstanding, and hence misrepresentation, of what has been posted on Reformed Academic.
Original from Clarion [numbered for our responses below]
Evolution surrenders the historicity of Adam and Eve
Many people who hold to the theory of evolution don’t believe in a literal Adam and Eve. For them we today are simply[19] the result of millions of years of evolving from lower forms.
However, God’s Word in Genesis 2:7 tells that He created the first man out of the dust of the ground and the first woman from a part taken out of the man. They were made specifically by God and in his image.
If there was no literal Adam and Eve,[20] then what about the fall? Where did sin come from? Without a fall into sin, do we still need a redeemer? Without Adam and Eve, then who is Jesus Christ?
What we learn from 1 Corinthians 15:22 is that not only was there a first Adam but that because of his sin, the sin that affected not only him but all his descendants too, there had to be a second Adam.
If we start with God’s Word and if we believe the testimony that it gives us about what He did in creation and in redemption, then there couldn’t have been development from pre-human ancestors. If we begin with God’s Word, common ancestry with modern primates is out of the question.[21] (WG)
Evolution eliminates the antithesis
Our first parents’ tragic fall in Paradise destroyed the unity of humanity. When man fell, the united, God-honouring human race was permanently divided into two groups – the “seed of the woman” and the “seed of the serpent.” “I will put enmity between you and the woman,” the Lord told the serpent in Genesis 3:15, “and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.”
In subsequent history, that antithesis became clear, as the history of the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent is recounted on the pages of God’s Word. At many points in the history of God’s people, this antithesis has come under attack, as God’s people have attempted to make peace with the enemy, or have simply forgotten about the importance of this “great divide.”
“What does all of this have to do with the issue of Darwinian evolution[22] as it relates to the Christian faith?” you ask. And the answer is, “Everything!” In Romans 1:18-25, the Apostle Paul informs us in no uncertain terms about the nature of those who reject the one, true God: “For although they knew God, they did not honour him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.”
We must never forget the antithesis, the vast chasm that God has placed between his people and unbelievers for our own benefit, and for his glory. Scientists who begin by denying God and his role in the creation and preservation of the universe are, to use the words of Scripture, “the seed of the serpent.” Claiming to be wise, they are actually fools. Beginning with the presupposition that there is no God, they become futile in their thinking. There is no middle ground; we must maintain the antithesis in every area of our lives, for the sake of God’s people, and ultimately to the glory of the Almighty Himself.[23] (JW)
Responses by Reformed Academic
19. The “simply” which WG cites is an example of reductionism, and reductionism is part of the overarching worldview of evolutionism, not part of the biological theory of evolution. We fully oppose all reductionistic forms of anthropology, which make such claims. For more on reductionism, see this blog posting. Certainly the human person is far more than whatever processes or materials were used by God in his/her development, and that is true for Adam as well as for us today.
20. We at Reformed Academic accept Adam and Eve as historical. See this blog posting (comment dated 4 June 2009).
21. Better put, as Calvin would have it: one who wishes to investigate questions of common ancestry, not addressed by Scripture, “let him look elsewhere.”
22. At the risk of being somewhat repetitive, it is not Darwinian evolution which is “the enemy,” opposed to Christianity, but evolutionism. The issues raised in the section are otherwise exactly on the mark.
23. We glorify God also by exploring the works of His hands, as He has revealed Himself in the “creation, preservation, and government of the universe” (Belgic Confession, Article 2). We deny Him glory if we care not one whit for the evidence of processes which He has ordained and overseen. We are perplexed by the enormity of the accusations (“Scientists…denying God…the seed of the serpent”) among people who confess the same faith, but we will take them as well-intended. It is clear, though, that there is a significant degree of misunderstanding, and hence misrepresentation, of what has been posted on Reformed Academic.
Monday, July 27, 2009
Nothing-Buttery
Readers of Reformed Academic may be interested to know that I also contribute to another blog, by faculty at Trinity Western University. Below is a piece I wrote there a year ago, which is also relevant here, and so I am re-posting it here; I welcome your interaction.
One problem with blogging is that sometimes you have so much to say on a topic that you can’t reduce it to a few paragraphs… Which leads me to think about the very topic of reductionism, which I’ve been thinking about quite a bit lately. I’m not exactly sure where the following quote originates, but I’m told that one of our chemistry professors shows what reductionism is by saying, “Psychology is just biology, biology is just chemistry, chemistry is just physics, physics is just math, and math is just…hard.” Actually, I think the last part of this quote is due to one of our math profs. Another apt description is due to Donald MacKay, author of A Clock Work Image (InterVarsity, 1974), who calls such notions “nothing-buttery”. We encounter, nearly every day, the idea that “X” is nothing but “Y”:
Sometimes the words “nothing but” are left out, but the problem remains: it is supposed that “X” doesn’t really exist since science has shown that it’s actually just “Y”. Two of my main goals in teaching are to expose the problems with reductionism and to open students’ minds to the much broader perspective offered by a Christian worldview.
A few years ago, one of my students mentioned that TWU’s English Department has as its polemic motto, “The universe is made of stories, not of atoms.” This quote due to Muriel Rukeyser unfortunately remains reductionistic, because it’s not either/or: both are true. The universe is made of atoms, and it is made of stories. Both — and more — are needed to provide anything approaching a full description and explanation. It’s important for scientists to know that there is more to any phenomenon or event than the physical compositional story.
University education can often lead students into thinking that their particular area alone holds the true key to final knowledge; this was true in my case, until I discovered the “liberal arts and sciences” as taught at Trinity Western. I keep reminding my students that, unlike Ernest Rutherford’s quote that “In science there is only physics; all the rest is stamp collecting” (which remains hanging outside our lab as a conversation piece), each discipline considers just one aspect of the multi-faceted universe crafted by an amazing Creator as an integral whole. These aspects relate to one another in various ways, but no single discipline can claim to be the most fundamental or basic. It is both humiliating and empowering to know both that our work matters and that we need one another. Perhaps you recognize similarities with Romans 12:3-5 and I Corinthians 12!
For further reading, see my piece “A Physicist’s Reformed Critique of Nonreductive Physicalism and Emergence”, Pro Rege v. 33, n. 4 (June 2005) pp. 20-32 (available online here).
One problem with blogging is that sometimes you have so much to say on a topic that you can’t reduce it to a few paragraphs… Which leads me to think about the very topic of reductionism, which I’ve been thinking about quite a bit lately. I’m not exactly sure where the following quote originates, but I’m told that one of our chemistry professors shows what reductionism is by saying, “Psychology is just biology, biology is just chemistry, chemistry is just physics, physics is just math, and math is just…hard.” Actually, I think the last part of this quote is due to one of our math profs. Another apt description is due to Donald MacKay, author of A Clock Work Image (InterVarsity, 1974), who calls such notions “nothing-buttery”. We encounter, nearly every day, the idea that “X” is nothing but “Y”:
- A person is nothing but a collection of protoplasm.
- A person is nothing but a pile of atoms.
- Beethoven’s 5th is nothing but vibrations in the air.
- Love is nothing but chemistry.
- A photograph is nothing but pixels on a screen.
Sometimes the words “nothing but” are left out, but the problem remains: it is supposed that “X” doesn’t really exist since science has shown that it’s actually just “Y”. Two of my main goals in teaching are to expose the problems with reductionism and to open students’ minds to the much broader perspective offered by a Christian worldview.
A few years ago, one of my students mentioned that TWU’s English Department has as its polemic motto, “The universe is made of stories, not of atoms.” This quote due to Muriel Rukeyser unfortunately remains reductionistic, because it’s not either/or: both are true. The universe is made of atoms, and it is made of stories. Both — and more — are needed to provide anything approaching a full description and explanation. It’s important for scientists to know that there is more to any phenomenon or event than the physical compositional story.
University education can often lead students into thinking that their particular area alone holds the true key to final knowledge; this was true in my case, until I discovered the “liberal arts and sciences” as taught at Trinity Western. I keep reminding my students that, unlike Ernest Rutherford’s quote that “In science there is only physics; all the rest is stamp collecting” (which remains hanging outside our lab as a conversation piece), each discipline considers just one aspect of the multi-faceted universe crafted by an amazing Creator as an integral whole. These aspects relate to one another in various ways, but no single discipline can claim to be the most fundamental or basic. It is both humiliating and empowering to know both that our work matters and that we need one another. Perhaps you recognize similarities with Romans 12:3-5 and I Corinthians 12!
For further reading, see my piece “A Physicist’s Reformed Critique of Nonreductive Physicalism and Emergence”, Pro Rege v. 33, n. 4 (June 2005) pp. 20-32 (available online here).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)