What should a good Christian "origins" science program cover?

Considering the discussion over the last few days, I thought I would attempt a first-draft summary statement of what I think a really quality Christian science program would cover when it comes to origins.

My view: A top-quality science curriculum should discuss the various views and talk not only about the arguments in favor of each view, but about their problems . . . i.e., why advocates of each view are in favor of the view, and why opponents find fault with them. –It can be exceptionally difficult to present all of these positions fairly, but, I believe, fairness is necessary.

Okay. So what views should one cover?

Some typical viewpoints I have seen discussed include these:

• non-theistic evolution
   
• theistic evolution
   
• young-earth creationism
   
• old-earth creationism.

Some may also throw in a discussion of Intelligent Design.

I think such a list is good . . . as far as it goes.

The problem I find--and I am thankful to Ken Ham and friends at Answers in Genesis for opening my eyes to this matter 14 years ago . . . --The problem I find is how such a list tends to cut out any discussion of the biblical evidence. And it is the Bible that leads in AiG's/Ken Ham's young-earth creationist argument. And, in my mind--again in agreement with Ham and AiG--any curriculum that claims to be Christian needs a discussion of biblical evidence to play a central role . . . at least to the extent that the Bible has evidence to bring to the table.

As a result, I believe a discussion of origins requires quite a bit more nuance than the four (or, possibly, five) options mentioned above.

And so I would like to propose the following divisions for discussion/presentation in a thorough Christian "origins" program:

• Theism or naturalism? --Clearly, Christians will opt for theism. But the topic of biblical theism v. naturalism and, perhaps, pantheism, needs to be discussed. I imagine this is the place you might want to address the Intelligent Design school of argumentation, though I don't see its success as essential to a theistic worldview, nor its failure as a death knell for such a worldview.

Assuming a biblical theistic viewpoint, then, I believe we need to discuss the following matters:

• Biblical concordism or non-concordism? Some questions to address: How should we read Genesis 1-3 (let alone 4-11)?
  
  • Should we look for concord [agreement/peace] between what we read in Genesis 1 and 2 (at least) and how a scientist might describe the beginnings of the cosmos, the biosphere and humankind? [I.e.: Even though the language of the Bible, obviously, isn't going to be scientifically precise in any modern sense of the term, do the biblical descriptions of the beginning of the world and humankind generally match what modern scientists would say? Or, put another way: If we look at the “testimony” of science, should we expect to find that it corroborates what we read in Genesis 1 and 2? (If our answer is YES, then we are concordists. Examples of concordist positions: young-earth creationism; progressive creationism (Hugh Ross); gap theory; day-age theory; etc.)]
  —OR—
  
  • Should we abandon any attempt to find concord between science and Genesis 1 and 2 and, instead, look solely to science for clues with respect to how and when God created? [I.e.: Even though, based on numerous Scriptural references, we should recognize that God created the cosmos and everything in it, should we read the text of Genesis 1 and 2 as something other than literal history and, therefore, not expect or even attempt to show some kind of correlation to what scientists would have to say and what we read in Genesis 1 and 2? –If our answer to this question is YES, then we are non-concordists. Examples of non-concordist positions: John Walton’s “cosmic temple” interpretation; Johnny Miller and John Soden’s “apologetic against Egyptian mythology” interpretation; etc.)]
   
• Old-earth (i.e., billions of years) or young-earth (i.e., 6,000 to possibly 10,000 or maybe even 12,000 years old)? Questions to ask: What are we to believe about how old the earth is? What evidence do we find for how old the earth is?
  
  NOTE: For presuppositionalist young-earthers like Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis, the Bible itself provides much or virtually all of the evidence . . . all of the evidence that really matters. As Tas Walker of AiG expressed it to me back in 1999: “Since we believe the Bible is the Word of God, we start with the Bible. . . . The Bible clearly teaches that the world is young. . . . So, now that we have established that the world is young (~6000 years), we are ready to come to the [scientific] evidence.”
  
  I mention this because, once more, if someone is going to argue against a presuppositionalist young-earth viewpoint, he or she must present strong evidence for why he or she believes the Bible does not teach a young (approximately 6,000-year-old) earth history . . . and/or, even more difficult, convince these evangelicals why the standard formulas of evangelical beliefs about the Bible should be abandoned or reformulated.
  

  (When I say what I just said, I am referring to such documents as The Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics which, in Part 2 of Article XIII, declares, “We deny that generic categories which negate historicity may rightly by imposed on Biblical narratives which present themselves as factual.” That certainly sounds good, but how do we know whether a biblical narrative is presenting itself as factual? --The Statement doesn't address the problem. Though The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy does state,
  

  ARTICLE XXII
  We affirm that Genesis 1-11 is factual, as is the rest of the book.
  We deny that the teachings of Genesis 1-11 are mythical and that scientific hypotheses about earth history or the origin of humanity may be invoked to overthrow what Scripture teaches about creation.

  And the grounds for affirming the full factuality of Genesis 1-11? . . . --I'm sorry. I'm not trying to get into the details of what a solid Christian course in "origins" will cover. But I am trying to tease out at least a few of the ugly/niggly details that such a course--and/or the advocates of certain positions--will need to address.
  
  My point here was "simply" to show that those who want to argue against a young-earth presuppositionalist view are going to have to address issues related to well-accepted evangelical statements of faith and not only the scientific evidence.)

• What mechanism did God use to create the earth and all that is within it: Unmediated (“word spoken --[yields]-- thing created”) or Mediated (“word spoken --[creates/establishes]-- PROCESS (some type of evolution?) --[which yields]-- thing created”)? To what kind of evidence can we point for our views?

Once we tease out these four primary questions, we find the following options:

Atheistic	Theistic
Evolution	Mediated Creation (i.e., in the current scientific environment, Evolutionary Creation)
	Unmediated Creation

And then, as best as I can understand, these are the theistic options:

		Relationship of Scripture and Science
		Concordist	Non-Concordist
Age of Earth	Old-Earth	Progressive Creation (à la Hugh Ross) -OR- Mediated (Evolutionary) Creation (includes Day-Age, Gap, and other such theories)	Mediated (Evolutionary) Creation -OR- (at least hypothetically) Unmediated Creation [I am unaware of any unmediated non-concordist creationists]
	Young-Earth	Unmediated Creation (à la Ken Ham)	[Scientific data w/o concordist interpretation generally leads away from Young-Earth view]

If you have any additional suggestions, recommendations, criticisms, or other contributions to make, I would be most grateful for your input!

Eating crow

Foolish man that I am! --I wrote a negative review about an e-book I got for free from The Old Schoolhouse.

Ill-advised!

When my review finally appeared, two negative reviews of my review also appeared . . . before anyone else wrote another review of the book itself!

What was most disturbing to me was that the reviewers of my review were right about most of what they had to say.

In other words, I had made a fool of myself in many ways.

I wanted to acknowledge my reviewers' good points, even while attempting to maintain some shred of dignity for myself.

Sadly, I couldn't address my reviewers directly: I didn't (and still don't) have their email addresses. I did a bunch of searching online to try to locate them. I found an outdated email address for Bates Estabrooks; I found a generic method to contact Carl Wieland. Meanwhile, I wrote to the editor at The Old Schoolhouse itself to ask if he or she would forward my comments to Estabrooks and Wieland as well as post my response online.

I thought it might be worth my while to reveal my foolishness and Dr. Wieland's and Mr. Estabrooks' wisdom . . . and my attempt to "make things right."

The Old Schoolhouse has never responded to either of my two appeals. Dr. Wieland wrote back to the contact I made (via his website) on Monday of this week.

Anyway. Here is what I submitted a week ago in hopes up updating or, possibly, replacing, the review in which I embarrass myself.

Review of Lincoln vs. Darwin: What's the Difference? by Deborah Wuehler

I gave a 1-star review back on February 20th, when this book first came out. A few days later, two new "reviewers" wrote detailed posts intended to demonstrate how wrong I was.

I want to thank them for their thoughtful responses and acknowledge the errors I made in my review of Mrs. Wuehler's book. It turns out she is more correct than what I gave her credit for.

Do I want to change my 1-star rating for the book? No.

For one, I don't think the 3½ pages of content plus the three brief handwriting/copy assignments are worth $1.95. (When I got my copy, The Old Schoolhouse was graciously providing copies of the book for free. Now that I see they are actually charging for it, I feel compelled to note that I would feel ripped-off if I had paid $1.95 for so little content. )

Before I get to my second primary issue with the book, I want to note that there is some confusion in my mind as to the expected audience for the book.

I got thinking, the other day, that having an author make such sharp/strong distinctions between two men--"Lincoln was [obviously] good; Darwin was [obviously] evil"--probably does have a legitimate place somewhere in a young child's educational career. Perhaps between the ages of 4 and 6 or so. But you get much older than that, and I would expect we should be helping our students to recognize nuances in character. We want them to begin seeing how (even) wicked people may show a number of very lovely characteristics . . . and those we would like to honor as heroes often have feet of clay.

I don't see any such softening or nuancing in Mrs. Wuehler's work. Rather: "Lincoln is good; Darwin is bad." So I perceive the book, from that perspective, as intended for very young children.

Similarly, the handwriting practice uses a standard print style--something most students are being taught to abandon (in favor of script) by third grade.

So, once more, evidence points to a very young audience.

ON THE OTHER HAND, the vocabulary is significantly advanced beyond a second or third grade level! (What third grader do you know would respond well to a question phrased as, "Discuss this . . . incongruence," or "Talk about these ironic differences"?)

Considering the VOCABULARY and CONCEPTUAL CONTENT, the book appears aimed more at a junior or even senior high school audience.

But that brings me back to my first concern: I can't imagine offering junior and senior high school students the kinds of simplified contrasts and leading questions featured in this book . . . and especially without any source materials to back up the claims!

So all of this leads me to my second major disappointment: that, as at least a couple of other reviewers have noted, while Mrs. Wuehler strongly states (or at least implies) her OPINIONS (and, therefore, the opinions she believes we should adopt as well), she provides precious little DOCUMENTATION for holding those opinions.

• Clearly, as we see by so many of the reviews, it is very encouraging to the already-convinced.
   
• It is also helpful to shape the opinions of the next generation in pro-Lincoln and anti-Darwinian directions. But
   
• It is quite useless, however, to educate anyone about the GROUNDS for holding such opinions. And--most distressing--
   
• It is useless (a) to convince the unconvinced directly that they should change their opinions and/or (b) to prepare students who hold pro-Lincoln and/or anti-Darwinian opinions how to convince others of the validity of their viewpoints!

Indeed, had Mrs. Wuehler documented (at least in footnotes, if not in the body copy itself) some of the things Mr. Estabrooks references ("the story of Ota Benga"--complete with URL reference--as just one example), I have no question I would have written a VERY different review to begin with--a review, first, that would have included far fewer errors (errors documented by Mr. Estabrooks and Dr. Wieland) and, most likely, would have granted the book very much higher marks.

And then a more direct Response to Mr. Estabrooks' and Dr. Wieland's Reviews of My Review:

I want to thank Bates Estabrooks and Carl Wieland for the valuable input they provided in response to my review of Mrs. Wuehler's book. As a result of their comments, while I would not want to change my star rating (I still think it deserves only one star), I would, most definitely, like to change the GROUNDS for my opinion. Specifically--speaking directly and only concerning the BOOK ITSELF, [see my review, above].

[However, n]ow that these REVIEWERS provided the evidence that Mrs. Wuehler failed to supply, I find myself embarrassed for saying some of the things I did and for having made some false accusations against Mrs. Wuehler (acknowledged below).

If there were some way, properly, to "take my words back," I would do that. [At the same time, however, I am reluctant to suggest my review should be removed, because then you would have to remove the really excellent responses Mr. Estabrooks and Dr. Wieland made to my review as well. . . .]


CONCERNING THE CONTENT OF MR. ESTABROOKS' CRITICISMS

I would like to thank Mr. Estabrooks for providing references to resources that should prove very helpful to readers of Mrs. Wuehler's booklet who would otherwise be wholly ignorant of the grounds for her opinions. I am particularly grateful for his reference to Steve Graves' A Biblical Analysis of the Civil War. That paper includes some truly remarkable and useful source materials for any serious student of American history.

I was going to attempt to argue that Mr. Estabrooks appears to have overstated his case when he says that Graves "addresses . . . errors [I allegedly made with respect] to Lincoln." I was GOING to argue, but I have decided simply to "cede the field" in this area. While I think Mr. Estabrooks did overstate his case against me, he is correct to urge that I overstated MY case when I used comments Lincoln made about his beliefs and interests concerning social equality and his beliefs concerning POSSIBLE inequality "in moral or intellectual endowments" as grounds for suggesting Lincoln did not promote some form of equality (which is all that Mrs. Wuehler claims).

So I will hold my peace.

At the same time, however, I would like to note that I think Mr. Estabrooks is a bit too broad in his judgments upon me ("Mr. Holzmann seems to prefer the natural outgrowths of Mr. Darwin’s proposition . . . vs. those of Mr. Lincoln"; "His disdain for Lincoln appears to exceed his affection for Darwin"; "he makes a judgment in ignorance of the culture of the day. And . . . he implies that what a person believes at one point in life is immutable as the person ages and gains greater understanding"; etc.). I definitely do NOT prefer atheism, human bondage, eugenics, etc. Nor am I antagonistic in any way toward Providence, equality under law, human dignity, or liberty. Nor am I unaware of the culture of Lincoln's day or of the need for circumspect speech in the midst of heated opposition. AND SO FORTH.

So, while I can see how my words might APPEAR to suggest such things, I think Mr. Estabrooks has overstated the legitimate grounds for his opposition to the things I wrote.

And I appreciate Mr. Estabrooks' calling me to account for my inappropriate remarks.


CONCERNING THE CONTENT OF DR. WIELAND'S CRITICISMS

Personally, I think Dr. Wieland's response was more helpful than Mr. Estabrooks', especially when it came to his extract from Darwin's THE DESCENT OF MAN.

My sense: that quotation alone proves I was wrong to say that Darwin did not promote eugenics and, as I said, "never thought of" the idea. Based on that quote, I would say he DID promote eugenics. He may not have used the term, but the entire idea is presented right there.

Let me confess: I had seen that quote before. Indeed, at one time I was quite familiar with it. I have alerted students to the evils of eugenics. But for some reason, when I wrote my review of Mrs. Wuehler's book, that quotation and its implications completely slipped my mind.

I beg my readers and Mrs. Wuehler's forgiveness for saying that Darwin never made such a suggestion. Obviously, he did!

And then one last comment.

In response to my statement that "I am . . . in favor of promoting young-earth creationist ideas. But let us do so honestly," Dr. Wieland writes, "The gentleman who wrote these comments is, from his personal interaction with this ministry in the past, strongly sympathetic to the old-age position. That is as it may be, but indeed, one should always be . . . transparent, as much as possible."

I'm not exactly sure what he means to communicate by this statement. I get the feeling he intends to suggest my comment was disingenuous.

My reply: It is my impression that the young-earth perspective has a near stranglehold on the Christian homeschool movement in the United States . . . at least as far as that movement finds any form of public expression.

I understand how and why the leaders in the young-earth creationist movement believe their area of interest (i.e., young-earth anti-evolutionary creationism) is of particular concern. Supposing their larger interpretive framework is accurate, I understand how and why they believe an old earth and/or evolutionary perspective can create questions about the fundamental Gospel message itself. (At the same time, I understand how and why evangelical old-earth creationists argue that their perspective poses no problems at all to the Gospel.)

I understand the history of how Darwinism and evolutionism has been used as a sledgehammer against the church and against faith. I am deeply distressed by the underlying history and the results.

At the same time, I note that many of us have come to the place where (if we are Reformed or Presbyterian paedobaptists) we permit, accept, and, often, even rejoice in being able to fellowship with our (adults-only baptizing) Baptist brothers and sisters . . . and (if we are Baptist) we rejoice in being able to fellowship with our Reformed and Presbyterian brethren. Similarly, those of us who are premillennial Dispensationalists are generally able to worship and fellowship and encourage our a-mill and post-mill (and, sometimes, even, our preterist) brothers and sisters . . . and vice versa.

But for some reason, at this time, those of us in the broad Christian homeschool movement can't bear to fellowship with those who disagree with us about how and when God created the universe? We want to cut off old-earth creationists (or SUSPECTED old-earth creationists) from coming to our conventions?

Dr. Wieland is correct that I have been sympathetic to those who hold to an old-age position . . . if by such a statement he means to suggest (what is true) that I have spoken out for what I believe ought to be their "right" to be heard within the homeschool community. (See my paper titled "Young- and Old-Earth Creationists: Can We Even Talk Together?" found at http://www.sonlight.com/young_or_old_earth.html.)

I sense there is something truly wrong about how people's perspectives on these issues should become a source of such strong division among us that, as I have recently documented on my personal blog (johnscorner.blogspot.com/2009/03/perspectives-on-evolving-creation-4a.html, 4b.html, and 4c.html) if the leaders of the young-earth movement were consistent, those of us who follow them should NOT ONLY cut ourselves off from fellowship with our present-day old-earth brethren, but we should be disavowing any association with an awful lot of our spiritual forebears as well--people like John Calvin, Charles Haddon Spurgeon, J. Vernon McGee, B.B. Warfield, Charles Hodge, and many others. (Read the referenced posts to see the evidence.)

Actually, if we were to be consistent with the hermeneutical principles such people as Ken Ham advocate, we should be cutting ourselves off from fellowship with Ken Ham and Dr. Wieland as well, because they, too, have compromised with the world, and permitted science--the fallible wisdom of man--to guide their interpretations of the infallible Word of God.

Don't believe me? Check out Gerardus Bouw's article "Why Geocentricity?"

I hate to say it, but I think there is something fundamentally problematic when the hermeneutical principles advocated by so many obvious lovers-of-God not only bite a huge mass of fellow lovers-of-God, but also turn around to bite the very ones who advocate the principles!

In sum, then: Dr. Wieland is correct. I have been sympathetic to those who find themselves unable to "buy" the young-earth/anti-evolutionary position so strongly held by what appear to be almost all the known public figures in the Christian homeschool movement here in the United States today.

But I have been sympathetic primarily because I don't believe the evolution/creation debate ought to be the basis for one camp to disfellowship the other.

Interesting response I received from Dr. Wieland:

Thanks for emailing your comments to me. FWIW, I have never had a problem fellowshipping with believing individuals from a variety of persuasions on all sorts of issues that differ from mine. I suggest that this is true for most ordinary people who are straightforward Bible-believers on this issue and hold to YEC, whether in the the homeschool movement, or otherwise. I believe that claims that YEC's tend to cut off their brethren who think differently are at best a caricature, perhaps based on a too-limited sample, and at worst an intentional red herring. Bringing up the poorly exegeted stance of a Gerardus Bouw is much simpler than engaging the massive biblical evidence for straightforward creation days, for example--but it is no substitute for a reasoned position doing justice to the overwhelming biblical evidence.

If you have not read a scholarly work like Sarfati's Refuting Compromise, which clearly demonstrates that there is no 'wriggle room' in what the Bible teaches about origins when the normal rules of historical-grammatical analysis are applied, I strongly suggest it. If reading such a tome is too much to bite off in one chew, at least I would recommend the booklet 15 Reasons for taking Genesis as history. I am deeply occupied at present for the next few months, so please understand why I would not have the time for an ongoing exchange.

in Christ,

Carl W.
Dr Carl Wieland
Managing Director
Creation Ministries International Ltd (Australia)
www.creation.com

I'm curious: Among my readers who are involved in homeschooling here in the United States, do you think Dr. Wieland is correct, that "claims that YEC's tend to cut off their brethren who think differently are at best a caricature, perhaps based on a too-limited sample, and at worst an intentional red herring"?

On taking away in fine print what is stated in bold type

As I'm sure you can tell, if you've been following this blog for the last few days, I am pretty exercised over various behaviors by people associated with the organization known as Answers in Genesis (AiG).

When Mr. Looy first announced how AiG had "corrected" its revision of Charles Spurgeon's sermon so that they included a footnote that included a reference to the original text, I didn't look at the revised page. I simply "took his word for it" and said I was pleased that they had noted the change.

But the more I have thought about what he said they have done, the more I thought I should look directly at what, exactly, they did . . . to see it for myself. And now that I have looked at it and thought about it, I've become upset over the deception inherent in what they have done. It's just plain misleading (at least). Though I think it would be more accurate to call it dishonest.

Consider how they present the amended portion of the sermon. Can you see the substantive changes?

I can't.

But they are indicated. Kind of.

Oh. You say you are like 99% of all the people I know who rarely if ever take the time to read endnotes--especially endnotes that are referenced immediately after an obvious direct quote from Scripture--and, more particularly, a Scripture with which you are very familiar?

That's where the deception comes in (my opinion). It's like the online ads that imply--in standard-size print--that something is free . . . but then, in small print, below the response button, declare that, by pressing the button, you are agreeing to pay a $4.95 monthly "delivery charge" to be charged to your cell phone. . . .

"Hey! Wait a second!" --It's in that fine print where you'll find all the information you'd really wish you'd known.

So it is here, on the AiG website: the fact that this conservative Christian icon [Spurgeon] was clearly not a young-earth advocate: hidden, "below the fold," as it were. Way below the fold.

Internet advertisers who engage in such practices when it comes to financial transactions: such people can expect to be prosecuted for fraud.

I wonder if AiG and those who are aware of their behavior in this matter should think of their revisions in a similar light. Is it equivalently fraudulent?

Read the modified text and those portions of text closest to the portion that has been modified:

In Ge 1:2, we read, “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.”^a Our planet has passed through various stages in creation, and different kinds of creatures have lived on its surface, all of which have been fashioned by God. But before that era came, when man should be its principal tenant and monarch, the Creator initially created the world as a chaotic mass on the first day of creation. It was entirely without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. The Spirit came, and stretching his broad wings, bade the darkness disperse, and as he moved over it, all the different portions of matter came into their places, and it was no longer “without form, and void;” but became round like its sister planets, and moved, singing the high praises of God—not discordantly as it had done before, but as one great note in the vast scale of creation.

Can you see the alterations? Do you have any idea how it may have been altered? Would you be alarmed enough by the endnote marker to scan down to the end of the article in order to figure out where and how the alterations were made? I mean, really: Would you scan down there based on an endnote attached to an obviously unmodified direct quote from Scripture?

Yeah. I didn't think so.

Frankly, considering how this passage appears in its original context, I doubt I would scan down to read the endnote anyway--and I'm notorious (notorious with my wife, anyway!) for reading endnotes and footnotes and all such "scholarly" apparatus. She "never" reads those things; I "always" do.

But, honestly, I didn't even see the endnote marker the first time I read this passage . . . even when I knew it existed (i.e., yesterday morning, after people had told me the note existed and after I decided I wanted to see the note in context). It simply doesn't pop out at a reader.

But there is more I "have against" AiG in this context.

I believe they are disingenuous, at best, in indicating what exactly they have modified. Please: read the endnote and tell me what, exactly they did. Where did the indicated emendation take place?

Note

(a) [We do not know how remote the period of the creation of this globe may be—certainly many millions of years before the time of Adam. Our planet has passed through various stages of existence, and different kinds of creatures have lived on its surface, all of which have been fashioned by God. But before that era came, when man should be its principal tenant and monarch, the Creator gave up the world to confusion. He allowed the inward fires to burst up from beneath and melt all the solid matter, so that all kinds of substances were commingled in one vast mass of disorder; the only name you could give to the world then was, that it was a chaotic mass of matter; what it should be, you could not guess or define.] Bracketed text removed from the sermon. As brilliant as Spurgeon was, even he did not understand the age issue. –Editor

And, of course, they didn't note how and where and what specific text they added in its place and/or substituted in certain other places.

No. I think for full transparency, they should have provided in-line notes right at the spot . . . or, if they really believe endnotes are so fair, then let them add their notes at the end, and let Spurgeon speak honestly for himeself.

He was no young-earth, 6,000-year-old-earth, creationist. . . . but you'd have to be quite the detail-oriented scholar to know it from the way they have modified his sermon!

The proper (separate) roles of Scripture and science

I mentioned the Haarsma's book Origins yesterday. I said I was pleased with how it pushed me to think new thoughts I had never thought before.

Here's one of the thoughts to which it introduced me.

NOTE: I had read books or papers that suggested most of the different interpretive schemes concerning Genesis 1 and 2 that the Haarsmas summarize, but I had never heard any Christian address what I am about to tell you in the way that the Haarsmas do.¹ Indeed, the only people, up until the Haarsmas, whom I had ever heard mention this interpretive schema were diehard atheists. And, I will confess, the atheists' "arguments" for their interpretation disturbed me greatly. They say their schema clearly demonstrates the very human foundation of the Bible; God, they say (or a god, any god), had absolutely nothing to do with any kind of biblical "inspiration." The Bible is "just" a human document.

In one fell swoop, however, the Haarsmas not only present the outlines of the exact same schema, but, in my opinion, by means of their presentation, they declaw it; they remove the atheists' ability to use it against Christians. Suddenly--I say this with great joy--the atheists' "arguments" no longer bother me. I sense a freedom from fear concerning the atheists' arguments that I have not felt in years. If you are familiar with what I am about to discuss, I hope what the Haarsmas (and Gordon Glover) have to say will be encouraging to you as well.

The Haarsmas say that a growing number of evangelical scholars are interpreting Genesis 1 and 2 (plus a large numbers of other passages from the Old Testament) with the idea that its primary outline, its "furniture," if you will, the "scientific" "facts" to which it alludes, come from the standard Ancient Near Eastern [ANE] cosmology (i.e., the way virtually all Ancient Near Eastern cultures viewed creation--the cosmos). Among other things, the peoples of the Ancient Near East were convinced

• The earth is flat.
• It is surrounded by water (both above and below).
• The sky is a solid structure [which is, literally, what the word translated "firmament" in the King James, and "expanse" in the New English Version, means].
• The firmament holds back the waters that are above it. [After all, what else--besides a solid object--can possibly hold back water?]
• The firmament has floodgates or windows in it (Genesis 7:11; 8:2) that let the "waters above" sometimes pour out upon the earth.

Gordon Glover, in Beyond the Firmament, provides additional details of the ANE cosmology . . .

• The "four corners" of the earth (Isaiah 11:12; Proverbs 30:4) rest on the "pillars of the earth" (Job 9:6; Psalm 75:3).
• The "pillars" themselves stand on the "foundations of the earth" (1 Samuel 2:8; Psalm 104:5; Job 38:4-6; Jeremiah 31:37).

. . . And so on and so forth.

The Haarsmas note,

This physical picture of the world is woven throughout the Old Testament. It reflects the way the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Canaanites, and Israelites literally understood the world around them. In the account of Noah's flood, the waters come from the floodgates of heaven and from the springs of the deep (Gen. 7:11), not from clouds. In Psalm 19:4-6, the sun rises at one end of the heavens and travels its path to the other end, just as the Egyptians viewed the sun as a boat sailing on the firmament.²

--pp. 113-115

Having explained the basic ANE cosmology, the Haarsmas then go on to describe the ANE cosmogony--the ANE story of creation--with special reference to the Babylonian epic, Enuma Elish. The distinctions between the Scriptural cosmogony and Enuma Elish are remarkable.

Some of the key differences the Haarsmas note (p. 116):

• Bible: There is one God. Enuma Elish: There is a pantheon of gods.
• Bible: God created an ordered world by the authority of his Word.  Enuma Elish: The world was formed by battles among the gods.
• Bible: No part of the physical world is divine.  Enuma Elish: The sun, moon, and other objects are gods that control human fate.
• Bible: God said his creation is good.  Enuma Elish: Some portions of creation are related to good gods; others are related to bad gods.
• Bible: God purposely created human beings to be trusted stewards of his creation.  Enuma Elish: Humans are an afterthought made to be slaves to the gods.

The Haarsmas suggest that the point of Genesis 1 has nothing to do with science and the structure of the universe (i.e., cosmology); it has everything to do with theology and anthropology: who is God and who is mankind in relation to God?

Because of [their cultural] context, the original audience would not have heard Genesis 1 teach that the earth was formed out of a watery chaos or that there was a solid dome firmament holding back waters above the sky. They already believed that physical picture! Rather, the original audience heard Genesis 1 as a powerful theological manifesto proclaiming the true authority of the God of the Israelites and the true status of humanity.

God inspired the human author of Genesis 1 to communicate these theological truths using a physical description of the earth that was familiar to them.

Imagine if God had instead tried to correct their scientific misconceptions by explaining to them that the earth is spherical (not flat) and the sky is gaseous (not a solid dome), and that . . . It would have baffled them completely! Moreover, it would have completely distracted them from the theological message.

--p. 117

So far, so interesting. But I said I felt the Haarsmas had freed me from a fear that has gripped me more or less since the moment I first heard this idea that the biblical account of creation is based upon or takes its primary form from the creation myths of the cultures round about Israel.

So why would the Haarsmas' reference to this view (again, one of nine different views they outline!) give me any comfort at all?

Because, as they say,

If God's purposes in Genesis 1 did not include teaching scientific facts to the Israelites, then we should not look here for scientific information about the age or development of the world. [According to the conservative Christian viewpoint that suggests we ought to view the cosmology in the Old Testament--including Genesis 1 and 2--as being the same as (because it came from) the cosmology of the cultures surrounding Israel, f]or modern readers, as for the original audience, the message of [Genesis 1] is its powerful theological truths. God does not use the Bible to teach us the physical processes he uses to make the rain fall or the earth orbit the sun or to form the mountains. Instead, in a beautifully crafted and impressively short text, God teaches us all about

• his sovereignty.
• the goodness of creation.
• the honored status of humanity as his imagebearers. . . .

In Genesis 1, . . . the first listeners heard nothing new about the physical universe; all the emphasis was on who created the world and humanity and why they were created.

What does this mean for science? It means that Genesis 1 is not a science textbook. The text was never intended to teach scientific information about the structure, age, or natural history of the world. Thus, . . . comparing Genesis 1 to modern science is like comparing Psalm 93:1 ("The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved") to modern astronomy. Genesis is not in agreement or conflict with the sequence of events found by astronomy and geology.

As scientific knowledge increases and changes over the centuries, its understanding of the physical structure and history of the earth will change. But through all of those centuries, the theological truths of Genesis 1 remain the same: there is one sovereign God who makes light from darkness, creates an ordered world from chaos, and fills an empty world with good creatures. Humans need not fear the capricious whims of a pantheon of gods, but can instead trust in the one true God who made us in his image and declares us "very good."

--pp. 119-121

Yowzah!

As we noted yesterday, we don't get upset when meteorologists create computer models and use Doppler radar and thermometers and all the other instruments of modern meteorology to predict the weather for us--despite the fact that Scripture clearly teaches us that God controls the weather. And--I didn't mention this yesterday, but I'm sure you can follow--none of us gets upset when geneticists and embryologists and other students of human development study how our human beings reproduce . . . despite the fact that, we are told, it is God who knits us together in our mothers' wombs. Similarly, we don't turn to Scripture in order to understand planetary motion or how to send a rocket into outer space . . . despite the fact that, again, the Bible tells us God placed the sun, moon and stars where He wanted and controls their motion by His will.

The fact is, we don't turn to Scripture in order to discover scientific information. We understand in every other area, it seems, but not when it comes to Genesis 1--that modern science is asking different questions than those the Scriptures were written to answer.

So, I heard the Haarsmas say, as they quoted the Christians who view Genesis 1 in light of the Ancient Near Eastern cosmological perspective: we ought to handle the "science" of Genesis 1 in the same way we handle all the "science" elsewhere in Scripture. Ignore it. Don't worry about it. Recognize that this "science" is every bit as culturally bound to its time and place as our science, today, is bound to ours.

---

¹ The Haarsmas are by no means first to suggest the schema I am about to share with you. They are simply the first Christian authors I have read (or heard!) who present this perspective. --From reading the Haarsmas' and Glover's books, I get the sense that John H. Walton's The NIV Application Commentary: Genesis, especially around pp. 80-85, may be an excellent popular-level source for information on this subject.

² If we seriously intend to interpret Genesis literally, say the Haarsmas, then we had better keep these things in mind and speak not only about 24-hour days and so forth, but a flat (not spherical) earth; and an earth that rests on pillars rather than orbiting the sun; and a solid-dome sky that has the two great light-giving bodies--the sun and moon--and the lesser bodies--the stars--affixed to its "inside" surface . . . with an ocean of water above and beyond these fixtures and the dome to which they are attached. . . .

And lest you feel I am overstating the case, consider Martin Luther's lecture on Genesis 1 in which he said,

Scripture simply says that the moon, the sun, and the stars were placed in the firmament of heaven, below and above which heaven are the waters. . . It is likely that the stars are fastened to the firmament like globes of fire, to shed light at night.

--Quoted by Glover, p. 65. Full reference at loc. cit.

Are you being treated like a child? Who controls what you get to hear?

There's a little story I've been sitting on for close to a year. It's time I told it.

As most of my readers know, I am a co-owner of Sonlight Curriculum, Ltd., a Christian homeschool curriculum developer and supply company. I resigned from day-to-day involvement in the company effective April 1 last year.

Shortly after I resigned, I received news that the company had been banned from displaying its materials at the homeschool convention sponsored by CHEC, the Christian Home Educators of Colorado, our local Christian homeschool association. The letter that informed us of our having been banned was strangely uninformative. I am not at home right now, so I don't have access to a PDF of the letter to show you. But, in essence, the author said, "You don't meet our standards. We are unwilling to talk with you about it. Don't ask."

Happily, I have enough of a relationship with the president of CHEC (not much, but enough!) that I wrote to ask what was going on, what insight he might be able to shed on the subject. . . . I mean: It's not as if Sonlight had changed in any fundamental way over the 13 years it had been in attendance at the CHEC convention. . . .

Ultimately, Sonlight received no written or full "official" explanation, but got the message: the convention committee was of the opinion that the company isn't Christian enough . . . primarily because it isn't strict enough in its young-earth teaching. It carries Usborne books that, as virtually all secular books that touch on issues related to origins, present an evolutionary perspective.

That Sonlight doesn't schedule those pages, or that, when it does schedule them, counters those presentations with young-earth creationist material: Not good enough. Someone--a child, perhaps, without Mom's or Dad's permission, or maybe even a mom or dad--might find the offending books so attractive that they will read those pages and become convinced of their truth. . . .

CHEC, apparently, can't trust Christian homeschoolers in Colorado to do their own research, read what "the other side" is saying, and/or come to their own conclusions in these matters. CHEC feels the need to protect homeschool families from themselves . . . and from companies like Sonlight that don't teach origins in quite the way CHEC prefers.

What really bothers me: CHEC's behavior, in essence, answers my paper--Young-Earth and Old-Earth Creationists: Can We Even Talk to One Another?--in the negative: "No. We can't. And, to the extent it is up to us, we won't."

Moreover, its behavior suggests that, if it were up to CHEC, they would keep modern homeschoolers away from a whole lot of evangelical and fundamentalist stalwarts of the last hundred years or more: people like B.B. Warfield (a giant in conservative biblical studies during the late 19th century), J. Vernon McGee (key radio evangelist of the mid-20th century with the Back to the Bible broadcast), James Dobson (yes, that James Dobson--of Focus on the Family), and others. Y'know, these guys simply weren’t (or aren't) "pure" enough in their stance on the age of the earth and/or the specific mechanism(s) by which God created the world. Only leaders who teach in lock-step with Ken Ham and the Answers in Genesis and Institute for Creation Research crowd deserve a place at the CHEC convention.

Pretty amazing . . . and depressing (in my opinion).

But Sonlight's banning occurred quietly. In the "back room."

Who heard?

I think CHEC hoped to keep it that way.

But I finally decided to tell the story. Because I don't think stories like this should remain hushed up. We need to know how our knowledge is being circumscribed.

If you're involved in homeschooling, especially Christian homeschooling, I wonder if your state convention sponsors may be keeping you from hearing the "other side" in debates that concern you?

****Editorial "Revision" (1/30/09; 6:20PM): I was just reviewing some old documents and discovered my memory of the chronology of events was incorrect. I want to correct, here, my false memories of chronology.

I will post a separate/new post with unmistakable details that may clarify and/or throw greater light on what really has taken place.

(1/31/09; 11:30AM): Full update is now available here.)