Great example of reductio ad absurdum in a clever piece by John over at Sydney Anglican Heretics last month. He is responding to Greg Clarke’s comments in the Australian christian newspaper Eternity, where Clarke made a fairly strong inference to young earth creationists as “head-in-the-sand, plug-the-ears-idiots.” 

I was able to find an electronic version of the article at the centre for public christianity for context: 

“…people of faith don’t think that you should believe things when the evidence is to the contrary. There might be a few misguided types who think that it is a ‘test of faith’ to believe things when the evidence suggests it isn’t reality, but that is not the position of orthodox Christianity. 

“It is for this reason that many Christians in the sciences do not believe in a literal seven-day creation, or in a variety of views about dinosaurs and fossils. They think the evidence is to the contrary. Christians are realists, not head-in-the-sand, plug-the-ears idiots. At least, they shouldn’t be. There is no need to be afraid of evidence and knowledge—of course, we will need to interpret it well. It is very fair to reserve judgement about evidence until such investigation has been done, but then we must let the evidence sit and deal with it as best we see it.” 

Apart from the implication by Clarke that people who believe in a literal six-day creation are ignorant, misguided or afraid of supposed evidence against their view (I have to say, it is quite the opposite), I rather appreciate the interesting tactical approach by John in resolving confusion over this issue: 

Greg Clarke is an idiot.
Greg Clarke is an idiot.
Greg Clarke is an idiot.
Greg Clarke is an idiot.
Greg Clarke is an idiot.
Greg Clarke is an idiot.
Greg Clarke is an idiot. 

The question that we have before us today is, Is Greg Clarke really an idiot? 

In order to answer this we must set aside, for the moment, our limiting pre-postmodernal preconceptions that would entail taking these words at face value and concluding that the author is literally claiming that Greg Clarke is actually an idiot. What we must do is to examine the evidence, not on a literal level, but a literalistic one. Hence, let us deconstruct the message by taking the priority of form over content. In other words, to garner support from Marshall McLuhan’s famous maxim we can claim that the medium is truly the message. 

First, note the repetition. The writer, by claiming seven times that Greg is an idiot, is underscoring a claim of perfection, not Greg’s perfection, of course, but perfection of the message. 

Further, each instantiation of ‘Greg Clarke is an idiot’ contains seven syllables, making 7 x 7 or 49 interconnected modules. We can recall from the Old Testament that 49 was traditionally the number used when one wanted to signify divine completion over an extended period of time. Thus, the author of this message is clearly emphasising divine sanction of Greg Clarke being an idiot.

One could go on and on about this pithy declaration, its internal structure and whether or not Greg Clarke is a literal or literalistic idiot. Possibly some background detail may assist our endeavour.

This month in the Christian newspaper Eternity Greg Clarke claimed that young earth creationists, apropos science and the Bible, are not realists but are “head-in-the-sand, plug-the-ears-idiots”. Now, try as I might, I found it impossible to uncover any literary devices in his statement so I was forced to take it straightforwardly and conclude that Greg Clarke really meant that I and others were genuine, unadulterated 100% idiots because we hold that God created everything in 6 days.

The full title of the book is Creation, Fall, Restoration – A Biblical Theology of Creation (CFR).

I originally became interested in CFR because of the promise it offered as a commentary on the relationship between science and scripture, and as a survey of the historical interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis. And with chapters such as Scripture, Science, and Interpretation, Creation and Genesis: A Historical Survey and two chapters covering different aspects on The Days of Creation, I was not at all disappointed. Andrew Kulikovsky demonstrates his depth of knowledge in these areas, bringing all of the relevant pieces together into one volume that is relatively easy to read.

Similarly, Bob McCabe in a recent review of CFR, says that Kulikovsky “provides a readable text that is a basic exegetical and theological explanation and defense of the biblical text, as well as refuting common evangelical interpretative schemes that undermine the traditional reading of Genesis.”

That is not to say that the material itself is easily understood. In fact, I spent quite a bit of time re-reading some sections of the book and I think that is simply due to the nature of the topics being covered, together with my lack of prior knowledge on the subject matter.

In the first chapter, Kulikovsky acknowledges the concept (originating with Francis Bacon) that “God has revealed Himself in two ‘books’ – general revelation and special revelation” (p.18) but spends the first two chapters distinguishing one from the other, recognizing the unfortunately all too common habit for Christians to, either explicitly or implicitly, give general revelation an equal or higher position than that of special revelation.^[1] He rightly points out that whenever the two books seemingly conflict, “Such conflicts are nearly always resolved by simply reinterpreting the special revelation in Scripture … implying … that the two are not equal.” (p. 18-19). Similarly, “The truth claims of science always seem to trump exegesis, regardless of how thorough it is and how well done.” (p.41)

Read the rest of this entry

I think SALVO Magazine is a great publication and nothing I am about to say here changes that. I think it’s so great in fact that after subscribing for one year on the recommendation of a friend [thanks Rick], I purchased all the back issues I could get my hands on. I think the mag is worth every cent. But it is because of one particular issue of SALVO that I decided to spend some time clarifying a view that is often misrepresented, even by Christians. That view is creationism, particularly the “young-earth” kind. 

Introducing Issue #4 (Winter 2008) – dedicated to the topic of Intelligent Design. Understandably I had a great time reading this! It includes some great articles that address questions like; Why is ID so important? What is the argument for ID from DNA? What does ID have to say about Biochemistry? What does Information tell us about ID? How can ID help us understand Living Cells? Can ID contribute to our understanding of Genetics? and; How does observability evidence Design? 

Conversely it addresses questions such as; What exactly is the problem with Evolutionary Theory? and; What can Evolution really do? It also delves into the political with articles like; What do ID proponents want taught in Public Schools? Has ID been banned in Public Schools? and; What happens when you challenge a school’s Science Curriculum? 

All very thought provoking articles to be sure. But throughout the magazine I was disappointed at times to find what I believe is an inaccurate characterization of creationism. As a relatively well-versed creationist myself, I decided to do a survey of this issue for references to creationism to highlight the nuances of the view and the ways in which it is often misunderstood and misrepresented.^[1] 

Read the rest of this entry

A recent article on the Sydney Anglican Heretics blog highlights the depth of compromise on Genesis in the Sydney Anglican Diocese. I mean, if theistic evolution is the position of the leader of the church then I expect this to have some kind of top-down effect.^[1,2]

John writes:

Peter [Jensen], as has long been known, is an evolutionist*. Quite naturally Peter, along with all theistic evolutionists, has to play some irrational semantic games and alter the meaning of words in order to mould Scripture to fit a pagan worldview. Somehow – the details, scientifically or theologically, never exactly laid out – God is able to allow chance to create while never surrendering his office of creator. At this point I tend to think that Peter and the others are trying to turn a circle into a square but still have it called a circle. Beats me!

Anyway, the point I want to make is that Peter’s allegiance to evolution puts him outside of Christian orthodoxy, by a theological mile. If a metaphysical principle is creating the enormous amounts of novel biological information that life requires, then it isn’t our Lord doing it. New biological information is the product of thought, of teleonomic conception, not the randomisation processes being acted upon by natural selection that evolution posits as being its source (This is superbly argued in the triple-PhD Wilder-Smith’s book, God: To be or not to be?). Peter can’t have his square and circle be the one object: Either Christ, acting through will and thought, brings forth biological information, and thus life, or it’s chance randomisation of matter, the metaphysical principle of materialism. The two are incompatible and irreconcilable.

* Lest it be said that we are misrepresenting Peter’s views, the following is a quote from Doctrine 1 while he was principal at Moore College: “There is a division of opinion about how God created the world [Actually, there isn’t, Peter. The difference lies between those that truly believe the Bible is God’s unchanging revelation to mankind and those, like yourself, that believe it can change as science, so-called, “proves” God has less and less to do with. Just ask Jack Spong.]. From the standpoint of these notes the ‘theistic evolution’ account offers the best understanding….By ‘theistic evolution’ we mean that God created the world through the process of evolution [there’s that square-circle again folks!].” Doctrine 1, Unit 7, p. 105.

http://sydneyanglicanheretics.blogspot.com/2010/02/test-for-orthodoxy.html

For another great illustration highlighting the incoherency of theistic evolution, I recommend John Woodmorrappe’s short essay on the subject.

1. Peter Jensen is the Archbishop of the Sydney Anglican Diocese
2. In the comments section of John’s article, Sam Drucker quipped that Peter Jensen “encourage[d] Clergy to avoid confrontation on this issue.” Whether that is the case or not, I can attest first hand to such experiences among the Anglican faithful and now I wonder how much of it is the influence of the leaders in the church who don’t think that discussion about this issue is important?

[Last updated by Duane: 9 March 2010]

According to a recent SMH article, the South Australian Non-Government Schools Registration Board decided to ban the teaching of creationism as part of the science curriculum.

Under policies published in December, the board said it required “teaching of science as an empirical discipline, focusing on inquiry, hypothesis, investigation, experimentation, observation and evidential analysis.”

The SMH article provides an opportunity to discuss a wide range of issues relating to creationism and science. However I only want to make one simple point about the misconceived relationship between the two.

To put it simply (as the SA board have done), the empirical discipline, focusing on inquiry, hypothesis, investigation, experimentation, observation and evidential analysis – watch this – is an integral part of creationism. It’s not anti-science or non-science, but values the scientific method as a way to understand the world in which we live. The two are very much homogenous, in the same way that materialists might view the relationship between evolution and science.

Science is the study of the natural world, which Christians would say is the study of the world God created. While materialists don’t accept a Christian worldview, we all still live in the same world and so we all have access to exactly the same evidence.

In studying this evidence however, materialists must draw conclusions shaped by materialist presuppositions. Appeals to design (implying a designer) are not allowed. The fallacy of this objection is that it presumes that the design argument is an appeal to ignorance. However the inference of design is based on an analogy of what we do know scientifically, not what we don’t. So Christians are not limited by a materialistic paradigm. This doesn’t mean that creationists invoke God-of-the-gaps solutions to problems that the materialist’s paradigm cannot currently resolve. But it means that they approach the evidence with the view that God created and that God’s word provides clues about the world which can inform our presuppositions for understanding the evidence. A practical example of this is the work of PhD physicists Dr. Russell Humphreys and Dr. John Hartnett, who have both proposed models for the universe to rival popular big bang cosmology.

Read the rest of this entry