Sunspots 379

Things I have recently spotted that may be of interest to someone else:

Science: Wired reports on a study that shows that social connectedness as a teenager is much more important than academic achievement in adult happiness.

Sports: Syndicated columnist George F. Will says that football has gotten too big and too dangerous for the players.

The Arts: Rebecca Luella Miller, of Speculative Faith, tells us why fantasy is so appealing to so-called young adults.

Politics: (or something) National Public Radio reports that a book on Thomas Jefferson, by David Barton, has been pulled from their offerings, because of errors of fact.

Computing: Fox News reports that the bad guys use suddenly popular searches (related to some scandal, for example) as a way to mess up our computers.

Christianity: From the BioLogos Foundation, a brief summary of the history of how Darwin was received by Christians, in his own time. By no means all Christians were hostile. (Some were.)

Image source (public domain)

"Creation" - the movie, Darwin, pain and suffering

I did not see the movie, Creation, which is about the life of Charles Darwin, when it came out. I may not see it. One aspect of Darwin's life that was important to him, but doesn't get mentioned much in our time, is that he had a beloved daughter, Annie, who got sick and died at age 10. Apparently the movie considers that at some length. The Wikipedia article on the film is here.

I have read a good article on the movie, written from a Christian perspective. The article is largely sympathetic to the film, and, for example, points out that some of the medicine of Darwin's time would now be considered quackery. The article also considers the conflict between the Christian faith of Darwin's wife, and the perceived implications of Darwin's theory.

I'm not clear as to whether the film considers that the death of Darwin's daughter was an example of selection against the unfit, but the article mentions that. (Darwin and his wife were related, hence their children were likely to have gotten a double dose of some bad recessive genes.)

Two other aspects of the article are important. The first is the consideration of a problem that has vexed believers since the Fall, namely the question of how pain and suffering in the world is compatible with the existence of a loving, omnipotent God. Here's the most important passage in the article:
Regardless of what philosophical problems Christians may have with the notion of God’s sovereignty and evil, our first commitment is to discover what the Bible says about the issue, not to presuppose what can and cannot be proposed philosophically. Clearly, the Bible claims that God somehow ordains natural disasters and both good and evil in such a way that man’s responsibility is not diminished, nor is God himself engaged in evil. Just how this is so is not explained to us.

The author then goes on to discuss Bible passages which are what the Bible has to say about it.

Another idea that I didn't realize that Darwin had had is mentioned in the article, namely that Darwin considered the possibility that, although evolution seems to work through blind chance, it is possible that God foresaw all of this, and made it possible, by constructing the universe in such a way as to bring it about by chance processes.

Thanks for reading. The movie sounds, from the article, like it is thought-provoking and far more worth seeing than many a film. AllMovie is less generous, but praises the portrayal of Darwin's daughter, whom is described as Darwin's intellectual superior and most penetrating critic. Read the article.

Must a Christian hold to young-earth creationism? Albert Mohler vs. Karl Giberson

Some time in 2010, Albert Mohler, currently President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, made a speech, in which he claimed that the only valid position on origins is Young-Earth Creationism. The BioLogos Forum, which disagrees, was specifically mentioned in Mohler's speech. BioLogos has posted a transcript of Mohler's speech, which, apparently, they made from the video version. BioLogos has also posted a response to Mohler, by Karl Giberson, who was particularly mentioned in Mohler's speech.

I have not checked the transcript of Mohler's speech for accuracy. I am assuming that it is accurate, or at least accurate enough to make Giberson's response pertinent.

To summarize Mohler's speech, he claims that interpreting the earth as only a few thousand years old is the only view compatible with the way God meant us to interpret the Bible. That's a serious claim, if true, and deserves careful and prayerful study. Mohler, of course, is hardly the first person to make that claim.

Giberson's response to Mohler has been posted in an interesting way. He poses three questions for Mohler, and you can see these questions, either as they are, or expanded and extended. Just click one of the three questions. (As far as I know, Mohler has not answered Giberson.)

What are Giberson's three questions?

The second one refers to a side issue, but an issue of fact. Mohler misconstrues the life of Charles Darwin, claiming "We need to be reminded that Darwin did not embark upon the Beagle having no preconceptions of what exactly he was looking for or having no theory of how life emerged in all of its diversity, fecundity, and specialization. Darwin left on his expedition to prove the theory of evolution." The history of Darwin, which has been thoroughly studied, does not show this at all. Darwin didn't develop the theory of evolution by natural selection until after the voyage of the Beagle was over. Mohler demonstrates his ignorance, or bias, on the subject of Darwin.

But this is a side issue, not closely related, or perhaps not related at all, to the issue of the interpretation of the Bible's account of origins.

The first question is directly related to the matter of interpretation. Mohler has claimed that evidence from nature cannot "trump" evidence from what he calls the natural reading of the Bible: "We need to recognize that disaster ensues when the book of nature or general revelation is used in some way to trump scripture and special revelation."

In response, Giberson points out examples where most Christians do not take the "natural reading of the Bible as correct." These include apparent Biblical support for slavery, and apparent Biblical support for a sun that moves around the earth. Giberson also relates some history, showing that important Christian people who took the Bible very seriously in times past did not agree with Mohler. Pete Enns, also of the BioLogos Forum, has also answered Mohler on this point.

The third question is on Mohler's belief that the universe, and the earth, seem much older than they are: "But I want to suggest to you that the most natural understanding from the scripture of how to answer that question comes to this: The universe looks old because the creator made it whole. When he made Adam, Adam was not a fetus; Adam was a man; he had the appearance of a man." Giberson agrees, up to a point, but by no means all the way. He writes: ". . . what about stars we observe exploding that are millions of light years away? If this argument is true those stars never existed. To arrange this feat, God would have had to create a burst of light around 10,000 light-years away that would look like an exploding star. This burst of light would just now be reaching us. What would be the point of this? God can, of course, do this but the burden of proof surely has to be borne by those making such peculiar claims."

I don't think Giberson states his argument clearly enough. Perhaps he should have said something like this: To create a universe with so many evidences, from astronomy, geology, genetics, and other fields, all agreeing that the universe and the earth are very old, when this is not true, would be possible for God. But it seems to make God into a deceiver, and also seems to violate what Psalm 19:1-4 and Romans 1:20 say, namely that we can learn about God from studying nature. Mohler, on the other hand, claims that the apparent age of the earth does show the nature of God -- God hates sin.

There is more in these two sources than I have discussed here, including the question of Adam's historicity, and that of whether or not non-human organisms died before the Fall.

There are over 100 comments to Giberson's presentation. I confess that I haven't read them. No doubt they are interesting.

I have previously posted an analysis of the most common theories of origins, giving the strengths and weaknesses of each, and also, on this blog, a statement on the problems with Young-Earth Creationism.

Thanks for reading.

Darwin on God's revelation in nature

The works of Charles Darwin have been placed on-line. I decided that I wanted to see an on-line copy of his most famous work, The Origin of Species. The following met my eye, on page ii of the work:

"But with regard to the material world, we can at least go so far as this—we can perceive that events are brought about not by insulated interpositions of Divine power, exerted in each particular case, but by the establishment of general laws."

WHEWELL: Bridgewater Treatise.

"The only distinct meaning of the word 'natural' is stated, fixed or settled; since what is natural as much requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so, i.e., to effect it continually or at stated times, as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once."

BUTLER: Analogy of Revealed Religion.

"To conclude, therefore, let no man out of a weak conceit of sobriety, or an ill-applied moderation, think or maintain, that a man can search too far or be too well studied in the book of God's word, or in the book of God's works; divinity or philosophy; but rather let men endeavour an endless progress or proficience in both."

BACON: Advancement of Learning.

The above three quotes form almost all of the second page of the sixth edition of Charles Darwin's Origin of Species. (1872)

I can only speculate as to why Darwin began this famous book in this way. I am not so thorough a scholar as to know the original source of any of these statements, or their contexts. But these quotations read as if Darwin:

1) Understood that a God who can establish general laws, which caused His creation to unfold in desired ways, is at least as wonderful as a God who intervenes in His creation over and over. (God could, of course, do both -- the quote doesn't say that, but I am.)

2) Believed that things we take for granted, like, say, photosynthesis or that three states of water can all exist at normal temperatures, are as wonderful as miracles, or more so.

3) Understood that learning about nature can be a way of learning about God.

No doubt I am reading a lot of myself into the above! I am not proposing that Darwin would have been comfortable with the Intelligent Design movement (much of which is not comfortable with Darwin) but that he seemed to understand that there might have been a Designer. I am uncomfortable with much of the Intelligent Design movement myself, but believe that there was and is an Intelligent Designer.

Thanks for reading.