Theologians for Darwin?

1. Sean D. Pitman September 20, 2008 Theologians for Darwin? Dr. Desmond Ford . . . and many others The Genesis Debate www.DetectingDesign.com http://www.adventistreform.com/TheGenesisDebate.html

2. The Church of England • "The Church of England owes you [Darwin] an apology for misunderstanding you and, by getting our first reaction wrong, encouraging others to misunderstand you still. There is nothing here that contradicts Christian teaching. [The Church’s] reaction now seems misjudged." • Rev. Malcolm Brown writes on a church Web site (September 16, 2008) marking next year's 150th anniversary of the publication of Darwin's On the Origin of Species.

3. Vatican Response • “Darwin's theories are compatible with the Bible . . . and were never condemned by the Catholic Church nor was his book ever banned.” • Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, Reuters. Updated 5:05 p.m. Sept. 16, 2008

4. Dr. Desmond Ford Most educated people in Western countries regard Adventism as a 19th century cult.  Why?  Because of the promoting of Usher's six-thousand-year-old earth for most of our existence, and because we ignore the evidence furnished by the geological column, astronomy, continental drift and plate tectonics, radiometric, radiocarbon, and amino acid dating, etc. Among Bible scholars who do accept the Scriptures as God's supernaturally inspired Word, we are also considered as an anachronism because of the way we interpret the early chapters of Genesis. Please note well that the issue here at stake is not the inspiration of Genesis, but its interpretation. http://www.adventistreform.com/TheGenesisDebate.html

5. “Fundamentalists hold that the literal meaning of the words is to be cherished and taught. There are practically no theologians of worldwide repute in this category. [Another] group looks at Genesis 1 as literature, semi-poetic in style, using the language of appearance so as to cater for all peoples, of all ages, in all places-despite illiteracy. The vast majority of scholarly commentaries in the last century take this position.” - Ford http://www.adventistreform.com/TheGenesisDebate.html

6. Ford also notes the work of Ron Numbers: “When Adventist scientists were polled in 1994, more than half rejected the literal reading of Genesis 1. One third denied that the geological strata and its fossils can be explained by Noah's Flood; and almost one in five assented to theistic evolution.” - Ronald Numbers, Darwinism comes to America, Harvard University Press, p. 109.

7. “In wandering around the highways and byways of recent theology, I have not encountered one example of a serious, sustained theological argument confirmed by the creation of the world in six literal days a few thousand years ago. Adventists!  Adventists! From Adventists came Ellen White - the great evangelical Christian.  But she wrote in the nineteenth century and so she used Usher's chronology.  And George McCready Price, a brave, generous, intelligent man, trusted Ellen White so much he perverted his science unknowingly.  And that's where our creation research movement comes from - it was spawned by George McCready Price.  But it's gone.  Even the Adventists have thrown out that old approach.”  - Ford Excerpt from a review of a book edited by James Hayward

8. “Never does the NT use the OT for scientific purposes. Wherever time and eternity meet, metaphor must be used as at both ends of the bible (sic).  The Bible never reveals supernaturally anything humans can themselves discover. Just so, Christ, the Living Word, spoke only of the way of salvation. If Genesis were intended as science it would consist purely of equations. Written for oral use among the children of earth who would be illiterate through most of the coming millenniums, the inspired word speaks in a manner that all would be able to understand. As Christ took human symbols (Aramaic words) to express heavenly truth, so Moses, under inspiration, used contemporary idioms to tell WHO created the universe (not HOW or WHEN).” - Ford Ford, in the forward to his wife's book, The Light that Challenges the Darkness

9. Discussion • Arguments from authority • Is the majority usually right? • Depends upon the ‘majority’ - - and the topic • Should the majority scientific opinion be carefully considered? • Sure, majority scientific consensus has shown itself to be a very powerful revealer of many very useful truths • Should the majority opinion be accepted without question? • Obviously not or science would never really progress • Progress is often realized by those who question or challenge the majority consensus of the day • Do arguments from authority have explanatory power? • Why Mom? “Because I said so . . . that‘s why!”

10. Author's intent (literal or symbolic?) • Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, wrote: “Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the “days” of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.” Letter from Professor James Barr to David C.C. Watson of the UK, dated 23 April 1984.

11. Understanding of Jewish readers • All other Biblical authors, Old and New Testaments, refer to the Genesis narrative as real, literal, historical events • Jesus himself referred to creation week and to the universal nature of Noah’s Flood as real historical events. • If Jesus didn’t really understand the figurative nature of Genesis, due to the influence of the understanding of the day, what is to be made of his other statements of historical events such as, “I saw Satan fall from heaven like lightening”? Or when he claimed he personally knew Abraham? - Luke 10:18, John 8:56-58

12. Historical understanding • What was the original scholarly interpretation of Genesis – literal or symbolic? • For hundreds of years the most prominent of both Christian scientists and theologians interpreted Genesis literally • It wasn’t until after Darwin’s Theories really took hold that Christian scholars and scientists started to question the standard literal interpretation of Genesis – at least to any significant degree • Until Darwin, scientists, in particular, thought that by searching out Nature they were searching out the very Mind of God.

13. Non-falsifiability of Christian Theology • How useful is a non-falsifiable statement concerning the reality of the universe that exists outside the mind? • How is the statement “God exists”, by itself, any different from the statement that, “The Flying Spaghetti Monster exists”? - - to quote a popular argument of Richard Dawkins. • If the Biblical claims concerning physical reality, given with the intent to be taken literally and read literally for thousands of years, cannot be trusted, where is the usefulness of the metaphysical claims of the Bible?

14. Ford argues that the Bible “never reveals anything that humans can themselves discover.” – Really? • In other words, the Bible never talks about any verifiable or falsifiable physical realities? • How is it then that the Bible is one of the most historically verified texts in existence by numerous archeological finds? • Ford therefore argues that the Bible is not at all involved with any kind of real “science”, but is rather concerned exclusively with other transcendent truths that go beyond the powers of scientific investigation • So, what is the basis for belief in the Bible vs. the Book of Mormon, the Koran, or any other good or “Holy” book or religious belief system?

15. Ford's "evidence" for Biblical inspiration • Numerology “But can we really be certain that the Genesis narrative is inspired? Certainly, there exists in Scripture, particularly in its introductory passages, what has been called "the seal of seven." The first sentence of the Bible has 7 Hebrew words and 4 x 7 Hebrew letters [i.e., 28]. The three nouns: God, heaven, and earth have a number value of 777. (Each Hebrew letter stands for a number - see any Hebrew Grammar). There is one Hebrew verb, "created," and its numeric value is 203 = 7 x 29. According to some researches there are at least 30 different numeric features in this verse. Statistically, the chance of this is 1 in 30 trillion. I have checked out at least one dozen of these from my Hebrew Bible, but I do not endorse the extremes of Ivan Panin.” http://www.adventistreform.com/TheGenesisDebate.html

16. The secret Bible-code approach • Ivan Panin emigrated to the US in 1882 from Russia.  In 1890 he claimed to have made a startling Biblical discovery.  It was not about hidden Bible messages; rather it was about numerical patterns that he said permeated all the inspired Scripture but no other literature.  Panin publicized his discoveries in the New York Sun (19 Nov. 1899) in a letter to the editor entitled, "The Inspiration of the Scriptures Scientifically Demonstrated".

17. Like Ford, Panin also used the opening words of Scripture as one of his prime examples: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth".  In Hebrew this verse contains 7 words (feature 1), which have 14 (7 x 2) syllables (feature 2) and 28 (7 x 4) letters (feature 3). Words containing the subject and predicate have 14 letters, and words containing the object 14 letters (feature 4).  This example is said to be even more extensive because Panin persists in examining it until he has discovered 25 features (some rather exotic) involving seven or a multiple of seven.  To Panin this outcome was absolute proof of the inspiration of the verse. • Most impressive indeed! . . .

18. A few statistics • Note that success in a search for some kind of pattern of seven (i.e., 7 or multiples of 7 such as 14, 21, 28, etc.) should be achieved after 1 in 7 searches on average • So, statistically, to find 25 successful matches to the 7-pattern, one needs only to have examined a total of 175 features, since by chance one in seven would succeed. • The odds of success, therefore, are not 1 in 725 as Ford suggests, but are in fact essentially 100% given a fairly short search through different number patterns looking for a match to a multiple of 7. • Ford as fallen for a classic statistical trick . . .

19. Exactly the same problems exist for all of the other versions of hidden “Bible Codes”, some of which ‘foretell’ everything from Hitler to 9/11 to G.W. Bush scratching his nose • Michael Drosnin (The Bible Code I and II), Harold Gans, Dean Coombs, Nathan Jacobi . . . and dozens of others • John Nash (‘a beautiful mind’) also saw such patterns in everything from newspapers to license plates • Such “hidden codes” are by no means unique to the Bible but can be found in any written work from Shakespeare to Dr. Seuss • Using a Hebrew translation of War and Peace, McKay et al achieved a significance level of one in a million in their search for pre-determined word associations (the same as Drosnin). • Using a tuning technique used by Bible coders, Australian television personality John Safran and McKay demonstrated the 'tuning' technique by showing "evidence" of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on New York in the lyrics of Vanilla Ice's repertoire. B. McKay, D. Bar-Natan, M. Bar-Hillel, and G. Kalai (1999). "Solving the Bible Code Puzzle." Statistical Science, 14, 157.

20. The coded ‘predictions’ are also not often figured out ahead of time for some strange reason – i.e., they’re usually postdictions). • After successfully predicting the assassination of Israeli Prime Minister, Yitzhak Rabin, Drosnin, in The Bible Code II (2002), described the probabilities of nuclear holocausts and the destruction of major cities by earthquakes in 2006, saying "The dangers will peak in the Hebrew year 5766 (September 2005 - September 2006 in the modern calendar), the year that is most clearly encoded with both 'World War' and 'Atomic Holocaust‘” • Drosnin no longer makes such predictions . . . http://skepdic.com/bibcode.html

21. According to Game Theory (ironically proposed by John Nash) background noise or random sequences can appear to be meaningful or ordered in sections (like patterns in the stars, clouds, tree bark, burnt toast or fuzzy carpet) • Not at all unusual, statistically, as noted previously . . . Especially if the goal is known ahead of time and the text or pattern in question is “tuned” accordingly • This same sort of “tuning” also occurs in radiometric dating, tree-ring dating, and other pattern-based calibration techniques where the desired or suspected pattern is known ahead of time. 

22. Is it really better to maintain the Divine origin of Genesis on such subjective numerology vs. simply accepting that it has been falsified based on the clear reading of the actual “non-coded” text? - - and therefore accept that it is without significant evidence of the need for the miraculous?

23. Ford - another proof of Divinity • Abraham is predicted in Genesis to be the Spiritual father of nations and people like the stars in the sky. • This prediction has shown itself to be quite accurate • Abraham is the acknowledged patriarch of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity • Therefore, Genesis must be Divinely inspired • What about predictions regarding other great men or leaders? – Mohammad or Joseph Smith?

24. Divine inspiration gets it wrong? “If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him.” Deuteronomy 18:22 • So, while the ‘fulfillment’ of certain types of prophecies are not necessarily solid evidence of Divine inspiration, the lack of fulfillment of a claim of a prophet, said to be from God, is evidence that he/she is not from God – that this “prophet” does not speak for God and is not to be trusted.

25. What about Jonah? • Jonah prophesied that Nineveh would be destroyed in 40, 30, 20 . . . days • Nineveh was not destroyed at the appointed time • Doesn’t that make Jonah a false prophet? – just like he himself feared he would be labeled? • The very fact that time was given, in the prophecy, to the citizens of Nineveh, was a sign from God that mercy was yet to be had. The Ninevites recognized the promise of this mercy more than Jonah and took the hint and repented - - while Jonah just got angry. • In other words, some prophetic messages from God are obviously conditional – Keep doing this and X will happen; stop doing this and X will not happen.

26. At least believe the miraclesMiracles as evidence • Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves. – John 14:11 • Jesus answered, "I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me.” – John 10:25 • It’s like playing pool or golf . . .

27. The science of Miracles

28. The "science" of miracles? • John, in particular, explains the purpose of God’s use of miracles as “signs” or evidences of Divinity • In this sense, miracles are used by John to support his story as being literal or real in what could be called a scientific manner * • Jesus used miracles the same way • Which is easier, to heal or to forgive sins? * • Even Ford realizes the need for the miraculous as convincing evidence of Divine inspiration • But what is a “clear” miracle? – Can this concept really be defined to the general agreement of all - - or at least most?

29. What is a "miracle"? • “Miracles” are relative in that they must clearly be beyond the powers of the force in question – but within the powers of a higher-level force • emphasis on the word “clearly” • If an engineer made a highly symmetrical polished granite cube, would that be “miraculous”? • What if a tornado did it? Would you believe me if I told you a tornado made even such a “simple” cube? Would such a cube be “miraculous” from this perspective?

31. A “Miracle” of Nature?

34. Naturally produced geometric crystals – “natural” for certain materials (not granite or crops of wheat!)

36. Timber circle at Holme-next-the-Sea, Norfolk, England Another “Natural” Miracle?

37. Stonehenge in the Snow Given enough universes and/or enough time, this could have happened “naturally” - - time itself performs miracles; The impossible becomes possible! - - ?

38. What about being tricked? • Isn’t it possible that what looks like a “miracle” is nothing more than a clearly designed magic trick or an unusual quirk of nature? Aren’t scientists rightly weary of charlatans and tricksters that have often been used to deceive the gullible throughout history? – absolutely! • Was Pharaoh really all that crazy to question the miracles produced by Moses at first? – at what point did he leave the realm of reasonable skepticism and enter the realm of incurable hard-headedness? * • The Biblical authors claim that God desires thoughtful intelligent investigation and testing of the “miraculous”. • “Come, let us reason together says the LORD.” - Isaiah 1:18 • “Test me and see if I will not open the floodgates of heaven and pour you out a blessing.” - Malachi 3:10 • “Test the Spirits to see if they are from God” - 1 John 4:1

39. However, at some point one must make a leap of faith beyond what can be absolutely proven • This same leap of faith is required in all true scientific disciplines. • Why? Because science always has an element of uncertainty – of unknowability. That is why scientific theories and hypotheses are open to potential falsification. If one could know something with absolute certainty science wouldn’t be needed.

40. Illustration: The Love Hypothesis • For example, do I need science to know that I love my wife? or that I like vanilla ice cream? • Do I need science to ‘know’ that my wife loves me? • Is it possible that she could have been tricking me this entire time? – if so, she’s really really good at it. • Does my confidence or faith in the love of my wife increase or decrease with increasing support or predictive power of my love hypothesis? • What about getting a good idea that God loves me? Does my faith in God increase or decrease with increasing evidence supporting my love hypothesis for my notion that God loves me? • Does God really desire or expect blind faith?

41. The science of the eyewitness • Biblical authors claim to be direct witnesses of miraculous events or of visions of historical events given from God • But eyewitness testimony is notoriously untrustworthy • Depends on the circumstance and the eyewitness • Hard to get some observations wrong . . . • Evenings and mornings • Decomposing body brought back to life • Some witnesses are more reliable than others • 11 of your closest and more trusted friends in the world all tell you that they saw something you think is impossible . . . Reasonable to at least consider that you might be wrong?

42. Predictive power works both ways • If the testimony of a witness is proven to be false in one area, what happens to the predictive power of the hypothesis that the testimony of this same witness will prove true in another area of testimony? • Likewise, if the testimony of the claimed prophet or Divine “messenger” proves false in the physical realm of testability, what happens to the reliability of the testimony of this same prophet when it comes to those things that are not testable? – like the metaphysical claims of the prophet? • Examples: virgin birth, second coming, resurrection of the dead, eternal life, etc.

43. Ford trying to have his cake and eat it too • Ford claims to believe that Ellen White and the authors of the Genesis account, authors that truly intended to be taken as describing real historical events given to them by God, were inspired by God even though their testimony simply isn’t valid with regard to historical reality. • Again, what good is the metaphysical testimony of either Biblical or extra-Biblical prophets or “messengers” from God if their testimony regarding that which we can test and investigate is so far off base? • Why not simply admit that there is no evidence of Divine involvement and be honest about it, like Richard Dawkins, instead of coming up with fantastic numerology theories equivalent to the “science” of astrology?

44. Richard Dawkins is more logical • If the Bible and Ellen White are as clearly off base as Ford suggests regarding some of the clearest and most straightforward statements of simple physical realities (i.e., evenings and mornings), How are their metaphysical claims worth the paper they’re written on? . . . when it comes to a solid foundation for the kind of hope that “casts out all fear”? - 1 John 4:8 • In this sense, the likes of Richard Dawkins seem far more logical compared to theologians like Desmond Ford or other greats from the Vatican or the Church of England

45. Religion useless without a scientific element • Religion, if it is useful, should be as open to potential falsification as any true science. If it isn’t, it’s worthless. And, if it has been falsified as far as it is possible to test it, why all the effort to save something that is so obviously bankrupt with such desperate arguments as those presented by the likes of Ford and other theologians in his same camp?

46. Conclusion • The importance of the literal interpretation of Genesis to Christian (and SDA theology in particular) is that without the literal week in fairly recent history and a global Noachian Flood, there is little left besides Ford’s numerology to clearly support the hypothesis of the Divine inspiration of Genesis. All that the believer is really left with is ‘blind faith’.

47. Questions? www.DetectingDesign.com/DesmondFord