withallyourmind.net

Yesterday, I commented on an article by Carl Wieland of Answers in Genesis, a young-earth creationist organization. In this article, Wieldand provides a list of what he believes are weaknesses in the ID movement. Here’s my take on his list:

(Weakness 1) Despite incorporating some extremely bright thinkers, the movement as a whole seems to have a recurring philosophical blind spot. Though they often correctly point out the religious foundations of Darwinism, the fact that all scientific reasoning is ultimately based on axioms/presuppositions (which are unprovable, hence metaphysical/subjective/biased by definition) should have alerted them to the fact that there is no such thing as a ‘neutral’ scientific arena within which to interpret the evidence related to the past.

My response: Having read and listened to much of what has been said by the ID movement, I think this entire statement has no basis in reality. The ID movement is deeply aware that all scientific endeavours are based on presuppositions which cannot be proved scientifically. I am not aware of any claims within ID that there is a “neutral” scientific arena within which to interpret the evidence.

(Weakness 2) Since the only thing in their platform which comes close to being a commonly-shared presupposition is a negative (naturalism is wrong), they can provide no coherent philosophical framework on which to base the axioms necessary to interpret evidence relevant to the historical sciences (paleontology, historical geology, etc). So they can never offer a ‘story of the past’, which is one more reason why they must continually limit the debate to one of mechanism—and then only in broad, general terms (designed vs undesigned).

My response: Almost all presuppositions may be stated in both a positive and negative sense. Wieland is wrong to think that the presuppositions of the ID movement can only be stated negatively. For example, an important presupposition of the ID movement is that if an intelligent agent has acted, one can reliably detect his actions. Another (the inverse of Wieland’s negative) is that there can be more causes in the universe than purely natural ones. I’m not sure offering a “story of the past” would be a strength of any scientific endeavor if it means going beyond the scientific evidence to fabricate a past which we have no good reason to believe (such as has been done by Darwinian evolution). On the other hand, to say that the ID movement has nothing to say about what has happened in the past would be incorrect. Intelligent Design has identified marks of design in nature by application of the explanatory filter. In this sense, it does tell us that an intelligent agent has acted. To say more than what the scientific evidence tells us is beyond the scope of ID, and for that matter, any scientific endeavor. Certainly, it is permissable to fill in the gaps of the data and present some “story” of the past, but we must be clear that this takes us beyond the realm of science and into a more interpretive framework.

(Weakness 3) They generally refuse to be drawn on the sequence of events, or the exact history of life on Earth or its duration, apart from saying, in effect, that it ‘doesn’t matter’. However, this is seen by the average evolutionist as either absurd or disingenuously evasive—the arena in which they are seeking to be regarded as full players is one which directly involves historical issues. In other words, if the origins debate is not about a ‘story of the past’, what is it about?

My response: Refusing to make a firm commitment to a particular “story of the past” when the evidence does not support a particular story is not to be construed as a weakness, but as a strength. Do we really have access to the “exact” history of life on earth or the “exact” sequence of events in science? I think not. If the average evolutionist veiws this as absurd, it is because he is guilty of misusing science to support a dogma of the past which is not supported by scientific evidence. If ID commits this same error, they are no better off than the Darwinians. To be evasive is not disingenuine if one has no right to speak beyond what one may know. Actually the individual participants in the ID movement do have their own views concerning the past. But they do not inject those views into the scientific discussion, because the science cannot authoritavely establish those views. Again, this is a strength of ID, not a weakness.

Okay, enough for today. More supposed weaknesses examined tomorrow.

Answers in Genesis, a young-earth creationist organization, provides an article clarifying their views on Intelligent Design. (HT: Victor Reppert) For those in the scientific community which continue to claim that ID is simply young earth creationism (YEC) in disguise, this article should provide further evidence that this is not the case. Many young earth creationists have repeatedly criticized ID because of its refusal to embrace YEC. It is not clear, however, that those opposed to ID are interested in what is the case, but are more interested in trying to marginalize and discredit ID as religious dogma.

Carl Wieland comments that many of the leaders of the ID movement are not young earth creationists, some not even Christian:

Philosophically and theologically, the leading lights of the ID movement form an eclectic group. For example, Dr Jonathan Wells is not only a scientist but also an ordained cleric in the Unification Church (the ‘Moonie’ sect) and Dr Michael Denton is a former agnostic anti-evolutionist (with respect to biological transformism), who now professes a vague form of theism. However, he now seems to have embraced evolutionary (though somehow ‘guided’) transformism. Dr Michael Behe, author of Darwin’s Black Box, is a Roman Catholic who says he has no problem with the idea that all organisms, including man, descended from a common ancestor.

Wieland accurately protrays certain characteristics of intelligent design, such as:
1. The assertion that naturalistic explanations cannot adequately account for the diversity and complexity of life on earth.
2. ID does not start from any particular religious teaching and then attempt to align science with that teaching.

This article goes on to discuss what AIG considers strengths and weaknesses of the ID movement. In my next post, I hope to discuss those perceived weaknesses.

Robert Frost wrote a poem called Accidentally on Purpose. An excerpt of this piece follows:

They mean to tell us all was rolling blind
Till accidentally it hit on mind

Frost had conflicting things to say about design and purpose in the universe. In this poem however, he seems to argue that there must be purpose and design in the universe. He exhorts his readers to “never believe” the story that we are accidental to the universe. Reading the entire poem, it is not clear to me that Frost was convinced there must be purpose, only that one cannot live with the naturalistic conclusion that there is no purpose if Darwinism is true. Robert B. Thompson, of Southwestern State University, said this:

Frost has compensated his realization of the accidental nature of the universe with a simple statement of disbelief. That disbelief represents a darkly romantic response to an ontological point of view which would, if sustained, elevate the individual to the role of creator, while at the same time destroying the essential meaning of his creation. More than this, the disbelief provides the basis for an uncertainty which signalizes the poet’s move from romanticism towards existentialism.

The most important point about this discussion is that one cannot live consistently with a naturalistic worldview. People may claim that naturalism is the case, that there is no such thing as mind apart from physical processes, but when they live their lives they must live as if naturalism is not true. It is asserted, and I agree, that one important test of a worldview is whether one can live consistently with his worldview. Naturalism fails this test. We all live as if our lives have purpose.

Darwin expressed his own “horrid doubt” about his doctrine:

With me, the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy.

If Darwinism is true, that there is no designer, no purpose behind the universe, then we cannot even trust our thoughts. In fact, we can’t trust Darwin’s thought. Darwinism is in effect, self-refuting. As Nancy Pearcey pointed out, Darwin’s own theory was one of those “convictions”. Prior to Darwin’s influence on philosophy, the dominant theory of knowledge was based on the biblical doctrine of man being made in God’s image. Because human reason reflects divine reason, we can trust human knowledge to be reliable.

Without God, we have no basis for knowledge or morality. We have no basis for thinking anything has purpose or meaning. Frost could not live with this realization. I am no expert on Robert Frost, but it seems rather than choose between meaning and purpose with a designer and no purpose with naturalism, he took the common leap of faith to create his own meaning and purpose for life. It seems to me the more rational choice is to believe that which gives one’s life coherence - that there is a Designer who designed man and the universe for a purpose.

Cloud-puffball, torn tufts, tossed pillows | flaunt forth, then chevy on an air-
Built thoroughfare: heaven-roysterers, in gay-gangs | they throng; they glitter in marches.
Down roughcast, down dazzling whitewash, | wherever an elm arches,
Shivelights and shadowtackle ín long | lashes lace, lance, and pair.
Delightfully the bright wind boisterous | ropes, wrestles, beats earth bare
Of yestertempest’s creases; in pool and rutpeel parches
Squandering ooze to squeezed | dough, crúst, dust; stánches, stárches
Squadroned masks and manmarks | treadmire toil there
Foótfretted in it. Million-fuelèd, | nature’s bonfire burns on.
But quench her bonniest, dearest | to her, her clearest-selvèd spark
Mán, how fást his fíredint, | his mark on mind, is gone!
Bóth are in an únfáthomable, áll is in an enórmous dárk
Drowned. O pity and indig | nation! Manshape, that shone
Sheer off, disséveral, a stár, | death blots black out; nor mark
Is ány of him at áll so stárk
But vastness blurs and time | beats level. Enough! the Resurrection,
A héart’s-clarion! Awáy grief’s gásping, | joyless days, dejection.
Across my foundering deck shone
A beacon, an eternal beam. | Flesh fade, and mortal trash
Fáll to the resíduary worm; | world’s wildfire, leave but ash:
In a flash, at a trumpet crash,
I am all at once what Christ is |, since he was what I am, and
Thís Jack, jóke, poor pótsherd, | patch, matchwood, immortal diamond,
Is immortal diamond.

It is thought by some that apologetics might be of some value in solidifying the faith of one who already believes, but is of little value in evangelizing unbelievers. It has occurred to me that there are some who could care less about the truth value of what they believe. They believe what they believe because it makes them feel good. It meets some need in their life. This, by the way, is not only true for Christians, but for non-Christians as well. There are others, however, who are concerned with truth. They have intellectual issues with the claims of Christianity, often due to some basic misunderstanding of Christian claims. Perhaps, they have failed to investigate fully those claims.

I say this to direct your attention to a friend of mine, Nabeel, who was a former Muslim who became a Christian through apologetics. His testimony is here. As a Muslim youth, he was strongly interested in Islamic apologetics and gave himself to defending Islam. When he was confronted with the claims of Christianity, he realized that both could not be true. A Christian friend was able to present a rational defense of the Christian faith and Nabeel embraced the truth of Christianity. He and his friend, David, have their own website, Anastasis Apologetics, dedicated to presenting the evidence for the Christian worldview

Over 9 previous posts, I have presented Gary Habermas’ Minimal Facts Argument for the resurrection (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 9). I first presented 12 facts which are accepted as historical by virtually all scholars who research in this area. Those 12 facts were then pared to 6 minimal facts which are sufficient to establish the resurrection as an historical event. This argument does not depend upon being granted the inerrancy of scripture, divine inspiration of scripture, nor even the general reliability of the Old Testament. Obviously, I do hold to all of the above, but I do not need to depend on those assumptions nor be granted them to establish firm grounds for believing that the resurrection actually occurred.

These are the six minimal facts which are consented to by virtually all scholars. I have discussed each in more details in the previous posts.

1. Jesus died by crucifixion.
2. The disciples had experiences that they thought were actual appearances of the risen Jesus.
3. The disciples were thoroughly transformed, even being willing to die for this belief.
4. The apostolic proclamation of the resurrection began very early, when the church was in its infancy.
5. James, the brother of Jesus and a fomer skeptic, became a Christian due to an experience that he believed was an appearance of the risen Jesus.
6. Saul (Paul), the church persecutor, became a Christian due to an experience that he believed was an appearance of the risen Jesus.

- from The Risen Jesus & Future Hope -

Taken together, these 6 facts refute each of the naturalistic hypotheses concerning the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. They also firmly establish a rational basis for believing the resurrection did occur. For example, the hallucination theory (that Jesus was not raised, but that the disciples hallucinated), the swoon theory (that Jesus did not die, but only swooned on the cross), the legend theory (that the resurrection story arose gradually over time) all are refuted by these six facts. That these facts are acknowledged as true across a broad ideological and interdisciplinary spectrum is significant.

Do these six facts absolutely “prove” the resurrection? No, not in the sense of logical necessity. However, we do not usually think of proof in those terms. We accept many things as proven without attaining logical necessity. I believe these facts do establish that the bodily resurrection of Jesus is the best explanation for what happened. If one wishes to believe otherwise, he must choose to do so in spite of the evidence. As Habermas concluded:

The minimally known data are sufficient to indicate that Jesus’s resurrection is by far the best historical explanation.

Today, I continue my summary of Gary Habermas’ minimal facts argument for the historicity of the resurrection as presented in The Risen Jesus & Future Hope. The sixth fact which is conceded by almost all scholars is Saul’s conversion due to his experience which he believed was an appearance of the risen Jesus.

Saul of Tarsus was a zealous Jew who was aggressively fighting against the Christian message, when suddenly he was converted and transformed while on the way to Damascus. What brought about this transformation was what Paul believed was an appearance of the resurrected Jesus. Non-Pauline confirmation of this story is presented in Act 9:1-9; 22:1-11; 26:9-19. Paul himself testifies to this encounter more than once:

1 Corinthians 9:1 - Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are not you my workmanship in the Lord?

1 Corinthians 15:8 - Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.

Galatians 1:14-17 - And I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers. But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with anyone; nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.

(All scripture from the ESV.)

Such a dramatic turn-around requires an equally dramatic explanation. Paul provides the answer: He claims to have seen the risen Jesus. That transformed his life to the point that he eventually gave his life for that message.

Next, a summation of the minimal facts argument.

Jeremy and I both just returned from Ohio where we attended the wedding of his cousin (my nephew, of course). I had the privilege of officiating the ceremony. I wish both Jon and Rachelle a wonderful life together.

Anyway, the blog has been idle for the past few days while we were away. But, we’re back, and today I’ll continue my series on the resurrection.

The fifth of the six minimal facts supporting the resurrection of Jesus is the conversion of James. James was the brother of Jesus and was a former skeptic. James made a radical turnaround and later became the leader of the church at Jerusalem. This was undoubtedly due to an experience he believed was an appearance of the risen Jesus.

That James was a skeptic is another one of those facts which is virtually uncontested by any contemporary critical scholar. There are multiple independent sources confirming his skepticism. The principle of embarrassment also lends support to this assertion. The principle of embarrassment is a principle used in determing the authenticity of a Biblical text. If the text contains information that is embarrassing to the writer, or the writer’s cause, it is more likely to be authentic. It is highly unlikely that the early church would include such things about such a prominent leader unless they were true.

I Corinthians 15:7 reports Christ’s appearance to James, although it does not specifically state that this appearance was that which caused his transformation. The best explanation , given his previous skepticism, is the appearance of the risen Jesus to James. Habermas quotes John Shelby Spong:

…we can be certain of the fact that the brothers of Jesus were not impressed, were not followers of Jesus during his lifetime. They were scoffers, cynics, suspicious of Jesus’ sanity. But something happened…Look at James before Easter. Look at James afer Easter. What caused a change this dramatic?

Reginald Fuller, with the majority of all scholars, concludes that Jesus’s appearance to James led to his conversion. Fuller stated that if Paul had not recorded the appearance of Jesus to James, we would have to invent a reason for his transformation.

Next, Paul’s conversion.

Mark Roberts, yesterday, blogged on a subject related to my discussion of the resurrection. His point, which seemingly can never be mentioned enough, is that much of the time miracles, including the resurrection, are rejected on the basis of a worldview and presuppositions which do not allow for miracles. Therefore, miracles cannot occur.

Readers of biblical scholarship, whether the academic or the popular variety, must be keenly aware of the philosophical presuppositions of the scholars. If a scholar approaches the gospels from a non-theistic perspective, then you will know in advance much of what that person will assume about the gospels. You can expect a high level of skepticism because that’s what’s demanded when the scholar’s worldview confronts the data of the gospels.