Bruce Waltke on Evolution
- Thread starter dannyhyde
- Start date
- Status
SemperEruditio
Puritan Board Junior
Ah come on! I just bought Waltke's Hebrew Syntax...now I gotta return it?!?!? 
Soonerborn
Puritan Board Freshman
I am confused and don't know anything about this controversy with Waltke. In his "Statement of Clarification" Waltke states:
1.Adam and Eve are historical figures from whom all humans are descended; they are uniquely created in the image of God and as such are not in continuum with animals.
Pardon my ignorance, but how is this statement not orthodox, and how does it support evolution?
1.Adam and Eve are historical figures from whom all humans are descended; they are uniquely created in the image of God and as such are not in continuum with animals.
Pardon my ignorance, but how is this statement not orthodox, and how does it support evolution?
chbrooking
Puritan Board Junior
Waltke clarified his own position in the article linked via the OP, labeled 'here'. I've copied it for convenience.
jwright82
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Well I have no respect for Francis Collins, he is basically a sell out. I have often sat in confusion about christians who feel like we should even be threatened by the theory of evolution, I mean the generic Darwinian defenition (descent from common ancestry). I am not threatened by a theory that has to resort to logical fallacies and bullying to get itself accepted. Here are few questions that I ask evolutionists and to this date I have never recieved an answer:
1. Since microevolution (changes in a species) is the go too for proving macreoevolution (descent from common ancestry) I often press evolutionists on this issue, how does microevolution prove macreoevolution? Or to put it another way, how does dogs evolving into dogs prove that they can evolve into anything other than a dog, like a cat?
By the way when they claim that evolution is proven they always are talking about microevolution, but they mix the meanings of the words to give the apearence that the whole thing is proven, this changeing of the meaning of a word midargument is the fallacy of equivication.
2. The fossil record proves nothing other than that one bone is lower in the ground than another, that is it. You cannot make an outragious claim that because some bones are lower in the ground than others that they must be related in time. That is ridiculous! Also they are commiting circular reasoning when they bring their own interpretation of the fossil record to the data and then interpret the data through that lens and then claim that this interpreted data proves their original interpretation, it doesn't work that way.
3. Adaptive mutation is the most hotly debated issue in evolutionary theory, basically as I understand it how and why our genes mutate to adapt. I ask them how they know that when the dust settles and an answer is found it will not show that there is a definant limit on mutation such that descent from common ancestry is impossible? Or that when we have an answer will this answer show that mutation can only be taken so far, and not outside the limit of the species?
4. They almost always resort to ad hominem attacks, or attacks on people or points of views. Any position that resorts to ridicule to prove their point probally is just trying to disguise the fact that they are standing on shaky ground already. When this happens simply remind them that personal attacks prove nothing and that if their theory was so right as they claim than they would not need to resort to this dirty tactic, the facts would speak for themselves.
5. Chimps and human DNA being like 97-98% the same prove nothing other than that our DNAs are 97-98% the same. Again they commit circular reasoning when they preinterpret the data and then try to say that this proves their interpretation.
These 5 examples show clearly, at least to me, that their so called proof is not so proven after all. The added bonus of asking them these questions is that it is not the usual aproech of like where is the missing links, so they are not prepared for them. I hope these help anyone who is dealing with this.
1. Since microevolution (changes in a species) is the go too for proving macreoevolution (descent from common ancestry) I often press evolutionists on this issue, how does microevolution prove macreoevolution? Or to put it another way, how does dogs evolving into dogs prove that they can evolve into anything other than a dog, like a cat?
By the way when they claim that evolution is proven they always are talking about microevolution, but they mix the meanings of the words to give the apearence that the whole thing is proven, this changeing of the meaning of a word midargument is the fallacy of equivication.
2. The fossil record proves nothing other than that one bone is lower in the ground than another, that is it. You cannot make an outragious claim that because some bones are lower in the ground than others that they must be related in time. That is ridiculous! Also they are commiting circular reasoning when they bring their own interpretation of the fossil record to the data and then interpret the data through that lens and then claim that this interpreted data proves their original interpretation, it doesn't work that way.
3. Adaptive mutation is the most hotly debated issue in evolutionary theory, basically as I understand it how and why our genes mutate to adapt. I ask them how they know that when the dust settles and an answer is found it will not show that there is a definant limit on mutation such that descent from common ancestry is impossible? Or that when we have an answer will this answer show that mutation can only be taken so far, and not outside the limit of the species?
4. They almost always resort to ad hominem attacks, or attacks on people or points of views. Any position that resorts to ridicule to prove their point probally is just trying to disguise the fact that they are standing on shaky ground already. When this happens simply remind them that personal attacks prove nothing and that if their theory was so right as they claim than they would not need to resort to this dirty tactic, the facts would speak for themselves.
5. Chimps and human DNA being like 97-98% the same prove nothing other than that our DNAs are 97-98% the same. Again they commit circular reasoning when they preinterpret the data and then try to say that this proves their interpretation.
These 5 examples show clearly, at least to me, that their so called proof is not so proven after all. The added bonus of asking them these questions is that it is not the usual aproech of like where is the missing links, so they are not prepared for them. I hope these help anyone who is dealing with this.
DMcFadden
Puritanboard Commissioner
Excellent article! Remember that Charles Hodge didn't not establish a great precedent for Reformed thinkers when he argued that if science "facts" conflict with a prior interpretation of the Bible, we are obligated to accept the scientific view and reinterpret the Bible. Yikes!
chbrooking
Puritan Board Junior
There's no such thing as a 'fact' that is not interpreted. However, science does inform our reading of the Bible. General revelation is not opposed to special revelation, since the same God is revealing both. We have nothing to fear from science, so long as it is not put on a par with the Bible. But God doesn't have us check our brains at the door. When science -- and I mean true science -- teaches us something, we don't just chuck it because our interpretation of the Bible doesn't agree. We check our interpretation. Perhaps we've misunderstood the text. Perhaps we haven't, but science does impact our interpretation -- even if it confirms it. Science, really, when properly done, is a redeemed mind investigating God's world. It submits its interpretation to the word of God, but good interpretation avails itself of all the evidence, not fearing the impossible. It is impossible that the scriptures are untrue. But it is quite possible that we misunderstand them. If science is interested in nothing more than justifying our current understanding of the Bible, then it is worse than useless (as a distinct discipline). That is, in that case, there is no difference between science and hermeneutics. And in that case, there's a denial of the reliability of general revelation altogether.
Steve Curtis
Puritan Board Senior
With Seth, I think that sounds more like Warfield. However, I may be wrong! I'd love a reference on Hodge if you have it, but I will look through my copy tonight (assuming the reference came from his ST).
chbrooking
Puritan Board Junior
You'll notice that I (nontechnically) defined it in my remarks, so I'm not sure what you mean by "in the current sense of the word." Are you suggesting that Christians cannot do science? One of the great benefits of the Reformation was that desecularization of lay professions. Science should be all about general revelation. Of course, it isn't always (or often, sadly) pursued properly. It is too often pursued as though it were independent. But that doesn't make science itself bad. It only points out that many scientists are bad. I'm not willing to throw off science, however, just because some claim its name for the pursuit of vanity. Nor am I willing to ignore the observations of bad scientists. I'll challenge their interpretations. I'll even be suspicious of their data, knowing that even their observations are interpreted when conveyed. But even the bad scientist is looking at general revelation. He just suppresses that truth.
chbrooking
Puritan Board Junior
Wouldn't you consider pharmacology a form of science? What about the study of radiation for the eradication of a cancer? What about the study of genetics for the agricultural industry? Science, in the current sense of the word, is very much about general revelation. Can the word 'science' be used improperly? Sure.
---------- Post added at 07:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:17 PM ----------
I do, for exegetical, theological and apologetic reasons. However, I'm frustrated by the nature of the 'conversation'. I see a lot of platitudes and dodges, and no genuine clash in the debate. That saddens me. I might expect the atheist to ignore our 'big picture'/foundational questions. But I would expect Christians to deal more responsibly with the data that is observed. One example of what I don't appreciate is found in one of the posts above, where the stratification of fossils was dismissed as insignificant. I have yet to see a biblically committed and relatively comprehensive treatment of the fossil record. That's not responsible. A biblical worldview is NOT afraid of the data, and IS committed to explaining it -- not explaining it away or redirecting the discussion to philosophy, but explaining it.
---------- Post added at 07:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:17 PM ----------
I do, for exegetical, theological and apologetic reasons. However, I'm frustrated by the nature of the 'conversation'. I see a lot of platitudes and dodges, and no genuine clash in the debate. That saddens me. I might expect the atheist to ignore our 'big picture'/foundational questions. But I would expect Christians to deal more responsibly with the data that is observed. One example of what I don't appreciate is found in one of the posts above, where the stratification of fossils was dismissed as insignificant. I have yet to see a biblically committed and relatively comprehensive treatment of the fossil record. That's not responsible. A biblical worldview is NOT afraid of the data, and IS committed to explaining it -- not explaining it away or redirecting the discussion to philosophy, but explaining it.
chbrooking
Puritan Board Junior
You see, this is the problem with labels -- and what terrified me about ordination. I was ordained 10 years after seminary, and was just sure I was going to walk into some word-trap. I really don't know where the term "Natural Theology" has been, and am therefore reluctant to put it in my mouth.
I made my point clear, though, I think. All of creation declares the glory of God. The scientist, who is true to his field, will examine the world in the light of scripture, and will in the process, of course, learn something of the God who created it. That is not to say that his science will not serve a utilitarian purpose. He can fulfill the cultural mandate while still learning something of the wonder of our creator. Is what I'm describing "Natural Theology"? I don't think so, not if that term is meant to carry all sorts of pagan connotations. Is it the response of a redeemed mind as he examines the world God gave us to subdue? Yes.
I made my point clear, though, I think. All of creation declares the glory of God. The scientist, who is true to his field, will examine the world in the light of scripture, and will in the process, of course, learn something of the God who created it. That is not to say that his science will not serve a utilitarian purpose. He can fulfill the cultural mandate while still learning something of the wonder of our creator. Is what I'm describing "Natural Theology"? I don't think so, not if that term is meant to carry all sorts of pagan connotations. Is it the response of a redeemed mind as he examines the world God gave us to subdue? Yes.
So-called "creation scientists" would claim that they have provided "biblically committed" treatment of the fossil record by the use of catastrophism to explain it.
I'm not sure how a theory can be "biblically committed" and still function within the restricted domain of "general revelation." Perhaps that needs to be clarified.
The problem with this kind of conversation is that it tends to be conducted along "philosophical" lines while the "philosophy" itself is kept hidden from view.
chbrooking
Puritan Board Junior
I'm not sure that physics or chemistry is any different really? Don't they both reveal order and providence? Sure, the chemist can either label the incomprehensible something that holds an atom together "strong force" or he can acknowledge Jesus in it as he submits his field to Col. 1:17. But that's precisely what I'm talking about. A scientist can be faithful or unfaithful. But science is the study of the world God has given us.
---------- Post added at 10:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:37 PM ----------
Yes, but they keep it at just that level. They haven't explained the global pattern of distribution. They haven't treated the types of rock and the layers and the consistency or lack thereof around the world. They never quite get to the nitty gritty evidence itself. You can disagree with me all you like, but I am one who IS biblically committed and CONVINCED that God created all this. I'm just DYING to see an explanation -- I'm already favorably disposed to one, should it ever come down the pike, but I haven't seen it yet. And I've looked for it. Perhaps you can point me in the right direction
I think I have done that. It is done through observation, not exegesis. Nevertheless, observations are submitted to biblical authority. It recognizes that our observations are tainted by sin. It recognizes the priority of special revelation. But it also recognizes that God is revealed in both general and special revelation. Is that clear enough?
No, the problem with this kind of conversation is the evidence is never dealt with. Are you accusing me of holding an unbiblical philosophy Rev. Winzer?
---------- Post added at 10:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:37 PM ----------
Yes, but they keep it at just that level. They haven't explained the global pattern of distribution. They haven't treated the types of rock and the layers and the consistency or lack thereof around the world. They never quite get to the nitty gritty evidence itself. You can disagree with me all you like, but I am one who IS biblically committed and CONVINCED that God created all this. I'm just DYING to see an explanation -- I'm already favorably disposed to one, should it ever come down the pike, but I haven't seen it yet. And I've looked for it. Perhaps you can point me in the right direction
I think I have done that. It is done through observation, not exegesis. Nevertheless, observations are submitted to biblical authority. It recognizes that our observations are tainted by sin. It recognizes the priority of special revelation. But it also recognizes that God is revealed in both general and special revelation. Is that clear enough?
No, the problem with this kind of conversation is the evidence is never dealt with. Are you accusing me of holding an unbiblical philosophy Rev. Winzer?
(Richard Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms)
I think the vital point is that it is a knowledge of God; not of how to manipulate the world in certain ways, but of the world's Creator. The quotes below might address some of the other issues you mention. It sounds like you agree with me when you say that science is the study of the world God gave us: and an unbelieving scientist can come to true and accurate conclusions about that piece of the world that falls into his purview. But my understanding is that general revelation is concerned with revealing God, not with revealing, e.g., how amino acids interact.
On the entry under revelatio generalis/revelatio specialis Dr Muller notes that "revelation generalis and the theologia naturalis resulting from it contain only a nonsaving truth, known only partially and imperfectly by the sinful intellect." Again, in the entry on theologia naturalis regenitorum he says, "Beza is usually credited with the formal statement of a natural theology of the regenerate, a sense of the divine work in creation, useful to Christian theology, but possible only in the context of a prior saving knowledge of God."
I wasn't disagreeing with you, just stating what they would claim to have provided.
This seems counter-productive. Observation cannot be conducted on its own and then submitted to biblical authority. The observation itself will be conducted according to principles which are either biblical or not. As you stated earlier, facts are interpretations. The interpretation either seeks to think God's thoughts after Him or it refuses to do so. There can be no neutrality.
My statement made no reference to you. It pertained to the conversation. E.g., a "creation-scientist" maintains a philosophy seeking to produce a science which only aims at vindicating creation. A materialistic scientist does much the same in terms of vindicating a material creation. There are underlying philosophies which are not brought out into the open and made a focal point of discussion, and so there is no real conversation taking place.
chbrooking
Puritan Board Junior
We seem to be in agreement. I just don't think the "creation-scientists" have done a very good job of explaining the data. Admittedly, neither has the other side -- nor could it, as it does not operate from a biblical worldview. But we do, and ought to be able to move the conversation to the data. Thanks for the clarification.
DMcFadden
Puritanboard Commissioner
Seth, o thou of little faith in my accuracy! OUCH!
‘It is of course admitted that, taking this account [Genesis] by itself, it would be most natural to understand the word [day] in its ordinary sense; but if that sense brings the Mosaic account into conflict with facts, [millions of years] and another sense avoids such conflict, then it is obligatory on us to adopt that other.’
Reference: Hodge, C., Systematic Theology, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, MI, pp. 570–571, 1997.
Hodge was a diehard ANTI-Darwinist. That did not, however, lead him to embrace a YEC position. The hermeneutics of the case are interesting. Nature becomes the 67th book of the Bible and we have every right to interpret the Bible in terms of the assured "facts" of science. I disagree (respectfully) with the great Hodge here.
sastark
Puritan Board Graduate
Seth, o thou of little faith in my accuracy! OUCH!
‘It is of course admitted that, taking this account [Genesis] by itself, it would be most natural to understand the word [day] in its ordinary sense; but if that sense brings the Mosaic account into conflict with facts, [millions of years] and another sense avoids such conflict, then it is obligatory on us to adopt that other.’
Reference: Hodge, C., Systematic Theology, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, MI, pp. 570–571, 1997.
Hodge was a diehard ANTI-Darwinist. That did not, however, lead him to embrace a YEC position. The hermeneutics of the case are interesting. Nature becomes the 67th book of the Bible and we have every right to interpret the Bible in terms of the assured "facts" of science. I disagree (respectfully) with the great Hodge here.
As do I, Dennis. Thank you for bringing that quote to my attention. I repent for having doubted your encyclopedic knowledge of the great Princeton theologian!
It is sad that Hodge views "facts" as being able to exist outside the interpretive filter of Scripture. But, this does help to explain why his son was so accepting of an old earth.
Last edited:
tcalbrecht
Puritan Board Junior
What does the “raw data” regarding, for example, stratification of fossils tell you wrt creation? The interpretation of the data requires a particular view of reality. Or, as Bahnsen explained it:
The creationist will never be able to give an explanation of the “raw data” that satisfies the darkened mind of an avowed evolutionist. So what do you propose would be a satisfactory explanation of the data from the creationist perspective?
chbrooking
Puritan Board Junior
I don't recall using the term "raw data". If you thoughtfully read what I said at all, you would recognize that. By putting "raw data" in quotes like this in your response to me, you seem to be attributing to me some acceptance of brute fact. I'm far too van Tilian for that, I asure you. Nevertheless, there is data. A fossil is a datum. No datum is uninterpreted. It is not primarily interpreted by either the pagan or the Christian. It receives its principal and true interpretation in the mind of the Creator. Nevertheless, we do encounter the world. And we must interpret what we encounter. Hopefully we'll interpret in accord with the creator who gave it its true meaning. But whether the darwinist or the YEC digs up the specimen, it (the specimen) is now in the public square.
Your response is typical of everything I've run into that frustrates me. Why don't you guys understand this ... WE AGREE ON THE EPISTEMOLOGICAL ISSUE. Now let's get down to brass tacks. GIVEN OUR EPISTEMOLOGY, how do we explain the things that have been uncovered? Forget those who disagree with us philosophically/theologically for a bit. What about the ewe in the pew who has a biology class next semester? Are we to tell her, "Don't take it."? Are we to tell her, "Take it, but don't believe anything you read."? I guess I'm just asking for too much. It's too much for us to use the brains God redeemed for anything beyond philosophy. God didn't redeem scientific inquiry, only philosophical speculation. We should just leave science to the pagans, and we'll argue from afar without respect to observations, that their conclusions are wrong. NO!
The fact that there's no such thing as 'raw data', doesn't mean that there is no data at all. I think that's my frustration. We're dodging the data. INTERPRET it.
Your response is typical of everything I've run into that frustrates me. Why don't you guys understand this ... WE AGREE ON THE EPISTEMOLOGICAL ISSUE. Now let's get down to brass tacks. GIVEN OUR EPISTEMOLOGY, how do we explain the things that have been uncovered? Forget those who disagree with us philosophically/theologically for a bit. What about the ewe in the pew who has a biology class next semester? Are we to tell her, "Don't take it."? Are we to tell her, "Take it, but don't believe anything you read."? I guess I'm just asking for too much. It's too much for us to use the brains God redeemed for anything beyond philosophy. God didn't redeem scientific inquiry, only philosophical speculation. We should just leave science to the pagans, and we'll argue from afar without respect to observations, that their conclusions are wrong. NO!
The fact that there's no such thing as 'raw data', doesn't mean that there is no data at all. I think that's my frustration. We're dodging the data. INTERPRET it.
ChristianTrader
Puritan Board Graduate
Or you can understand that some problems are just hard even with the right theological understanding.
Or you can realize that there are at least three peer reviewed YEC Journals that publish stuff continually concerning technical science, philosophy etc.
Books like this: Earth's Catastrophic Past - Answers Bookstore
CT
Or you can realize that there are at least three peer reviewed YEC Journals that publish stuff continually concerning technical science, philosophy etc.
Books like this: Earth's Catastrophic Past - Answers Bookstore
CT
Peairtach
Puritan Board Doctor
The natural world may be slower, in God's providence, to give up its secrets to science than we imagine, especially when so many scientists are working from a naturalistic philosophy.
Look how slow archaeology was to find Ur, the Hittites, Caiaphas's Ossuary, Herod the Great's Sarcophagus, etc. We accept the biblical testimony whether or not current archaeology, paleontology, etc. "supports" God's Word.
Is science at a relatively early stage? Are any of the options of YEC, OEC, Theistic Evolution totally intellectually satisfying? I believe from Scripture that God created the heavens and the earth and then took Six Ordinary Days to fill them. He created days on Day One. The science is still in progress.
There is also the problem that if God formed and filled the Earth and Universe in Six Days as I believe Scripture teaches, scientists that ignore that testimony will have the added confusion of a universe that appears - at least sometimes or often - to be older than it actually is.
The same problem would have been faced by scientists who studied the wine at Cana and refused the testimony of the servants. And there would have been scientific and philosophical and maybe theological problems for scientists that accepted the testimony of the servants (i.e. like the Creationists who accept God's Word on Six Days) too, as they analysed the wine.
Look how slow archaeology was to find Ur, the Hittites, Caiaphas's Ossuary, Herod the Great's Sarcophagus, etc. We accept the biblical testimony whether or not current archaeology, paleontology, etc. "supports" God's Word.
Is science at a relatively early stage? Are any of the options of YEC, OEC, Theistic Evolution totally intellectually satisfying? I believe from Scripture that God created the heavens and the earth and then took Six Ordinary Days to fill them. He created days on Day One. The science is still in progress.
There is also the problem that if God formed and filled the Earth and Universe in Six Days as I believe Scripture teaches, scientists that ignore that testimony will have the added confusion of a universe that appears - at least sometimes or often - to be older than it actually is.
The same problem would have been faced by scientists who studied the wine at Cana and refused the testimony of the servants. And there would have been scientific and philosophical and maybe theological problems for scientists that accepted the testimony of the servants (i.e. like the Creationists who accept God's Word on Six Days) too, as they analysed the wine.
Last edited:
"No" is the correct response. I do not suggest that "science" should be left to the "pagans." They are obviously left to their unproven (and repeatedly disproven) hypotheses, which they unhappily call "science." But so far as genuine observation is concerned I believe there is much Christian activity taking place, quite to the displeasure of the "pagan scientist."
I am finding it difficult to pinpoint what is your actual criticism. You obviously reject the kind of Christian work which is going on in scientific fields today. You also seem discontent with the kind of philosophical confrontation in which Christians engage non-Christians over "facts of science." What, exactly, would you like to see happen?
TimV
Puritanboard Botanist
What things? I do a short course in beekeeping at the local university, so I stay brushed up on several disciplines. I also cringe at much of the (largely) fundy baptist YEC type science floating around. I'd be interested in a couple examples of what you're getting at.
- Status
