Of course, there is absolutely nothing wrong with this approach as it is the only way to get familiar with the arguments raised on both sides of opposite camps. However, if these arguments can be evaluated with the scientific method, then the results of rigorous scientific analysis of those arguments should determine which of them really hold water.
There are a lot of unsolved puzzles in evolutionary biology (just as in every other field of academic research), but scientists systematically attempt to solve such problems by building and testing new or modified hypotheses and models. For example, after Kimura observed that the level of genetic variation observed among some protein sequences was higher than expected under a strictly Darwinian paradigm of historical change, he came up with the Neutral Theory which better explained that observation (of higher genetic variation); Neutral Theory also made predictions, many of which have been confirmed via a lot of studies.
In addition, every scientist should have a modicum of doubt for theories including well-established ones. That doubt is what pushes them to further test existing theories and avoid having sacred cows.
Super! When there is high-quality data to decide the best ideas, what we think about the accuracy or truth of those ideas without considering the data becomes irrelevant. That relativity essentially disappears.
As I always say, until God comes down to tell us what the contents of the Bible really mean then we will always be left in the dark. What we have are biblical interpretations, some of which are largely consistent or not in conflict with the best science available.
I love this. Glad you took the āchairā saved for you.
Itās not my fault that Iām the biggest and the strongest. I donāt even exercise.
I love that movie.
Iāve had one significant conversation so far and it was gracious and courteous, but I expect others to not be quite so cordial. As this involves a massive paradigm shift (from uniquely created man to a unique man out of a population (or some derivation akin to what Dr. Swamidass proposes)) that is perceived (rightly or wrongly) to threaten the fundamental truth of the Bible (which I think/hope is a false dichotomy), it is natural for folks to react strongly. The church I attend is not necessarily pro AIG (one prominent Elder is YEC in general but disagrees with Ken Ham on several points), but anything that runs counter to a traditional Reformed position on Genesis 1-11 (including the flood) is going to raise some very tall eyebrows.
Basically I need to fly under the radar and only offer my opinion when people ask for it. There is a lot I could say here, but as much as I like to write, I donāt want to make every post about myself. Thanks for writing Dan.
One small note there, and it seems that you have already come to understand the dangers of āmotivated reasoningā so again this might be unneeded, but:
Do take care that you donāt let that desire to reconcile govern over your better judgment when it comes to matters of Biblical interpretation. If there are multiple possible readings of a passage, and only one of those is arguably consistent with reality, that doesnāt mean thatās the best reading of the authorās intent. The author may just have been mistaken.
In one of Bart Ehrmanās books, where he was describing his progression from poorer to better scholarship as he moved along academically, he mentions writing some lengthy essay about how to resolve some seeming conflict in scripture, and submitting it to a professor who responded somewhat along the lines of, āokayā¦or, perhaps the author was just mistakenā (Iād give a more specific reference but donāt have the book at hand). For Ehrman that was a kind of bolt from the blue ā you can DO that?
It may be that the Bible can be reconciled, by some set of interpretations, with reality; or it may not. But if there is a reading of the Bible which can be reconciled with reality, there is no basis for concluding therefrom that this is the correct reading.
Thank you for the reminder. Yes, Iāve read enough literature on the subject to know that I want to take as little for granted as possible. This is probably my biggest disappointment so far in conversations with other Christians. Iām not asking anyone to change their position or to admit that they are wrong, but merely to be open to the fact that they could be wrong. To consider the possibility that a long standing tradition of reading the text one way may require some adjustment. It is a hard sell.
I am a strong proponent of āauthorial intentā to the degree that Iām willing to let the Bible be wrong (if in fact it comes to that). The author (God or otherwise) deserves no less than our best effort be given to knowing what they meant. This unfortunately is not often straightforward.
So for example, if the AIG position is the way to read the text, then I have to say I see an irreconcilable contradiction and the text is wrong. By contrast, if a non-concordist view (like that of Michael Heiser or John Walton) can be demonstrated to be a faithful rendering of the text (even if diverging from typical Reformed thought), then I will pursue that route.
I guess my eyes have been opened such that I am no longer satisfied with simplistic answers or an overuse of the āGod did itā trump card. As a theist Iām willing to allow such a card to be played but it must be used sparingly lest it lose its power (at which point it just becomes an excuse for ad hoc explanations).
For example, Iām willing to say that āGod raised Jesus from the deadā partly because the Bible doesnāt try to explain how it happened. It simply states it. Okay, I can run with that. I cannot however take the flood narrative (which has lots of detail and thereby exposes itself to critique) and then use that card every time I have to explain the numerous problems with a global flood. I find myself forced to hold to a local flood as a result.
I have to say that I seldom see someone working through these issues who seems as clear-headed about it as you do. I wish you well and I think you will wind up in a good place on all of this.
He was trying to explain Mark 2:26 and why Jesus mentions Abiathar and not Ahimelech. I had recently watched Ehrman explain that story and then I also recently watched The Chosen series episode that I discovered deals with that passage. I was reminded of what Ehrman said and I was fascinated by how the series approached it.
The series so far is a good lesson in interpretation in a way. I keep thinkingā¦oh I wouldnāt have thought of [whatever biblical text they quote] happening that way, but it makes sense.