William Lane Craig: Predetermined Conclusions on Adam?

He is technically part of the HBU faculty, as well, for the exact same reason. He does come to visit Houston once every couple of years or so!

2 Likes

Which is also to say that when he writes a book on a historical Adam, it is likely there will be immense pressure on Biola to adapt its belief statement. WLC is one of the few people who has the ability to move the needle institutionally on this specific topic.

2 Likes

This is a desperately-needed adjustment. I would love to see it!

2 Likes

I know the person who wrote that part of the Belief Statement. He was at the Dabar Conference, and thanked me for the Genealogical Adam work specifically, in addition to the work supporting @Agauger. It would not be surprising for them to explicitly acknowledge the Genealogical Adam in the next few years.

1 Like

I don’t think that he actually disagreed with any clauses yet, but again thanks for clarifying.

I think probably I should clarify what I still find to be intellectually dishonest. The part I think is a perfectly wonderful idea is his inquiry into the ANE and the best theological conclusions he can come to. He is being open to where the evidence leads him. BUT he will then (if he does what he said in the video) aim to interpret scientific evidence through that filter. That is, he will have predetermined conclusions on what science is allowed to say or not say. That is no different from AiG for example that, after their comprehensive Biblical analysis, concludes that all scientific ideas, no matter how well tested must line up with their interpretation of Scripture. As I mentioned in the other thread, they for example reject the Big Bang theory, which despite it’s remarkable number of predictions and experimental tests/confirmations, they reject (or filter) the evidence through their Biblical filter.

So at present, it appears an honest inquiry into what the Bible teaches and I hope that he is honest in what he finds and can conclude based upon the evidence he looks at. But it could be just an example of the scandal of the evangelical mind- where one musters up all the effort and intellectual freedom one can find but everybody could guess what one would find. But again, I think that all this does it help propagate a bigger problem that Christians have with science- we only accept science that agrees with our interpretations of the Bible. I do not think that geneological Adam is a healthy step forward in that sense- basically it allows Christians to accept some aspects of genetic science but only because it can theoretically still agree with their predetermined conclusions when they go to ‘study the natural world.’

I suppose I find myself in a different place than you.

I have no problem with Christian leaders saying they want to understand Scripture for what Scripture says, and to treat it as authoritative. I personally do not believe that science holds the same authority.

WLC does not appear to have pre-determined conclusions about what Scripture will say. This is nothing like AIG. Is that really what you think?

@pevaquark what is wrong with this? It sounds like this is the exactly right thing to do if one is a Christian.

Perhaps we just understand Scripture in a different way than you.

3 Likes

That’s the part that I can applaud him on.

Which is one of its strengths. While scientists individually might have personal ideas they can be rather passionate about, as a whole there is no authority or sacred tomes that cannot be touched. Sometimes it takes time for old ideas to die (i.e. let’s say with Fred Hoyle and steady state cosmology), but this is how progress is made. Not being limited by any authoritative dogma.

Not at the moment- but how I am comparing it to AiG will be after he’s done his biblical research. Once WLC comes to his biblical conclusion, whatever that may be, then he will have pre-determined conclusions about what science is allowed to say.

Do you have any evidence that this is the right way to approach our inquiry into the natural world? I know this is how evangelical Christians approach most areas of reality, but with regards to scientific inquiry- is this a good thing? Historical examples would be helpful for me here.

Which is fine but I think that what you mean by this could mean a lot of different things.

1 Like

I suppose I do have relevant experience with this. That is my approach, and I am certainly not in conflict with science over it. I just might be working under a different authority structure than you.

As for historical examples, I see a difference between Kepler and Galileo. I take a Kepler approach, but it seems BioLogos takes a Galileo approach.

3 Likes

6 posts were split to a new topic: Do Scientists Dispute the Big Bang?

Do you mean you take a Kepler approach in the sense that he was the last astronomer to believe in astrology in the western world and who paid his bills by writing horoscopes for the rich and famous? Or in the sense where he had a lifelong ambition to improve the science of astrology so that it could stand up to the light of scrutiny during the age of reason? Perhaps you could clarify for me what you mean and what you imagine a Galileo approach to mean.

2 Likes

Neither.

On the scientific side, he solved a key riddle of the cosmos with a mathematical and geometric anlysis of retrospective data from Brahe. This is precisely the type of scientific work I do.

On theology, he was far more measured and coherent that Galileo in engaging with theology in his findings. His case for a phenomenalogical reading of Scripture has stood the test of time, and is all that is needed now to make sense of Genesis in light of modern science.

In contrast Galileo was far more brash, arguing in The Letter to the Duchess, as you do now, that science trumps Scripture. He also discussed a phenomenalogical reading, but then goes much farther, throwing anything he can out to see what sticks. He also is among the key champions of concordism, reading science into scripture, in the precise sense as was on full display in Venemas book, Adam and the Genome.

In my view, we need more Keplers and fewer Galileos. Keplers approach stood the test of time, but Galileo’s is both unnecessary to reconcile with science, and is not consistent with a high view of Scirpture. It got him an immense amount of trouble and was never wildely accepted in the church.

The conversation started online with @TedDavis on this here: Follow Galileo or Kepler? It still continues offline.

@Philosurfer as a Lutheran here, I was hoping you could comment. @rcohlers my historian friend, how would you qualify my short description?

I do get the sense that @pevaquark is advocating for some sort of scientism – the idea that science is the gold standard of everything. Under such a position, science will dictate one’s understanding of Scripture requiring Scripture to continually “update” itself in terms of current science. I take this to be what @swamidass is referring to as the Galileo approach as it requires a certain concordism that is driven from science to Scripture with no real sense of a reciprocal relationship.

I take Josh’s concern to be that even if, pace @TedDavis in the other thread on this topic, Galileo was further developing Kepler hermeneutical ideas, Kepler did not go as far as Galileo in promoting/suggesting that science become the norm of Scripture. Galileo, perhaps unwittingly, collapsed the entire Two Books model into a One Book model, while Kepler was very intentional about keeping Two Books on a level playing field.

Hopefully this is an adequate brief summary of positions?

That being said @pevaquark has a point:

However, I’m not quite sure that I find this intellectually dishonest as that would require some sort of deliberate intent to alter the data at the level of science. The problem is that WLC is NOT doing science. It is not that he is trying to alter the course of scientific understanding through funny business at the scientific level – he is not tinkering with experimental practice. Thus, his “predetermined” theological conclusions are not affecting the science one iota.

What he is doing is trying to square his theological convictions with what the actual science is (and perhaps is not) saying. Thus, the level of inquiry here is something larger than science. He is seeking understanding, exhibiting wisdom in his search. The dishonest move would be to ignore the science (or the theology).

He will filter, but it will be a sort of filtering that all of us do with scientific data (even the scientists) in our daily lives (again a much larger context than science or theology alone). Switch the metaphor to politics. I imagine that everyone on this site has pretty strong ideas about what certain scientific findings have to say about various social policies they believe important. The science is actually silent on any given policy and what to do, but all of us will filter the scientific data through our x, y, z, political lens, deciding about the best course of action to USE the scientific data. Is this being dishonest? Or have we entered into a new sort of conversation that requires a different sort of rule-set to govern the conversation, a rule set that is larger than the one governing science?

It is yet to be determined if WLC chooses a more Galileo or Kepler style approach once he finishes his investigation. Perhaps, after the investigation, he moves in a more AiG way and attacks the actual science as inadequate. This would be more akin to a reverse Galileo move where those theological convictions demand to “change” the science. My assumption is that @pevaquark is more concerned about such a theological Galileo move as that would then move us closer to something akin to dishonesty. However, what if WLC simply states that after investigation it is still unclear how to bring a conservative reading of Scripture in line with the current human evolutionary history. That it is a perplexing situation where nature looks to be saying one thing and Scripture is saying another and that some sort of skepticism/agnosticism, not against science OR Scripture, at the level of understanding how science/religion relate to each other is the call. This seems to be more closer to a Kepler approach. Again, it isn’t clear where WLC will fall, but I’m still struggling with the idea of dishonesty here.

3 Likes

I’ve listened/read most every popular level thing WLC has done in the last 15 yrs and I’m fairly confident that if he ever found himself unable to sign a statement, he’d admit it, and walk away.

It’s not like he couldn’t stay at Houston Baptist if he didn’t believe in an historical Adam. Pretty sure they don’t have any such statement. And no matter what, he wouldn’t be out of a job!! He’d be scooped up probably much faster than either Enns or Longman.

And I don’t agree with Enns that doctrinal statements should be bare bones. Make them whatever you want, and just have profs with integrity.

2 Likes

No, you’re wrong there - the astrologer Galileo outlived Kepler by 12 years!

1 Like

Hah, nice!~ Here’s one quote I dug up:

According to Nicolas Campion (“Introduction: Galileo’s Life and Work” Culture and Cosmos Vol 7 No 1) Galileo named the new moons of Jupiter the “Medicean stars” in tribute to the influential Medici family. According to Campion, Galileo was rewarded later that year when Cosimo II de’ Medici, Grand Duke of Tuscany, "appointed him court mathematician and philosopher – that is, astrologer.”

Perhaps I should clarify, Kepler was the last great astrologer. Galileo didn’t have a comprehensive 800 page book on the topic that I’m aware of- he was an amateur compared to Kepler. Perhaps if this site is correct, then Kepler didn’t merely use astrology to pay the bills but was a genuine ‘sceptical astrologer.’

1 Like

I think that would be an honest thing to say, but at the same time- there are a fairly large number of theologians who are actively working on such questions and I think he would be giving a false impression to his followers (which could be many). And this would then just result in Christians still rejecting science/mountains of evidence that they don’t like, i.e. doesn’t line up with their interpretation of the Bible.

I don’t think that it makes much sense to keep ‘updating’ scripture as I don’t think at least the creation stories need updating as I would classify it as a very different way of describing the world than scientific inquiry. But I do think that a question I still have is this one:

I’ve already given you Kepler, and that should be enough. The other good place to look is the Churches rejection of polygenesis and eugenics while science was fully convinced for far too long.

@pevaquark a true dialogue between the two is possible. Why shut that down in favor of a monologue?

1 Like

How about the application of divine law to nature by Bacon? How about the freedom of God from necessity that led to his stress on empirical investigation? How about the assumption, from the unity of the Godhead, that nature would give consistent answers to investigation? Those seem pretty basic assumptions to me.

Another example along the same lines as yours was the “softness” of those who took seriously Scripture’s admonitions to treat animals well, against the physiologists schooled in Descartes’s doctrine that they were mere automata, in the nineteenth century?

But then the underlying assumption of the question of “fruitful idea” is that the answer should be something fruitful to science. The main fruit of theology is godly living to life with God, that is something of eternal benefit to people.

1 Like

So not only did Kepler get the question of elliptical orbits and the cause of tides right, but he was a better astrologer than Galileo, too. What’s not to like?

More seriously, the author whose article (or its abstract) I linked to has been doing serious work on how the scientific approach to astrology that began in late mediaeval times worked through in the fields of mathematics (ie astronomy) and medicine until it was quietly ditched around the end of the seventeenth century.

It seems nobody’s done the research before, and it may turn up some surprises. Most likely it will turn out to reflect an increasing realisation of incompatibility with Aristotelian ideas of “correspondence” and the mechanical philosophy that abhorred action at a distance (at least until Newton rehabilitated it in gravity, and quantum non-locality opened up the can of worms again).

But for our discussion, the history shows that pitching it as “superstition v science” is entirely anachronistic: both Kepler and Galileo, and the generation after them, had good reasons for assuming a scientific basis for astrology, albeit with reservations. Galileo even did his own horoscope, so he wasn’t just in it for the money.

Newton, too, a century later, had good reasons for being an enthusiastic alchemist, although he missed the wave of astrology… interestingly only 1.9% of his library was even on astronomy, v 9.6% on alchemy and 27.2% on theology.

2 Likes