Many people assume that when it comes to Scripture and science there are two positions: Genesis-literalist Creationism (as championed by Kent Hovind, Henry Morris and Ken Hamm) and Darwinian materialism (as preached by Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and Jerry Coyne). Therefore, it is assumed, religious people believe in Genesis and secular people believe in Darwin.
But this is a gross oversimplification that ignores a host of mediating positions between the two extremes. Intelligent Design, Theistic Evolution and Old-Earth Creationism are three positions with various degrees of overlap which religious believers hold to--in far greater numbers than Genesis-literalism, which is actually a minority view among theologians, religious scholars and clergy worldwide.
In an attempt to answer the charge of providing no testable model with predictive power, Old-Earth Creation proponents Hugh Ross (astrophysics) and Fuz Rana (biology) of Reasons To Believe, a ministry seeking to show the convergence of science and faith, have proposed what they call the "RTB Biblical Creation Model."
As presented in their book "Origins of Life: Biblical and Evolutionary Models Face Off", the RTB model consists of the following:
The RTB Biblical Creation Model
The shared imagery and theological connection of the Luke, Deuteronomy, and Genesis passages suggest that God worked on early Earth to bring forth life’s “seeds,” much as God used Jacob’s “seed” to bring forth the nation of Israel. Recasting this understanding of Scripture in scientific terms leads to the portion of the RTB testable creation model for life’s beginning.
In the broadest terms, the model ascribes life’s origin to God’s direct creative activity soon after the time of Earth’s formation, more specifically to the time of the oceans’ formation, prior to complete transformation of Earth’s atmosphere from opaque to translucent. This explanation for life’s start establishes a scientific framework that carries logical consequences and outcomes. The first predictions (delineated and explained in the following text) provide the means to evaluate the model’s validity. The chief predictions that logically arise from Genesis 1:2 also help define the RTB Model and represent some of its most important features. This is true for any scientific model.
The testable creation model’s framework constrains it. Yet this framework contains sufficient flexibility for further development and refinement through additional research in both theological and scientific arenas. Enough space exists underneath the umbrella of this approach to advance variants of the model. This significant point means that the model stands poised to stimulate further research that can lead to scientific advance and new understanding of existing conundrums. Plenty of opportunity remains for controversy and debate—the chief ingredients of scientific progress. For example, the biblical text and the RTB Model allow the freedom for scientific investigation to establish the exact time frame for Earth’s formation and life’s first appearance.
If scientific research indicates that life appeared long after Earth’s formation, or if the earth formed within the past few thousand years, the proposed RTB Model is incorrect. Scientific measurements of Earth’s antiquity and life’s early appearance belong to the model’s structure. This approach allows the opportunity to debate Earth’s age and the precise timing of life’s appearance while leaving the room to refine the model’s details in response to new discoveries. In every respect, this approach to the origin-of-life question conforms to sound scientific methodology.
It is important to recognize that scientific predictions do not necessarily constitute prophesy, rather they logically flow from the model’s tenets. Once proposed, a model does not have to await future discovery for its evaluation. Often the data required to initially assess a prediction’s validity already exists.
The RTB Model’s Predictions
The RTB biblical creation model for the origin of life sets forth the following central ideas and predictions:
1. Life appeared early in Earth’s history, while the planet was still in its primordial state. The backdrop for the origin of life in Genesis 1:2 was an early Earth enveloped entirely in water and as yet untransformed by tectonic and volcanic activity. This tenet anticipates the discovery of life’s remains in the part of the geological column that corresponds to early Earth.
2. Life originated in and persisted through the hostile conditions of early Earth. Genesis 1:2 describes early Earth as t?hû w?b?hû, an empty wasteland. This model maintains that God nurtured the seeds of Earth’s first life, perhaps re-creating these seeds each time they were destroyed. This model predicts that science will discover life’s first emergence under the hellish conditions of early Earth.
3. Life originated abruptly. If God created the first life on Earth through direct intervention, one can reasonably assume that life appeared suddenly, seemingly out of nowhere. This model predicts that the planetary and geological record will demonstrate life’s emergence in a narrow, if not instantaneous, time window.
4. Earth’s first life displays complexity. If a Creator brought life into existence, first life should display significant complexity. Therefore, the RTB Model predicts that fossil and geochemical remains will indicate that Earth’s earliest life forms display complexity.
5. Life is complex in its minimal form. Life in its simplest form should also display considerable complexity. An inherent minimal complexity reasonably indicates that life has been intelligently crafted.
6. Life’s chemistry displays hallmark characteristics of design. Systems and structures produced by intelligent agents typically possess characteristics that distinguish them from those produced by natural processes. These properties serve as indicators of design. They will be apparent in biochemical systems of the cell if the biblical Creator is responsible for life. It stands beyond this book’s scope to describe in suitable detail the cell’s chemical features that reflect design. A comprehensive case for biochemical design will appear in a future work. For now, the epilogue summarizes some of these characteristics and points to the relevant scientific literature. The point can be made that current biochemical knowledge satisfies this prediction.
7. First life was qualitatively different from life that came into existence on creation days three, five, and six. The third creation day describes the creation of plants (zera‘, ‘?s., and perî in the Hebrew). The fifth creation day discusses the creation of marine invertebrates and fish, marine mammals, and birds. The sixth creation day includes the creation of specialized land mammals. These multicellular advanced plants and animals are qualitatively different from the first life forms created on primordial Earth.
8. A purpose can be postulated for life’s early appearance on Earth. The RTB Model bears the burden of explaining why God would create life so early in Earth’s history and why (as well as when) He would create the specific types of life that appeared on primordial Earth. While God would be free to create life for nonutilitarian purposes, discernible reasons should exist for God’s bringing life into existence under the violent conditions of early Earth—conditions under which life could not persist and would presumably need to be re-created.
The eight predictions mentioned follow logically from RTB’s creation model for life’s origin. Some predictions are specific to the Genesis 1:2 implication of life’s origin; others would be part of any model that appeals to a Creator to explain life’s existence. The list of predictions is incomplete and the appropriateness of some of the predictions may be debated. The same can be said for any scientific model. Future discussions will become an important part of the model’s development and refinement. Nevertheless, the cited predictions strongly emphasize this book’s main premise—the creation of life can be tested. The scientific consideration of creation plays a pivotal role in the establishment of a new paradigm for life’s origin.
[From: Fazale Rana and Hugh Ross, Origins of Life: Biblical and Evolutionary Models Face Off (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2004), 42.]
Anyone familiar with discussions of science and faith will recognize that this approach shares features of Darwinian, Young-Earth, and Intelligent Design approaches...which ensures that it will not be accepted universally by proponents of those views!
However, it does offer an alternative to those who seek to take seriously the teachings of Scripture as well as the findings of science. It also shows that science is not (and never has been) a true enemy to religious faith...contrary to both secular and fundamentalist urban legend!
Comments
RTB is another anti-science group, just like the Discovery Institute and Answers in Genesis. If they had a legitimate hypothesis they would have it proposed and peer reviewed.
My question for them is which came first, birds or land animals?
Let me clarify your post a bit, Beamstalk:
"Anti-science group" = any religious viewpoint that doesn't agree with Neo-Darwinian naturalism
How about disagreeing with them without the disingenuous rhetoric? That would be so refreshing for a change!
They're a ministry consisting OF scientists which explores the relationship between science and Scripture; like the Biologos Foundation, but without the theistic evolution approach that Collins and co. come from.
They have every right to make whatever claim they want, but if they want to be taken seriously within the scientific community then they need to present an actual paper on the subject.
I am disagreeing with them and pointing out that they make the claim that land animals came before birds (they have a graph on their webpage and put birds on Day 5), because it is obvious this is what happened (facts and evidence). Now look at point 7, they are claiming birds (day 4) come before specialized land animals (day 5). They prove themselves wrong.
They also make the baramin or different "kinds" claim like YECs. Just like YECs they never define what a "kind" is (examples are not a definition) nor have they shown what barriers there are between "kinds".
It is just a matter of the facts don't fit there hypothesis so they will distort things to fit into their worldview. I can go through each one of their points if you insist, as I have dealt with their claims extensively in the past.
I want to add by anti-science I mean, that RTB would prefer for the scientific process to be dropped and their brand of creationism accepted without going through the rigors of study that the Theory of Evolution and all theories have gone through.
Beamstalk, your response to specific points is much more helpful when you don't fall victim to the rhetorical temptation of labeling it "anti-science". Anti-science means "against science", and that's not what they are doing. They are proposing a framework through which to view the data of Scripture and science (one that I don't personally hold to; though some of their points are valid). That's not "anti-science"; your critique would be much more respectable and gain a larger hearing among those you are debating if you'd drop the name-calling and argue the facts alone. This is the biggest weakness Darwinists exhibit on a regular basis...and one of the reasons why the general public continues to remain skeptical of their claims despite an educational monopoly on the subject.
Honest, reasoned disagreement > dismissive labelling
James you are correct there. Like I said earlier I have dealt with a lot of their claims before and after awhile it just gets tiring.
I still see no reason to hold them as some source of reconciling science and the Bible, because they are not doing science. They are trying to look like they are doing science. They are selling books, holding seminars and giving the appearance of science (which is exactly what YECs and IDers do). If they were doing real science and trying to actually prove their hypotheses then I would have no problem with them. I think you give them too much clout. They trick many people by showing off their degrees, using big words and being sciency.
I agree with your opening remarks in the article also, that there is more than just YECs and pure materialistic Evolutionary Theory sides. I wish more theistic evolutionists would speak up.
Beam,
While I disagree with your assessment, I can respect what you're saying here and I understand how one's tiring of a position can lead to less-than-fair rhetoric (I'm constantly tempted to exhibit such rhetoric towards YEC, particular the Answers in Genesis crowd!). Have you spent much time over at Biologos (Francis Collins' organization for theistic evolution)? I'd be interested in your thoughts on it.
"This approach allows the opportunity to debate Earth’s age and the precise timing of life’s appearance while leaving the room to refine the model’s details in response to new discoveries. In every respect, this approach to the origin-of-life question conforms to sound scientific methodology."
".....leaving the room to refine the models details in respose to new discoveries..."
Having studied RTB's claims quite extensively, what that quote means is that when science discovers something new, Ross & company go to work to find some vague and disparate bible verses to shoehorn the discovery into.
"In every respect, this approach to the origin-of-life question conforms to sound scientific methodology."
This is clearly false. A presupposition that the bible predicts all these scientific advances is in no way sound scientific methodology.
Froggie,
This is a criticism that many Evangelicals who hold to a Framework approach to Scripture and science raise against both YEC and OEC proponents. For example, John Walton says that attempts to try to use Scripture to do modern science is fundamentally off-base and foreign to what Scripture is intended to be. (See the review of his "Lost World of Genesis One" that I posted a few months ago for more.)
I'm not convinced that broad claims can't be arrived at in Scripture and then investigated in scientific fields; but I agree that Ross and other OEC'ers often go beyond the intention of the Biblical texts in their scientific assessments.
James, sorry to get back to you so late but Christmas and all the family fun.
"Have you spent much time over at Biologos (Francis Collins' organization for theistic evolution)? I'd be interested in your thoughts on it."
I have not. I have read Ken Miller's books and I find them easily accessible for anyone with a non science background. My mother, who is a YEC, enjoyed them. I think Miller is not nearly as stringent on his thinking when it comes to religion as he is with science. That he lets some things slip by where he wouldn't do that if it was an experiment. Still I have no problems with theistic evolution. As I see it the concept of God is unknowable and thus can never truly be completely ruled out.
Beamstalk, no worries; I know the holidays are a busy time for everyone. :)
I think your right about Miller's theology. That's a fault that many theistic evolutionists have--many seem to give much more weight to their scientific views than their theological views. Thus, if there's a conflict, they assume theology is the area that is in need of altering. YEC'ers lean in the opposite direction and thus commit the opposite error. OEC'ers try to hold them both equally, to varying degrees of success.
As a Biblical theologian, who is only an interested layman in the area of science, I recognize theistic evolution as a tenable option, but feel that OEC is also viable for the believer. YEC is Biblically unwarranted and based on modernist assumptions. ID interests me the most because of its philosophically valid approach--which its detractors dismiss in a philosophically unsound manner (i.e. Miller's "reducible mousetrap" attempt).
Sooooooo....which came first, birds or land animals?
I'd really like to know if they address this apparent contradiction in any way because, let's face it, it's a pretty big one.
ExPatMatt,
As far as I know, RTB holds that Gen.1 teaches that flying things and swimming things preceded the three types of specified land mammals of "day" 6 (at least Ross makes that argument in ch.6 of "The Genesis Question"). All the organisms not specifically mentioned in Gen.1 are accepted as having arrived on the scene whenever they appear in the fossil record.
If RTB has changed their position, I'm unaware of it but would welcome someone pointing me to where they do so.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!