What do cultural celebrities like Bill Nye, Richard Dawkins, Neil de Grasse Tyson, Bart Ehrman, and Bill Maher all have in common? In different ways, the represent different forms of skepticism about the Christian faith.
In a recent Sunday School class on “Personal Discipleship,” I was asked this question: Who are the most influential skeptics today?
How does one go about answering such a question? According to Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor, in his magisterial A Secular Age, a few hundred years ago it was virtually impossible not to believe in God. But nowadays, the shift is remarkable: for many in 21st century Western culture, it is very easy, almost inescapable, to not believe in God. Skepticism defines the current cultural mood, something that would have been mostly unthinkable just a few centuries ago.
Instead of trying to come up with some type of “Top Ten” skeptics list, I think it best to list out some of the more skeptical personalities today, each person representing a different type of skepticism that an evangelical Christian believer might encounter in their conversations with their neighbors, co-workers and even family members. So here we go…. Continue reading
Stephen Fry is an English comedian. Though not as well-known on the American side “of the pond,” Stephen Fry was interviewed on Ireland’s Public Service television recently where he expressed his views on God. The video went viral on YouTube, numbering over 5 million views in less that 2 weeks. Fry, like many skeptics, does not find satisfaction with how a “God” could create a world with so much suffering and evil in it… and that description is putting it…as they say…rather mildly (be forewarned).
In response, Justin Brierley, the British radio personality who moderates the Unbelievable radio podcast, a show I highly recommend, draws inspiration from one of Stephen Fry’s literary heroes, Oscar Wilde (the text of Brierley’s remarks can be found here). Though mostly known as being a skeptic, Oscar Wilde converted to Catholicism in the last few days of his life.
Casting aside questions about Roman Catholicism for the moment, how do you see Justin Brierley painting a different portrait of God than what Stephen Fry rails against? Oscar Wilde’s The Selfish Giant can be read here.
Some of this Veracity blogger’s distance relatives, or just a really bad TV show from the 1960s? (It’s About Time).
One of the most persistent challenges in trying to reconcile Biblical truth with the findings of modern science is this: What do you do with the cavemen?
The mainstream scientistic consensus today is that there have been human-like creatures discovered in the ancient fossil record that predate humans like you and me. Names such as Cro-Magnon man, homo erectus, and the neanderthal fill our imaginations with images of semi-ape, semi-human creatures hobbling or running around with crude tools, making grunting noises, many of them living in… well… caves. My wife thinks I must be related at times to these creatures, particularly when I get out of bed in the morning, bumping into things when I am barely awake!!
But seriously, could it be that these brute creatures are related to us, we homo-sapiens, or is such a concept alien to the teaching of the Bible? Does the existence of these creatures insult or even undermine the Christian concept of the special status of humanity’s uniqueness?
News within recent years suggests that there is some evidence of actual interbreeding between modern humans and neanderthals thousands of years ago, as in this story from the British Natural History museum:
So what does the Bible have to say regarding creatures like the neanderthal? Continue reading
We have pointed folks to a lot of resources regarding the creation/age-of-the-earth/evolution debate here at Veracity (just go to the main blog page, scroll down to where is says “search” and type in something like “creationism” and click GO, or go to our 2013 Symposium page for starters). But in my discussions, some get confused over a few of the terms used by different Christians in the debate.
One nagging question concerns what is the difference between “Old-Earth creationism” and “Intelligent Design.” The difference between “Young Earth creationism” and the “Old-Earth” view should be pretty straight forward: the “Young Earth” view holds that our planet is only 6,000 to 10,000 years old, whereas the “Old-Earth” view is consistent with mainstream science regarding the age of the earth in terms of millions years.
The “Old-Earth” view differs from “Evolutionary Creationism” in that the “Old-Earth” view does not accept the idea that humans are a product of biological evolution, instead affirming that all humans are descended from a literal, historical Adam and Eve, specially created by God in a uniquely different creation event. In contrast, “Evolutionary Creationism” accepts the mainstream scientific consensus, yet nevertheless affirming that it is the God of the Bible who used the process of biological evolution to give us human beings, though there is quite a debate among Evolutionary Creationists as to the exact role Adam and Eve play in all of that (are Adam and Eve historical persons, or are they symbolic somehow?).
Sometimes you will hear “Evolutionary Creationism” referred to as being “Theistic Evolution.” But most evangelical Christians in the Evolutionary Creationism camp are moving away from the “Theistic Evolution” term because it does not boldly emphasize the Biblical concept of creation strong enough. Many who believe in “Theistic Evolution” believe in a “God,” but not necessarily the God of the Bible.
But what about “Intelligent Design?”
“Intelligent Design” is mostly opposed to “Evolutionary Creationism,” viewing the process of Darwinian evolution, particularly of man, as being completely inconsistent with the notion of an Intelligent Designer. “Intelligent Design” as a movement in general is a bit wary of the Young Earth view that rejects the old age of the earth. So does that mean that “Intelligent Design” is the same thing as “Old-Earth Creationism?”
Not quite.
There is indeed quite a bit of overlap between the two positions, but there are important differences. “Old-Earth Creationism” self-consciously is about defending a high view of the Bible. “Intelligent Design” as a movement, on the other hand, is not necessarily identified with the Bible or Christianity. Sure, there are evangelical, Bible-believing Christians who believe in “Intelligent Design,” such as Stephen C. Meyer, author of the best selling Darwin’s Doubt, but there are also many other proponents of “Intelligent Design” who do not embrace Biblical faith, such as popular author Jonathan Wells, a member of the Unification church (or the “Moonies”). The following video by Krista Bontrager, affiliated with the Old-Earth Reasons to Believe apologetics ministry, tells you more about it, in a language you can grasp from the bottom shelf.
As might be implied from the video, the “Intelligent Design” movement, particularly as it is articulated by the folks at the Discovery Institute, makes some helpful arguments that should be engaged by thoughtful Christians. However, “Intelligent Design” is not explicitly tied to a Biblical concept of creation as are the three dominant models: Young Earth Creationism, Old-Earth Creationism, and Evolutionary Creationism. For that reason, while I fully affirm”intelligent design” (notice the small letters), I am not entirely excited about “Intelligent Design” (large caps) as a movement that Christians should uncritically embrace. I do not believe, as some Intelligent Designers speculate, that the Intelligent Designer of human life may have been some super extra-terrestrial life form. I also have friends of mine in the New Age Movement who subscribe to a type of “Intelligent Design,” but who nevertheless reject the Biblical teaching of a distinction between the Creator and the Creation.
In my view, Christians should be about winning others to the God of the Bible as the Creator, not just to some nebulous concept of an “Intelligent Designer,”, though I can concede someone might be persuaded of the existence of an Intelligent Designer as a type of first step in their journey towards Christ. Instead, I believe that Scripture is quite clear: God created humanity, and this God of the Bible created humans, male and female, in the image of God. We may debate exactly how God did the Creating, and over what type of timescale it happened in, and what role (if any) evolution has in this, but there should be unified agreement among followers of Christ that it is God, and God alone, who created us.
For Bill Nye, “creationism” means believing in a Young Earth that is only 6,000 to 10,000 years old. Other forms of “creationism,” including Old-Earth Creationism as articulated at Reasons to Believe and Evolutionary Creationism as articulated at BioLogos simply do not count as “creationism.”
For Bill Nye, the science of evolution does not allow a reasonable person to see any divine “plan” in nature… at least for him.
If you accept the black-and-white categories laid out by both Bill Nye and Ken Ham, it leaves very little room for talking about harmonizing the God of the Bible’s Creative activity with contemporary science without compromising either the Biblical authority on the one hand or modern Science on the other. I was not very thrilled with the debate as it just seemed as though the participants kept talking past one another, something that comes out in the Answers In Genesis video linked below.
What Michael Behe and Hugh Ross said was refreshingly encouraging. While both disagreed with the view of Darwinism held by the folks at BioLogos, and both nevertheless continue to try to persuade others to their point of view, both men still count a number of their critics at BioLogos as being friends.
Wow. What a novel concept: Embracing fellow believers in Christ as friends, even when you strongly disagree with them on a particular non-salvation issue.
Perhaps if others in the creation/age-of-the-earth/evolution debate within the Body of Christ had that type of attitude with one another, then when you have debates with folks like Bill Nye, it would not seem like you were always talking past the other person.
Veracity 