Exploring the wonders of geology in response to young-Earth claims...

Never been here? Please read my guidelines and background posts before proceeding!

Wednesday, August 17, 2011

What have I been reading?

So far, 2011 has been one my more 'productive' years in terms of reading. For anyone curious (myself included), I thought I would share a list of the books that I am reading now, have read in the past year or so, and plan to read by the end of the year. I was partly inspired by Man vs. Book (a must watch) to do so. Thanks Bryan!

As an aside, you will notice a lot of works by N.T. Wright. At the beginning of the year, I read one of his books and swiftly decided that I need to understand thoroughly how his mind works if I am to continue in biblical studies. I have not yet been disappointed. For those that might have reservations about Wright (coming from a Reformed background, I understand those reservations), I will add that one need not agree with everything Wright says to appreciate the contributions of this brilliant thinker.

I have added a short synopsis to each with my personal recommendation. Feel free to interact or add your own suggestions in the comments!

I am currently reading...

Saving Darwin: How to be a Christian and believe in evolution, by Karl Giberson (2008, 256 p.)
    Karl Giberson, a physicist well known for his contributions to the science-faith dialogue (particularly at Biologos), sets out to positively construct a Christian worldview in which evolution (cosmic, geological, and biological) is the primary creative force in God's providence, and not interventionist, de novo creation. Simultaneously, he defends the historical Darwin as one who was raised in—and enthralled by—the natural theology paradigm explicated by Paley (i.e. intelligent design), but then wrestled deeply with both theological and scientific questions as counter-evidence mounted. Darwin ultimately found himself overwhelmed by the challenge of theodicy, and was deeply hurt in the way that his theory had touched on the well being of the church. His theory was not constructed, therefore, to justify an abandonment of natural theology or Christianity.
    Giberson's autobiographical sketch sounds very similar to my own, and—presumably—to much of his audience's. I highly appreciate the respectful demeanor in which he approaches the developers of flood geology and creationism. Giberson is a very skilled writer, and obviously passionate not only about science, history, and theology, but about his audience. This book is a must read for anyone seriously interested in the origins debate today.
Recommended? Absolutely

Farewell to the Yahwist?: The Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation, by Thomas Dozeman and Konrad Schmid (2006, 208 p.)
    This book contains a collection of writings from European scholars in higher criticism. Contrary to the classic Wellhausen hypothesis (JEDP), more recent scholarship denies the existence of a continuous salvation history (Creation to Moses/Joshua; i.e. the Yahwist source) before the arrival of the 'Priestly' text (P). The individual patriarchal stories (Abrahaam, Jacob, Joseph) and the Exodus story are said, therefore, to have stood alone before the creative mending of P. Evidences cited are the nature of the Jacob story as a rival origins legend to the Mosaic/Exodus one, the contrasting of Jacob/Moses in Hosea 12, the rough literary transition from Genesis to Exodus, and a possible redactional link in Genesis 50:14 that puts Joseph back into Egypt with a single sentence, thereby 'setting the stage' for a second Exodus.
   According to these authors, the classic formulation of the Documentary Hypothesis saw its end in the 1970's (despite its continuance in American schools). In fact, the they do not even bother with the so-called 'Elohist' source, which they perceive as a weak hypothesis that has already run its course. Left standing, however, were the hexateuchal 'non-Priestly' (J) narratives, which earlier scholars perceived as a first Torah (Tetrateuch or Hexateuch, depending) to which E and P responded. But can the non-Priestly text be seen as a unified collection of stories that ran from Adam to Joshua? Not according to this compilation, which argues that it is finally time to bid farewell to the Yawhist properly.
   If you are studying higher criticism of the Hebrew Bible, this book is a must (and available for free on GoogleBooks). If everything I've said above sounds completely foreign to you, however, I would urge some caution. There is a complex history of research behind this book—not just literary but theological. I recommend reading Richard Friedman's Who Wrote the Bible? (see below) before this one. Also, this book will likely challenge your view of scripture (even if you disagree with its premises and conclusions). You will start to think like a literary/textual critic and may find it hard to recover. On the other hand, reading this book has been an excellent exercise in understanding the literary relationship of Pentateuchal narratives and challenged me to think harder about them. If you despise higher critical studies altogether, then you may at least enjoy this cautionary note by one author: "In the absence of material evidence and of Carbon-14 dates, anything is conceivable in biblical exegesis." (p. 61)
Recommended? Not for the faint-hearted; requires some background study.

The Last Word: Scripture and the Authority of God--Getting Beyond the Bible Wars, by N.T. Wright (2006, 160 p.)
    All Christians hold the Bible to be authoritative, but how this plays out in practice (both within the church and in culture) depends on varied and nuanced understandings of the biblical text. Wright notes that the Bible is not simply a book of laws and doctrines (though it contains both), but a grand story with many parts. To call upon the authority of the Bible (especially in culture and politics) thus requires one to answer the deceptively deep question: 'How can a story be authoritative?'
    I have not read far enough to tell you whether Wright delivers on this point as promised. But so far, he has been able to formulate the problem with discernment and determination, all the while displaying a heightened intellectual awareness and ecumenical sensitivity. I expect not to be disappointed, and at only 160 pages, it won't take long to find out!
Recommended? So far, so good.

What I have finished reading...


Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul, by Richard Hays (1989, 254 p.)
    This book has forever changed the way in which I will read and study any piece of literature—the Bible most of all. Hays' classic work on intertextuality and thematic allusion opened a whole new world of biblical studies, into which surprisingly few evangelicals have ventured, but from which none will return. Beginning with the most prolific New Testament author, Hays carefully and masterfully unravels the hidden dialogue between Paul and the holy texts of Israel, which Paul personified and called: Scripture. For Paul, Scripture was not a rigid collection of words on the page—a mere artifact of Israel's past—, but a living entity that now spoke to the Israel of God, reconstituted around Messiah (e.g. 1 Cor. 10:11).
    For those less interested in literary analysis, Hays' work also delves deeply into the question of how NT authors use OT passages. Since Hays moves beyond cases of explicit citation alone, he is able to add a thoughtful and necessary dimension to this complicated debate and find resolution. Everyone can benefit from his discussion, but especially those frustrated by the flat-footed formulae of Messianic 'proof-texting'.
    If you do pick up this book, be prepared: Hays is a master of language, and so writes 254 of the longest pages you may ever read—not a word is wasted. Also, make sure to carry a Bible alongside, because the book assumes you have it open.
Recommended? A must read for all

Jesus and the Victory of God, by N.T. Wright (1997, 741 p.)
    The second volume in his scholarly series on Christian Origins and the Question of God, Wright deals with the historical, political, theological, and psychological questions surrounding Jesus, including his aims and beliefs. Who did Jesus think he was? What did he think he was doing? What did he expect was going to happen? Partly in response to the Jesus Seminar and other historical critical scholarship from the past century, Wright argues that the Jesus of scripture (apocalyptic elements and all) in fact fits nicely into the eschatological milieu of 1st century Judaism in Palestine. Moreover, the Jesus of history (as explicated by the synoptic gospels) perfectly explains the otherwise problematic transition from 1st century B.C.E Judaism to 2nd century A.D. Christianity and Judaism.
   Wright further frames the teachings (parables, sermons, etc.) of Jesus in their proper cultural, historical, and canonical context, so as to identify the invitation, challenge, welcome, and summons of Jesus to his followers and to the leaders of Jerusalem. His deeply rooted insight to the gospel narratives is constructive at every turn, and will leave your picture of Jesus' world much bigger than you imagined.
    This book is straightforward, and can be understood by most. But it also assumes many premises that were argued in volume one of the series (NT&PG, see below). For any serious student, they should be read in order. Moreover, at 741 pages (including preface/appendices), this book is a long-term commitment, but worth the wait, in my opinion.
    Lastly, some may be put off by Wright's 'critical-realist' approach. But keep in mind that he is writing to several audiences at once: academic colleagues, skeptics, liberal and fundamentalist historians/theologians, and both the amateur and serious student of Christianity. To engage in meaningful discourse with the first, he plays by their rules. Consequently, this book is not simply a pious or devotional discourse on Jesus, but the discerned reader will be able to find such value among it. Also, the book is entirely fitting for Christian and non-Christian alike.
Recommended? Absolutely...and Godspeed if you do!

I love Jesus, and I accept evolution
, by Denis Lamoreux (2006, 184 p.)
    Denis Lamoreux, who holds doctoral degrees in dentistry, theology, and evolutionary biology, searches not only for harmony between the world of scripture and of science, but active dialogue. A former young-Earth creationist, Dr. Lamoreux is extremely sensitive to his variegated audience, and articulates the young-Earth position faithfully. As the title indicates, his message is deeply personal, and directed to those struggling with their faith because of the challenge of evolution. He begins with a young boy that asked at a creationist conference: 'How do dinosaurs fit into the Bible?' After chronicling his own journey from young-Earth creationism to atheism to what he now terms evolutionary creationism, he ends with a simple answer to the boy's curiosity: they don't.
    In this book (which is, in some sense, a condensed version of his more scholarly work Evolutionary Creation), Dr. Lamoreux articulates a hermeneutic that is becoming increasingly popular, which he calls the Message of Faith-Incident Principle. He argues that the inerrant Message of Faith has been revealed to us in the incidental vessels of ancient science. As such, the authors of scripture do not explicitly teach false facts about the universe, but work within the 'science of their day' so that the message is tangible and firmly understood. Moreover, the Bible can be said to be inerrant in the message it actually 'intends' to convey.
    Lamoreux's hermeneutic stands in opposition to scientific concordism, which seeks to show that the Bible accurately describes scientific facts. He offers one of the more compelling cases, I believe, against concordism of any kind. On the other hand, his labeling of certain concepts as 'ancient science' may appear repetitive and reductionistic to some. Though my challenge constitutes an informal logical fallacy, I think Dr. Lamoreux's position is shaky without well defined boundaries. For example, can we dismiss the historicity of the patriarchs by saying the biblical authors relied mistaken, 'ancient' versions of history? That question aside, this book is well thought out and offers a healthy challenge to all by one who is deeply passionate about the gospel and the church.
    And science, of course!
Recommended? Yes; particularly to YECs, or those who have wavered in faith because of YECism

Already Compromised, by Ken Ham and Greg Hall (2011, 236 p.)
    See my 3-part review of this book in previous posts to get my complete thoughts. This book was an easy read that offered insight to the young-Earth mindset, and is available for only a few dollars.
Recommended? Maybe...

Paul for Everyone: Galatians and Thessalonians, by N.T. Wright (2004, 178 p.)
    Part of Wright's New Testament for Everyone series, this book lives up to its name. Again, one need not agree with Wright to gather valuable insight from this condensed commentary. Wright adds a personal touch to this letter of Paul, never abandoning the nature of the original text: a real letter to a real people in a real time and place. Why does Paul raise the issues that he does? Why does he have to defend his reputation? Where other commentaries treat the letters of Paul as treatises on systematic theology, this well written reflection successfully transplants the reader into Paul's world and his mission: a deeply personal, practical theology that is rooted in the cross.
Recommended? For everyone

The Psalms: Book IV
    Psalms 90–106 comprise what is called Book IV of the collection. I mention it here in part to recommend you reading it as a literary unit, and in light of Paul's use of the text in Romans 1. Beginning and ending with Moses, these Psalms wrestle with the theodicic challenge of exile, calling an injured Israel to faithfulness by remembering her origins.
    In Romans 1:20–23, Paul writes: "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes...have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks...Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures."
    How often have you heard this passage cited simply in the context of natural theology? Though Paul is writing to an audience immersed in a city idolatry and wickedness (i.e. Rome), he structures his cultural critique in terms of Israel's unfaithfulness in the wilderness. To see what I mean, read Psalm 106 (especially v. 20). Israel knew God by what He had done for them (or 'made'—same verb) since the creation of the world (from Genesis 1 to that point in Exodus; or Psalm 90 to 106:12). But Israel gave honor "to demons and not to God", as Deuteronomy puts it, and "exchanged his glory for the image of a four-footed animal" (Ps. 106:20).
    From the rest of the letter to the Romans, there is no doubt that Paul envisions the Christian experience as a sort of 'personal Exodus'. Paul thus warns believers that they are not immune to the temptation of idolatry because of their covenant status. But he guards against that temptation in an appeal to their knowledge of God's glory in and through their own Exodus, wherein Christ has freed them from bondage to the law (whether Torah or the 'law to themselves'). At the end of their trial is an inheritance, indescribable, but identified as new creation (Romans 8).
Recommended? Divinely so

Global Geomorphology, by M.A. Summerfield (1991, 560 p.)
    Yes, I do read about rocks (though mostly in articles rather than books). In any case, I decided to reread this book to brush up on how the surface of the Earth is shaped. It serves as a thorough, but simple introduction to process geomorphology, in which landscapes and weathering features are described in terms of the geologic process that created them (over against the idealistic concepts of William Morris Davis).
Recommended? Well written; great for the intermediate geology student

Russian Graded Readers 1-5, by George V. Bobrinskoy and Otto Ferdinand Bond (1961)
    Perfect for the beginning student of Russian, or the intermediate student that wishes to brush up on some vocabulary and literary colloquialisms. The reader may also familiarize him/herself with well known Russian stories. The authors take several Russian classics—Lermontov, Gogol, Pushkin, and others—and abridges them in elementary Russian. New vocabulary is listed at the bottom of each page with the English meaning. I have yet to find a more efficient 'Russian reader' than this 50-year-old work.
Recommended? Если Вы изучаете русский язык, читаете эту книгу!

Noah's Ark and the Ziusudra Epic: Sumerian Origins of the Flood Myth, by Robert Best (1999)
    An adventurous tale, to say the least. Mr. Best draws from his exhaustive personal study of Sumeriology and history to construct a scenario that could best explain the various flood accounts: Atrahasis, Ziusudra Epic, Epic of Gilgamesh, Moses of Khoren, and Genesis 6–9. He considers the textual transmission of the text, including the literary interdependence between some accounts, to unravel the legend from the myth. See his website for more details.
    Best's methodology does not appear to be well received in academia, who might wish to see more falsifiable aspects to such a hypothesis. Best does not try to prove or disprove the story of Noah, however, but rather to construct the most likely scenario if indeed the texts derived from an eyewitness account. If you're interested in the question of the historical Noah, you'll find value in this book, which I came across shortly after I finished my own articles on the same. At some points, Best ventures too far beyond the evidence, and lends too much credence to the factual details of each story (even Genesis). Trying to separate myth from history is a dangerous exercise, and typically undermines both. But his work is not without valuable contribution. His discussion on the genealogy of Genesis 5, for example, is perhaps the most thoughtful and convincing I have come across.
Recommended? A healthy thought experiment, but for a limited audience

Chemical Cycles in the Evolution of the Earth, by C. Bryan Gregor, Robert M. Garrels, Fred T. Mackenzie, and J. Barry Maynard (1988, 288 p.)
    A classic text on geochemical cycles and the 'big-picture' problems facing geochemists in the late 80's. Also a useful reference for any geochemist today, since it contains some of the most recent (and best) estimates on elemental fluxes in major Earth processes.
Recommended? Hmm...

The Chickens are Restless, by Gary Larson (1993, 112 p.)
    Everyone needs a break. For me, The Far Side is nostalgic.
Recommended? Only if you enjoy a laugh

Environmental Isotopes in Hydrogeology, by Ian Clark and Peter Fritz (1997, 352 p.)
    A focused study on the application of isotopes to ground and surface water systems. Very clear, well referenced book that goes beyond introductory texts on stable and radiogenic isotope studies. Works well as a companion text to those already studying isotope geology, or alone for climatologists and hydrogeologists wishing to expand their methodology. On the other hand, this book overlaps a bit with more generalized works, so you may want to save some money checking it out of the library instead.
Recommended? For a very specialized audience

Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament, by Peter Enns (2005, 208 p.)
    After Ken Ham's debacle with the homeschool convention, I figured I had to find out who Peter Enns was. If you have never read anything by Enns, this is probably not the best place to start. He is a brilliant thinker that will continue to add much to Old Testament studies. But I&I is fairly nuanced and assumes you are already familiar with the background discussion. I've mentioned before on this blog: it's not so much what Peter Enns says as how he says it that raises flags among evangelicals. He is bold and blunt. Proceed with caution. But if you are able to grasp Enns' message in this book, it will serve you well in your biblical studies pursuits.
Recommended? Eat your veggies first

Isotopes: Principles and Applications, by Gunter Faure and Teresa Mensing (2004, 928 p.)
    I won't bore you with details: this the standard text for isotope geochemists. Expanded from Faure's earlier work, this book covers everything from cosmic evolution and planetary geology to radiometric dating to magmatic systems and more.
Recommended? If you like counting neutrons, this book is for you!

Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible, by John H. Walton (2006, 368 p.)
    Wow. One can get lost in ancient near eastern studies—it is a big world. Walton may only scratch the surface in this book, which makes good use of comparative cultural and literary studies, but he scratches all the right places. For those with reservations about using ancient literature to elaborate the meaning behind the biblical text, I can sympathize. But a careful reading of Walton's work will calm your doubts, and preserve the grandeur of scripture in the otherwise chaotic, literary world of the Ancient Near East.
Recommended? Deep reading, requires some commitment, but worth it

Principles and Applications of Geochemistry, by Gunter Faure (1998, 625 p.)
    Originally published more than a decade prior, Gunter Faure remains authoritative on all things geochemistry. Well written and easy to understand. Suitable for aspiring petrologists, geochronologists, sedimentologists, climatologists, and even hydrogeologists. Also works as a great reference for later research.
Recommended? If you ever had to draw a phase diagram from scratch, and actually enjoyed it, then this book is for you!

New Testament and the People of God, by N.T. Wright (1992, 535 p.)
    Any brief synopsis will hardly do justice to this classic text on New Testament studies. Wright lays out his historiography and methodology in detail, interacting with historians and theologians from the past centuries. He defines his 'critical realist' approach, and applies it faithfully to the biblical text. Who were the people of God, according to both Jewish and Christian thought from the 1st century? What were their symbols, praxis, and beliefs?
    Wright begins with a seemingly simple question: "What do we do with the wicked tenants?" How do we understand parables, and apply them properly? Who was Jesus critiquing in this odd tale and why? Are cultural and historical studies any help? As it turns out, the pursuit is almost more instructive than the answer itself.
Recommended? You won't be disappointed

Principles of Stable Isotope Geochemistry, by Zachary Sharp (2006, 360 p.)
    A clear and concise treatise on the applications of stable isotopes (i.e. not radioactive or produced from radioactivity) to geological problems, ranging from sedimentary geochemistry to meteoric cycles and diagenesis to paleothermometers. Instructive and informative; a great reference too!
Recommended? Okay, it's a textbook...but it reads like an adventure novel (almost)!

Elements of Petroleum Geology, by Richard Selley (1997, 470 p.)
    An exhaustive overview of the theory behind finding conventional hydrocarbon resources. Includes sections on geophysical techniques (and how to interpret them), drill and rig architecture, and the future of non-conventional exploration methods.
Recommended? Not quite on the popular level, but a very practical text

Petroleum Geology (Developments in Petroleum Science), by R.E. Chapman (1983, 434 p.)
    Fascinating to see how petroleum exploration was developing alongside technology. Otherwise, the text is superfluous to more recent contributions.
Recommended? Useful for understanding the history of petroleum geology

Who Wrote the Bible?, by Richard Elliot Friedman (1997, 304 p.)
    A well written introduction to and overview of the documentary hypothesis and its developments since Wellhausen. Friedman's approach is respectful to the nature of the text, and departs with past scholars on several points (e.g. he rejects charges of 'pietistic fraud', and very late dates for the authorship of J, E, and especially P). He argues that P was constructed while the first temple yet stood, for example, rather than during or after the Babylonian exile.
    If you like studying the debate surrounding the authorship of the Pentateuch, this is a scholarly book that is accessible to the public, and therefore a must read. If you disagree with the premises and conclusions of higher criticism, you will still find some value in this book, if nothing else by understanding the evidence raised against traditional paradigms.
Recommended? Yes, but with caution to those unfamiliar with the topic

Paul in Fresh Perspective, by N.T. Wright (2009, 195 p.)
    A fascinating, concise discussion on the biblical texts that define Paul's mission and teachings. For those with reservations, this book is not an explication or defense of the New Perspective. Rather, it unfolds Paul's worldview and shows how Paul can use Hebrew scripture and Roman political culture to explain who Jesus Messiah is, as well as the mission of the church. Everyone can benefit from the discussion.
Recommended? Don't engage in NT studies without it

Кот в Шляпе, by Доктор Сьюз
    A Russian translation of the childhood classic "Cat in the Hat". This was a Christmas present that I thoroughly enjoyed. The translation is very colloquial and difficult to grasp, but that's not a bad thing for someone who wants to learn Russian as Russians speak it!
Recommended? Да!

Why Evolution is True, by Jerry Coyne (2010, 304 p.)
    The title says it all. Coyne, an evolutionary geneticist at the University of Chicago, presents his best case for modern evolutionary theory. The book flows very well and is accessible to the non-biologist. On the other hand, Coyne interposes rhetorical jabs at proponents of intelligent design and creationism between the lines without really engaging in their arguments. Granted, I don't think Coyne believes their arguments are worth refuting, but that would only make his style less appropriate. Moreover, if you are familiar with the origins debate or have a background in biology, then you have very likely heard 90%+ of his arguments already. Most of it can be found online for free—sometimes even without the tiring rhetoric (and if you enjoy his rhetoric, check out his blog instead). This is a good book that could have been great with a dose of humility and compassion.
Recommended? Save your money; buy a latté instead and skim over the book at Barnes and Noble


The Greatest Show on Earth, by Richard Dawkins (2009, 480 p.)
   Dawkins presents the beauty of evolution within a paradigm that makes a mockery of beauty. Many of my critiques of this book are the same as for Coyne's, but Dawkins goes a step further. He devotes an entire chapter to why you're an idiot for rejecting evidence from radiometric dating. Then he demonstrates his utter lack of knowledge regarding geology and isotopic systems. Great job! If it weren't for the color photos in the middle of the book, I would have probably stopped reading in chapter 3. But I had to see those photos...they were beautiful.
   On the other hand, this book contains useful information on biological evolution, and how to present it with passion and excitement. Christian biologists should take a note here, and find the means to discuss evolution as a beautiful theory. Evolution may have replaced the natural theology of Paley et al., but it did not replace God's glory in nature.
Recommended? You gotta see those pictures!

Oxford Russian Grammar And Verbs, by Terence Wade (2002, 256 p.)
    That's right, I read a book on grammar. Of course, it also works as a great reference. Well structured and informative. But what do you expect? It's Oxford!
Recommended? Why not?

The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate, by John H. Walton (2009, 192 p.)
   I would defer you to part 3 of my review of Already Compromised to get my thoughts on this book. Walton recovers the lost world in which Genesis was written, and simultaneously takes the text seriously as God's word. Careful readers from all perspectives of the origins debate should be able to gain from this book.
Recommended? Highly

A Biblical Case for an Old Earth, by David Snoke (2006, 224 p.)
    Snoke does a decent job in detailing the classic reasons (biblical and scientific) for rejecting a literalistic, young-Earth reading of Genesis. I was less impressed, however, by the positive construction he offers in its place. Nonetheless, a good exercise in biblical studies that broadened my thinking.
Recommended? Somewhere down the line

It's Still Greek to Me: An Easy-to-Understand Guide to Intermediate Greek, by David Alan Black (1993, 192 p.)
    If you've studied either Classical or Koiné Greek, then you probably reached a breaking point at one time. When will it end? I highly recommend this profound, and sometimes humorous work to rejuvenate your spirits. You will remember that Koiné Greek was an actual language once spoken to express deep thoughts and emotions, and not simply a form of punishment for M.Div. candidates.
Recommended? On the library of every student of biblical Greek

The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, by Francis S. Collins (2007, 294 p.)
    I picked up this book after seeing Collins on the Colbert Report, mostly to understand the goals and results of the Human Genome Project. It did answer my questions, mostly, but not in the detail I expected. Collins spends a lot of time relaying past arguments by C.S. Lewis and others for the existence of God, and explaining how one reconciles Christianity with an old earth in which life evolves. Not bad for an introduction to the origins debate; excellent if you want to know who Francis Collins is. But in the end, this book mostly offers small portions on a very large plate.
Recommended? A good value

Radiocarbon dating, by Willard Libby (1952)
    The classic text on the radiocarbon (C-14) dating method. Willard Libby is a brilliant scientist, whose work was seminal for many scientific disciplines.
Recommended? For the technical audience that enjoys stepping inside the mind of a genius

What's next on the list?

Resurrection of the Son of God, by N.T. Wright (2003)

Russian Stories: A Dual-Language Book, by Gleb Struve (1990)

Justification: God's Plan & Paul's Vision, by N.T. Wright (2009)

Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution, by Kenneth Miller (2007)

Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, the Missing Science, by Ian Plimer (2009)

Berlin Diary: The Journal of a Foreign Correspondent, 1934-1941, by William L. Shirer (2002)

The Age of the Earth, by G. Brent Dalrymple (1994)

Matthew for Everyone, by N.T. Wright (2004)

Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived, by Rob Bell (2011)

The Holy Spirit, by John Owen (2005)

Who Really Wrote the Bible?, by Eyal Rav-Noy and Gil Weinrich (2010)

Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church, by N.T. Wright (2008)

Karst Hydrogeology and Geomorphology, by Derek Ford and Paul Williams (2007)

The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts, by Neil Asher Silberman and Israel Finkelstein (2002)

Orthodox Dogmatic Theology: A Concise Exposition, by Michael Pomazansky and Seraphim Rose

Introducing Biblical Hebrew, by Allen Ross (2001)

Monday, August 15, 2011

Dispelling a few myths about Steve Austin's cave dissolution model

Have you ever wondered how long it takes to dissolve a large cavern out of solid rock? Let's start simple. Perhaps you have visited a cave in the past or on several occasions over the years. If so, then you know that caves are relatively static in terms of human experience. Common sense thus tells you that cave formation should take generations at the least. On the other hand, you may be familiar with the damage caused by sinkholes, which form when the dissolution of calcite (i.e. limestone) causes the ground to become structurally unsound to the point that it collapses. Calcite dissolution must happen at an appreciable rate, therefore, to explain the formation of new sinkholes every year. So, caves form slowly, but not too slow. Can we get any more quantitative than this?

Ideally, yes. One could preface the answer with a qualification, noting that it depends on several factors—the size of the cave, type of rock, the climate and vegetation, etc.—but I expect you're smart enough to have anticipated this obvious point. If you're reading these words, it is rather because you understand that for the young-Earth creationist, the answer must be: 'tens to hundreds of years'. If many thousands of years are required to dissolve large caverns like Mammoth Caves in Kentucky or the Carlsbad Caverns of New Mexico, then it becomes impossible that a recent, global flood deposited the sedimentary rock in which these caves are found.

Rates of cave dissolution: a moot point?

In an earlier post, I discussed the use of speleothems (such as stalagmites) in paleoclimatology, concluding that since we can use multiple independent methods to estimate the age and growth rate of secondary formations, the thousands of speleothems older than ~5,000 years already contradict the global flood hypothesis. I stand by this evidence, and if you are also convinced by it, then it may seem pointless to discuss how long it takes to dissolve caves in the first place. On the other hand, evidence from radiometric dating seems abstract to some, and difficult to understand. I want to add a more tangible approach, therefore, to my argument.

Steve Austin's cave dissolution model regarding Kentucky limestone

In 1980, Austin published an ICR Acts and Facts article entitled "Origin of Limestone Caves", in which he argued that given the average rainfall in Kentucky, 59 cubic meters of limestone bedrock could be dissolved each year per square kilometer of land. To put that in perspective, 59 cubic meters is roughly equal to a room 13x13x13 feet in size (i.e. a large bedroom with a high ceiling), and a square kilometer encompasses about 8x8 residential blocks. Since caves dissolve preferentially along flow conduits, each city block might be underlain by a room-sized cavity after only 64 years. After ~4,000 years, the cave system would be equivalent in volume to two Wal-Mart Supercenters (236,000 cubic meters).

Dr. Austin believes that his calculations should alarm conventional geologists who reject his young-Earth timeline—and he is right, seemingly. Geologist Greg Neyman responded, however, that the residents of Kentucky, rather than 'uniformitarian geologists', should be concerned by these numbers, "since according to this creation science model, Kentucky would be so full of holes as to be unlivable." Greg is also correct.

Despite Greg's critique, young-Earth creationists continue to cite Austin's cave dissolution model without question (e.g. here). Conversely, geologists continue to assign long ages (tens to hundreds of thousands of years) to cave formation without any reference to Austin's proposed rate of dissolution. Why the lack of communication?

The problem with Dr. Austin's model is that he estimates cave formation to occur faster than the facts permit, but still too slowly to account for the world's large cave systems (like Mammoth Caves in Kentucky, on which he focuses). Even if we grant such rapid dissolution of limestone, it is still difficult to explain how the 500+ kilometers of passages found in Mammoth Caves could have formed since the Flood. Moreover, many of the world's large cave systems are filled with secondary formations (speleothems) that require themselves many years to form (see Appendix). Dr. Austin and others have thus addressed the problem by treating it in parts, and apparently with the expectation that nobody will recognize one plus one is actually larger than...one.

Fuzzy number crunching: how fast precisely?

For those not yet convinced, I want to examined Dr. Austin's calculations in detail. In short, he determines the amount of calcite that can be dissolved annually by 1) estimating the carbonate concentration of groundwater based on calcium concentration; 2) estimating the volume of groundwater that passes through the bedrock based on measured rainfall per square kilometer. Multiplying (1), a mass per volume, by (2), a volume, yields the mass of calcite dissolved each year per kilometer. Seems straightforward, right? Too simple! That is, until one verifies the assumptions that go into such a calculation.

First, Austin's model assumes that "about 1.0 meter of the 1.22 meters of mean annual rainfall go into the aquifer [i.e. groundwater]". He even prefaces the assumption with "it is reasonable to assume", but why? What makes this reasonable? Anyone reading this has access to Google Maps or a similar program that offers a bird's-eye view of Kentucky. What do you see? My map appears pretty green, because Kentucky is blanketed with trees—healthy ones at that. All of these trees require water, and any water taken up by trees does not infiltrate the bedrock. The process by which trees and other vegetation take up water from the soil is called transpiration. Precipitation can also return to the hydrologic cycle through evaporation. Collectively, these routes are referred to as evapotranspiration, and the Kentucky Climate Center reports a mean annual evapotranspiration rate of 32.77 inches for Kentucky.

To estimate the amount of rainfall that actually infiltrates the bedrock, we simply deduct 32.77 inches (0.83 meters) from the total rainfall amount: 48 inches (1.22 meters). The difference is 15.26 inches (0.39 meters), so Austin's model is already off by a factor of ~2.5. Within the article, Austin speculates that Kentucky may have received significantly more rain in the past, thereby soliciting credibility for his initial calculation. There is no direct evidence, however, of higher rainfall for Kentucky in the past 5,000 years—certainly not approaching 2.5 times modern values. Using real climate data, Austin's annually produced 59 cubic meter cave is thus reduced to 23.6 cubic meters (the equivalent of dropping the ceiling in our bedroom to only 5 feet). [Note: the evapotranspiration figure here is higher than I should have used; see comments for further discussion]

Secondly, Austin's model assumes that about 100% of the calcium in groundwater is derived from calcite dissolution. He argues to this point by noting that rainwater contains negligible amounts of calcium and magnesium, so it must all be derived from the ground. On this point, he is correct—calcium in rainwater accounts for much less than 1% that dissolved in groundwater. So what is the source of the remaining ~48.9 milligrams per liter of calcium?

Before water can infiltrate into the bedrock, it must pass through the active soil horizons (with the exception of water that falls very near disappearing streams). Soil horizons—particularly in forested ecosystems—are heavily enriched in calcium, because they contain the decayed litter of tree leaves and twigs. Trees and other vegetation actively take up calcium from the weathered bedrock through their roots, thereby enriching the uppermost soil horizons in calcium and other nutrients by several orders of magnitude.

Since calcite dissolves rather quickly in even slightly acidic rainwater, much of the 49 mg/L of calcium in groundwater is derived from the uppermost soil horizons, and not subsurface caverns. Recent work in monitoring calcium isotopes at spring outlets and along carbonate aquifers confirms this phenomenon, since 44Ca is heavily depleted in the O/A horizons and shifts the isotopic composition of groundwater negative (more so during the wet months).

Carbon isotopes in cave deposits also confirm that a bulk of the dissolved carbonate material is derived from the soil rather than the surrounding bedrock. The δ values of most soils is between -25‰ and -15‰, while limestone bedrock is close to 0‰ (give or take). Carbon isotope values of speleothems are commonly between -10‰ and -2‰, reflecting a mixing value between the soil and bedrock signatures.

If the calcium in Austin's equation is derived largely from the soil and not the expanding cave, then his estimate is wrong by nearly an order of magnitude. Austin is far from explaining the presence of large caverns—certainly in humid climates like Kentucky or Southeast Asia, but more so in arid climates like the American Southwest or Israel/Turkey, which he neglects to mention.

Conclusion

Cave dissolution occurs neither as rapidly nor as simply as Austin proposes. Soil activity, groundwater chemistry, and the presence of joints and faults in the bedrock play a significant role. Austin's young-Earth model can benefit from none of these, however, since 1) rich soils could not have been present immediately after the flood, 2) pore waters would have been saturated in carbonate, and 3) joints and faults cannot form to serve as flow conduits in unconsolidated sediment (i.e. soft sediment that hasn't yet been cemented together). More recent estimates suggest that cave conduits typically widen by less than a centimeter every ten years—a far cry from Austin's 59-meter-long tunnel.

Along with speleothem formation, the problem of cave dissolution remains an immovable stumbling block to the young-Earth creationist, who must propose that both processes can complete in a few thousands of years. The massive, decorated caverns across the world may stand as testament to the beauty of God's creation, but they strongly preclude the notion of a recent, global flood. Our time is better spent, I believe, reconciling these observations with scripture to better understand both.

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Appendix

Austin devotes a section to secondary formations, but seems to have little experience on the matter. He notes, for example, that radiocarbon dating had been used to date speleothems but rejects the validity of these dates. He claims rather that the carbonate minerals should give deceptively old dates because the bedrock should contain little or no radioactive carbon. That is true, but geologists involved in dating speleothems already know this, so they assume that only a portion of the calcite in speleothems was derived from the atmosphere (i.e. soil-derived carbon) to calculate their dates. Austin's skepticism is rooted, therefore, in a non sequitur.

At the time Austin's article was written, speleothem analysis was in its infancy, so I must give him the benefit of the doubt. But his attempt at explaining the rate of speleothem growth is shown obviously to be flawed. Regarding a 2-meter stalagmite called "Great Dome", he states:

"A large stalagmite like Great Dome may contain 100 million cubic centimeters of calcite, which, if accumulated in 4,000 years, would require a deposition rate of 25,000 cubic centimeters...yearly. If the dripping water is assumed to deposit 0.5 gram of calcite per liter, 133,000 liters of water would have to drip over the stalagmite each year. Because about 6,000 drops comprise 1 liter, it would take about 800 million drops of water per year to form the stalagmite. This works out to 25 drops of water per second...Whether a stalagmite would be deposited in the above hypothetical situation is not known." (emphasis added)

Anyone that even owns a faucet should know that a drip rate of 25 drops per second is absurd. I would challenge Austin to find even a man-made device that could produce such a phenomenon. Regardless, the answer to Austin's question is no, a stalagmite could not be deposited in this situation. The reason is that each drip requires time to degas and partially evaporate—otherwise it will not precipitate calcite, because, as Austin himself stated, the water is undersaturated with respect to calcite. Despite a noble attempt and a novel approach, Dr. Austin cannot explain the existence of caves and their decorations in a young-Earth paradigm.

Wednesday, August 10, 2011

Book Review (Part 3): Ken Ham's uncompromising approach to alternate views on creation and the flood

In this final post (see Part 1 and Part 2 prior), I want to begin by giving credit where it is due.* Despite my critical comments on the method employed by Ken Ham and Greg Hall, I can sympathize with their prime motivation. Greg Hall explains (p. 104):

"In general, believers have failed to bring Christian truth to bear in society. As a result, we have a culture that has moved far away from God. We have a culture that does not consult the Word of God. We as Christians are not salt and light to our world and we have lost our influence—for the time being."

In this, he is absolutely right. Modern evangelicalism has learned well how to get people 'in the door' and excited about what God has in store for them. Quite frequently, however, this is done by reducing the gospel message to the proverbial icing on one's moralistic cake, as if to say: "Your life is good now, but the message of Jesus will give it purpose and remove the guilt surrounding your shortcomings." Such a reductionistic form of the gospel not only lacks the most central aspect—the lordship of Christ—but prevents believers from fulfilling their true vocation to the world—a lamp, not a safety deposit box. Greg hits the nail on the head, I believe, in this section.

Earlier in the book (p. 38), Greg observed that "the anti-Christian, atheistic segment of our culture has become very militant." This statement needs little justification, though he offers a brief body of evidence. Few Christians would disagree, moreover, that an active defense of the gospel and biblical authority is required now more than ever. In this regard, I can only commend the authors for upholding what they see as a faithful response to that call. My critique is meant, therefore, to be constructive; I want to see them succeed in this arena.

But Greg later raises the practical question of church unity, about which he says (p. 161):

"We are often told we should be concentrating on our unity in Christ alone...but this view ignores a larger question — can we separate the centrality of Christ from the authority of His Word?"

Since this view itself rests in the centrality of Christ and the authority of His word, we need to understand Greg's nuanced form of the challenge. Nobody asserts that unity in Christ can be sought apart from biblical authority, so Greg is once more appealing to a specific hermeneutic (reading) of Scripture that he feels is integral to the mission. Put another way, Greg feels that anyone curtailing a literalistic reading of the Genesis narrative is somehow undermining the centrality of Christ and His word. My counter perspective aside, it is vital to understand this foundational mentality if one is to approach the YEC movement with any meaningful interaction.

On a final note in passing, Ken devoted a full chapter to analyzing variegated responses from the President and Vice-President of each college (or the equivalent position to these titles). I will not elaborate on these results, because I think they are the most interesting of the study. If you want to know why the two head administrators are commonly not on the same page, or whether that is beneficial in education, then I suggest you buy the book!

Alternative views on creation: why won't Ken compromise?


Ken's ministry has devoted an enormous amount of time and money defending what it believes to be a spotless presentation of the biblical worldview. Further, he believes (p. 172) that the Answers in Genesis article database represents the honest research of "biblical-creation scientists and theologians," who have provided solid answers to evidential arguments against a young-Earth paradigm. Within this backdrop, I do not doubt Mr. Ham's sincerity with regard to his beliefs. Nonetheless, I am taken back by the way in which he interacts with those postulating alternative viewpoints. In response to the poll results, he summarizes (p. 127, emphasis added):

"What we appear to have is a basic biblical illiteracy among some of the leaders and professors of Christian colleges. Not only are their responses contradictory to the clear teachings of Scripture, but they are also inconsistent with themselves. This is far, far from “thinking Christianly.” Perhaps this is because most of them have never been trained in it, and are therefore stuck in a quagmire of belief, where they claim to believe in Scripture but are really being influenced by the secular worldview."

As we saw earlier, the supposed inconsistency among respondents results only from Ken's rigid, but flawed, schema by which he has interpreted the results. Whether these responses are contradictory to biblical teaching is perhaps a question better answered by theologians—most of whom disagree with Ken on how to read the Bible. Ken's accusation that respondents are not "thinking Christianly" is therefore not only inappropriate, but somewhat ironic. Moreover, it reveals the dogmatism of his position, in that he precludes the possibility that his 'opponents' have reasoned to their perspectives by thinking critically through the body of evidence. Rather, he proclaims that the only explanation behind their dissension is a full-fledged, but unstated, capitulation to "the secular worldview" (as though there were just one!).

Picking on Professors: John Walton and the Lost World of Genesis One


In one of the appendices (entitled Speaking of Newspeak), Ken examines the opposing views of several Christian professors that have published recently on the origins debate. Among them are William Dembski, best known for his work on 'Intelligent Design', Davis Young (co-author of The Bible, Rocks, and Time), Karl Giberson (former director of Biologos), William Lane Craig, Bruce Waltke, Howard J. Van Till, John Collins, and more. Ken's method of examination, however, involves little more than following carefully selected quotes from the respective authors with a witty, rhetorical remark that belies the crucial context of each quote. For example, when Karl Giberson raises several literary challenges to the young-Earth paradigm out of the biblical text, Ken simply remarks (p. 182):

"So, no literal Fall, no literal Adam and Eve — so much for Christianity!"

Ken seems to think, therefore, that his readers will not care to pick up—let alone read—the full work of each author cited, and I think he has made a safe assumption. Unfortunately, he has managed to 'shock' most of his readers into thinking 'Wow, this is weird. I better stay away from these people!' This tactic is hardly conducive to critical thinking, let alone church unity.

Mr. Ham's rhetorical remarks are hardly worth exploring further, but I do want to comment on his treatment of Dr. John Walton of Wheaton College. In his book The Lost World of Genesis One, Dr. Walton uses comparative literature and cultural studies to elucidate the literal meaning of the famous creation narrative. Therein, he concludes that the Genesis account has nothing to do with the material origin of things, but describes in semi-poetic prose how God pronounced function to, and took up residence in the universe—His 'cosmic temple'. This interpretation explicitly denies all forms of scientific concordism (Young and Old Earth). Walton believes, therefore, that questions about the age of the Earth, evolution, etc. are left to the scientific disciplines, and that no predictions can/should be made from the text of Genesis.

Although Walton's proposal is bound to ruffle many feathers among concordist traditions, his argument is well developed, and appeals to biblical texts alongside recently discovered literature from the Ancient Near East (i.e. the lost world in which Genesis was written). The result is an interpretation of Genesis that 1) remains faithful to the historical-redemptive tradition of biblical theology, 2) is consistent with ancient near eastern culture and worldviews, and 3) does not force contradiction with geological evidence regarding Earth history. As an aside, his interpretation also creates the most beautiful picture of the creation narrative that I have come across.

That being said, let's take a look at how Ken responds. He says (p. 185):

"[Walton] basically insists that one can only understand Genesis if one has an understanding of ancient Near Eastern thinking — and surprise, surprise — this has been lost for thousands of years. Now a few academics like Dr. Walton have unearthed this thinking so now they can tell us what the writer of Genesis 1 really meant! It is an academic elitism."

Ken's charge of academic elitism is easily reversed. After familiarizing myself with YEC literature and the article database at Answers in Genesis, I started to wonder years ago whether anyone could have truly understood the meaning of Genesis 1–11 without grasping general relativity, nuclear physics, catastrophic plate tectonics, seafloor oceanography, accelerated nuclear decay, and accelerated speciation after Noah's ark landed! But now a few academics like Russell Humphreys, John Baumgardner, Steve Austin, and Andrew Snelling have properly applied these concepts so that I might understand passages like Genesis 1:2–3 to mean that the entire mass of the universe began as a sphere of water that collapsed and rebounded like a neutron star after God altered the cosmological constant!

Opting for frivolous attacks on personal character, Ken has thus failed to grasp the principle of Walton's approach: if we wish to understand the original meaning of Genesis 1, we have to understand the cultural and literary world in which it was written. But that culture has in fact been lost for more than two millennia, starting with the fall of the Persian/Babylonian empires. New Testament scholars commonly use contemporary literature to elucidate Jesus' parables, or Paul's Caesar/Christ antithesis—why not do the same for Genesis? Unfortunately, ancient near eastern literature has only been uncovered in the past century and a half, before which 1800 years of Christian dogmatics (influenced partly by Greek/Roman cultures) had already been firmly established.

On the other hand, the only part of Walton's proposal with which Ken should really take issue is that it rejects scientific concordism. Walton does not deny the biblical doctrine of creation—only that Genesis might be used to formulate scientific hypotheses! In fact, Walton makes it clear that his view of Genesis 1 does not necessarily contradict the notion of a young Earth. Ken doesn't buy it though (otherwise he wouldn't have an argument), and responds (p. 185):

"Walton tries (unsuccessfully) to insist that he is not coming up with this new idea of his because of the influence of evolution/millions of years...He knows that young people today have a conflict between the secular view of origins and the Bible — so his solution is to relegate Genesis 1 as having nothing to do with material origins and thus people are free to believe whatever they want..."

Mr. Ham's caricature again reveals the dogmatism behind his own stance. He denies a priori the possibility that Walton's line of reasoning is actually based on the evidence cited in the book. Walton devotes a whole chapter to explaining why the ancients would not be concerned with material origins, since they did not separate 'natural' from 'supernatural' and it was assumed by the culture that anything 'material' existed because of the divine. Rather than dealing with that evidence, Ken raises the unwarranted charge that ulterior motives are at play—motives rooted in secular, humanistic philosophy, no less!

In the next paragraph, Ken redirects Walton's hermeneutic into a personal attack on none other than the Reformers, as though Dr. Walton's prime goal is to be the only person that has properly understood Genesis (apparently Ken does not understand how scholarship works?). I can't imagine how Ken Ham would defend Luther against the charge that he was engaging in academic elitism by offering to be the first person in 1400 years to properly understand justification and the law! Moreover, did Calvin deny the pontifical authority of the Pope so that "people are free to believe whatever they want"? Wisdom is justified by all her children.

Ken further believes that "Dr. Walton has a different view of inspiration to that of Drs. Whitcomb and Morris...our AiG staff, and millions of other Christians around the world" (p. 189), because he appeals to extrabiblical cultural and textual evidence. Is Ken thus admitting that we should never appeal to evidence outside the biblical text to elucidate the biblical text? Ironically, Ken follows with a discussion on the meaning of θεοπνευστος in 2 Timothy 3:16, as though Dr. Walton is unaware of the Greek language. I cannot help but to ask—given that Mr. Ham is Australian and not a 1st-century Greek—did Ken consult a lexicon to obtain this meaning? Does he believe that lexicons are authoritative on matters of faith? He continues:

"If the infinite God, who created language, cannot move people to write His “God-breathed” words so all people (regardless of culture) can understand them, then there is something dreadfully wrong."

Of course, Dr. Walton never suggested that nobody has understood Genesis, and he affirms the orthodox doctrine of creation. Ken thus misses the point. On the contrary, Walton favors the power of story and narrative to transcend time and culture over against 'scientific' accounts. On page 17 of his own book, he brilliantly explains:

"If God were intent on making his revelation correspond to science, we have to ask which science...By its very nature science is in a constant state of flux. If we were to say that God's revelation corresponds to "true science" we adopt an idea contrary to the very nature of science. What is accepted as true today, may not be accepted as true tomorrow, because what science provides is the best explanation of the data at the time...So if God aligned revelation with one particular science, it would have been unintelligible to people who lived prior to the time of that science, and it would be obsolete to those who live after that time. We gain nothing by bringing God's revelation into accordance with today's science. In contrast, it makes perfect sense that God communicated his revelation to his immediate audience in terms they understood."

Dr. Walton's reasoning well reflects that of Calvin and Augustine, who famously warned against using Genesis as a book of science. Calvin and Augustine both accepted a young Earth, not because it was demanded by the biblical text, but in accordance with the best science of their day. Ken's discussion on the inspiration and authority of scripture over against extrabiblical data is but a misdirection that prevents readers from exploring the full meaning of Genesis. Is Ken really satisfied to say that Genesis 1 is a simple, eyewitness account with no theological structure and polemics? In trying to separate 'history' from 'theology' in the Genesis account, Mr. Ham does damage to both.

Ken concludes by citing Walton's view on the Flood (p. 190), wherein Dr. Walton says:

"It has already been suggested that the boat in Mesopotamian accounts [of the Flood] may have served as a floating shrine...In this sense the Mesopotamian ark appears as a physical representation of a sanctuary, while the Genesis ark appears as a functional representation of a sanctuary. Creation both in the Bible and in the ancient Near East entailed deity bringing order while pushing back chaos...In this sense, the flood represents a reversal of creation."

To which Ken sarcastically remarks, "Now that makes sense to the average person, doesn’t it? Why didn’t any Jews or Christians before the 20th century ever think of this?" Well yes, Ken, it does make sense. And I believe that even a brief survey of Christian and Jewish thought on the Flood will reveal that many have been able to make the simple connection between the ark and the tabernacle/temple, and between the flood and recreation themes throughout scripture (you can begin with my discussion here).

Amid the discussion, Ken complains (p. 189) that: "We are seeing academia in the Christian world going mad as “Protestant popes” are popping up all over the Christian world." Yet how does Mr. Ham exclude himself from this category? Or does he? If he responds that his worldview is actually biblical, then his dogmatic claim to the Cathedra Petri is once more revealed. If not, then his statement is empty, but I am inclined to think that Ken falls victim to his own accusation, which he further explicates on page 193 (emphasis added):

"Why are we seeing more and more bizarre and elitist ideas (like those of Dr. Dembski and Dr. Walton) coming out of Christian academia? I believe it is an academic pride, from academic peer pressure, because ultimately some of these people love “human praise more than praise from God” (John 12:43; NIV)."

I do pray that I am wrong on this matter, but the conclusion is difficult to escape as I follow the work of Answers in Genesis, including this book. I can see no other reason, at this point, that Ken refuses to interact with Christian academia on the meaning of the biblical text. Rather than heeding the advice of Christian colleagues, Ken renders judgment on their hearts and accuses them of loving men over God. Finally, he alienates his readers from their own culture and forces them to fight an unnecessary battle, while placing a stumbling block before a people today that desperately needs Christ.

After weighing two extremes, I have given this book two stars. If you disagree with my assessment, please feel free to comment (here or at Amazon.com). Below, I have summarized my thoughts:

Positive
1) This book contains real poll data from Christian colleges around the country. If you are interested in what faculty and administrators from Christian colleges believe about creation, the flood, and biblical authority, I recommend this book.
2) If you reject YEC, but have a vested interest in how it affects the church today, this book elucidates the mindset behind that paradigm in a way that online blogs and articles do not. I recommend this book if you want to know who Ken Ham is—what he believes and why he does what he does.
3) If this book were written by Greg Hall alone, I would be inclined to give it at least 3 to 4 stars. The sections written by Dr. Hall offer pastoral advice from a man who wants passionately to share his faith. Though I do not share his viewpoint on scripture, creation, etc., I appreciate his sincerity and his attempt to reason through the challenges of our culture today.
4) This book is an easy read, which I finished in less than two days while taking seven pages of notes. At right around $11, it will not require much of your time or money.

Negative
1) The authors continuously equivocate terms (like 'literal', or even 'science') to the disadvantage of respondents that disagree with them. Ken's handle on the poll data lacked any critical evaluation, and (like many articles from AiG) made the data irrelevant to what he was saying. In other words, the book could have been written without any poll data and obtained the same result.
2) Ken takes every opportunity to belittle Christian professors that offer alternative viewpoints, rather than dealing thoughtfully and humbly with their words. This sort of rhetoric made the book uncomfortable to read.
3) Ken employs a 'shock' tactic, whereby he cites a large portion of his opponent's own words and afterward refuses to engage in the discussion. Implicitly, he portrays the respective authors as 'weird', 'out of place', or 'misguided' without having to make his case. This strategy turned the book into an opinionated piece out of Ken's diary, rather than a scholarly work of any worth.
4) While this book contains numerous results from Ken's comprehensive poll, the raw data are not available! Much academic value could have been added to this book if the appendix were replaced by tables that detailed the responses to every question.

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

*I also want to thank Jennifer White and New Leaf Publishing Group for providing a copy of Already Compromised to me for review.

Saturday, July 30, 2011

Book Review (Part 2): Science vs. Religion (Departments)—which is more 'compromised' according to Ken Ham?

In the first post, I examined how Ken Ham and Greg Hall used a methodology similar to KJV Onlyists when interpreting poll results in their book Already Compromised. By arbitrarily defining their own views on creation as the singular, biblical worldview, they managed to transform a poll about personal beliefs into a test. Ken summarized the results thusly (p. 35):

"Overall, we found that only 24 percent of the 312 people surveyed answered every question correctly...and these are the “good guys”!"

Nobody can blame the authors for believing themselves to be in the right, but this attitude shifted the book from an academic discussion about Christian education into a pontifical monologue that precluded critical reflection.

Departmental matchup

Now, I want to consider how the authors compared the science and religion departments from each institution. As an introductory exercise, ask yourself how you might expect the heads of the science and religion departments to answer the same set of questions regarding biblical authority, literalism, and views on creation/Earth history. In which department would you expect to find more biblical literalists? Old-Earth creationists? Inerrantists? Let's take a look.

Biblical Inerrancy
As it turns out, the two departments were on the same page with regard to biblical authority, and a vast majority affirmed the inspiration, infallibility, and inerrancy of scripture. A slightly higher (but not statistically significant) percentage of Religion professors affirmed these three doctrines, to which Ken responded (p. 52, emphasis added):

"As you can see, the responses are fairly close, with the religion departments claiming a slightly higher view of Scripture than the science departments."

I am slightly bothered by the use of the comparative term "higher" in this context. More often than not, it is used pejoratively to speak of those who question modern definitions of inerrancy. The more I have studied the history of this doctrine, the more I have come to think its use is simply polemical—in other words, a method of protecting scripture from modernism and liberalism rather than a scripture-derived doctrine. The result is a number of odd discussions about how many times Jesus cursed the fig tree and cleansed the temple (e.g. here) or which calendar the gospel writers used to chronicle the passion week. In the end, readers miss the grand points of the gospel narratives and only push other believers into liberalism. Regardless of how you feel about the doctrine of inerrancy, Ken's treatment of this section is consistent with my hypothesis concerning his agenda.

How old is the Earth?
When asked specific questions on the historicity of Genesis 1–9, a higher percentage of respondents from the science department sided with Ken Ham. A whopping 78% of respondents from the religion departments considered themselves 'Old-Earth' Christians, compared to only 35% in the science department! Not surprisingly, Ken finds a moment to rejoice (p. 54):

"It turns out that the science department is much more biblical in their beliefs than the religion department!...The religion chairs and the Bible departments are choosing to be influenced by worldly philosophy rather than what the Bible clearly teaches concerning historical science and the facts of observational science that confirm the biblical record."

I suppose that's one way to put it. We might also consider, however, the fact that a vast majority of Christian scientists reject young-Earth creationism for lack of scientific evidence. If you are a professor of biblical studies with a literature background, how might you weigh the spurious evidence of radioactive carbon in diamonds and excess helium in zircons—especially when Christian scientists that work in radiocarbon and material science labs have exhaustively documented the bogus claims of RATE team studies? When faced with a factual decision on matters outside of our own expertise, we typically defer credibility to expert witnesses, and young-Earth creationists have neither the numbers nor the evidence on their side. Ken further speculates:

"This isn’t surprising, considering most of them attended seminaries that adhere to compromise views such as the “documentary hypothesis,” a theory that denies that Moses wrote a cohesive historical account of history in the first five books of the Bible."

To my knowledge, Ken did not poll respondents on their view of the documentary hypothesis (DH), but I am willing to speculate along with him that a higher percentage of religion professors accept it. The reason is that they deal directly with the textual and historical evidence on which it is based. But I highly doubt that acceptance of this theory is responsible for the divergence in opinion on the age of the Earth. Christian proponents of the DH do not reject the inspiration of scripture, for example, and nearly 90% of Ken's respondents affirmed the inerrancy of scripture.

The Pentateuchal authorship and date of composition is irrelevant, therefore, to whether one accepts the Genesis account as historical. If you already accept the narratives as divinely inspired, infallible, and inerrant, does it really matter when the text was written down or by whom? Even if the Flood narrative originated as an eyewitness account (I believe it did), the final Pentateuchal version has added theological imagery and structure. Besides, it is possible to deny that an eyewitness account is 100% accurate. Ken's hypothesis does little, in my opinion, to explain these results.

A better explanation for the departmental dichotomy can be found in their respective literary views of scripture. In the religion department, 73% of respondents believed the creation account is "literally true", but only 57% believe this was done in "six literal 24-hour days". As previously noted, Ken believes this is inconsistent and that respondents are simply confused and contradicting themselves. But in reality, these questions reveal that professors of religion have a better appreciation for the term "literal" than does Mr. Ham.

Another missing link in the train of thought might be found in how respondents view the biblical genealogies. Are they meant to help us back calculate dates for primeval events (like the flood and creation) or were they a later addition meant to add more than just biographical information to the stories? Students of the Bible from each department may approach this question differently, depending on how they normally treat numerical data. The same goes for understanding the days of creation. It is possible to affirm that God created in "six literal days" without attaching "24 hours" to those days and placing them at the head of Ussher's chronology.

When asked whether they thought faculty from the religion and science departments shared the same view on the age of the Earth, 81.5% of religion professors said "Yes" compared to only 36.5% from the sciences. What does this mean? Is there a miscommunication? Ken comments, "The religion department thinks everyone has the same view, but the science department tends to know better." I think Ken oversimplifies the matter, however, and actually overlooks the answer when discussing old vs. young earth views between the departments (p. 56):

"...what I am finding is that most Christian parents and students...expect that...it would be science professors who would be more likely to lean toward evolution/millions of years and that religion professors would be more likely to lean toward a literal creation."

That's exactly right, and it seems everyone had the same presumption. If you recall, 78% of religion professors called themselves 'Old-Earth' Christians—about the same number that believe the science department is on the same page. Conversely, 57% of science professors deem themselves "Young-Earth" Christians—about the same number that believe the religion department is on the same page.

Ken's poll thus confirmed what the general perception has always been: 'millions of years' is a personal tenant of scientists, but people that teach the Bible for a living invariably believe in a young Earth. Of course, the poll also exposed this dichotomy as a myth—most professors in biblical studies do not believe in a young-Earth or a literalistic approach to Genesis.

Ken's refusal to learn from his own test
Although Ken claims not to have been surprised by the results from each department, he does seem bothered that most professors of biblical studies don't share his take on the Bible. So why don't faculty in the religion department adopt his hermeneutic? I think it is because his approach depends on a simplistic view of scripture that refuses to engage in literary, cultural, or historical critical studies—not what you would expect from Ph.D.'s in literature, language, and history. Ironically, Ken blames it on their ignorance of science (p. 56):

"Can the religion department explain the existence of coal deposits and how they were formed? Can they explain the actual structure of the fossil record? Can they explain the assumptions behind radiometric dating methods? No, they can’t."

Judging by the articles offered at Answers in Genesis, neither can you, Mr. Ham. Ultimately, the physical evidence for 'creation science' only makes sense within a non-scientific, young-Earth paradigm, where the conclusion is known from the outset. It seems most folks in the religion department recognize the flawed methodology of young-Earth creationism, and prefer to appeal to people who actually conduct scientific research. This frustrates Ken further, as he tells us (p. 56, emphasis added):

"When I engage liberals from the religion departments...most of them repeat the familiar mantra: “Science has proven that evolution/ millions of years is true.” But when I ask them for specifics, they often don’t have much of a clue, as they are depending on some other authority. If I ask them why they believe in an old earth, they invariably answer, “Because of radiocarbon dating.” But any scientist should know that the radiocarbon dating method can’t be used for something that is supposedly millions of years old."

True, but it can show us how many thousands of objects are older than Noah's flood (trees, sediments, caves, etc.) and the Garden of Eden. It also shows that marine and lake sediments have been accumulating continuously—without catastrophic interruption—for the past 10, 20, or even 50 thousand years.

I suspect Ken might answer with a story about the pre-Flood biomass and post-Flood volcanics diluting the carbon cycle; or a pre-Flood atmosphere that blocked out radiation, or any number of hypotheses contrary to the facts—as long as it protects his reading of scripture. But in the end, the radiocarbon method stands as solid evidence against the young-Earth paradigm, and these professors are justified in citing it. Ken cannot explain, for example, the agreement of radiocarbon dating with U-Th disequilibrium dating (which is unrelated to the factors above), or with tree ring, ice core, and varve counts; or how Native American campfires could date to ~11,000 years ago when they must have burnt long after the Flood.

Conclusion
When asked whether they consider themselves a ‘young-earth or old-earth Christian’, more than twice the respondents from the religion department answered ‘old-earth’ than in the science department. Ken found this result "intriguing and very disturbing.” Ironically, Ham’s approach to science is rooted in a dogmatic dependence on his literalistic reading of Genesis—a reading rejected by the vast majority of professors of religion, according to his own poll. But Ken is too nearsighted to see what this means, and so he hides behind yet another defense mechanism to explain the unexpected result: “The science department tends to know better.”

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

This review will be continued in Part 3: Ken Ham's uncompromising approach to alternate views on creation and the flood.

**A condensed version of this book review is available on Amazon, where I gave the book two stars. If you have found the discussion helpful, please vote for the review there.

Friday, July 29, 2011

Book Review (Part 1): Ken Ham takes a page from the KJV-Onlyists in 'Already Compromised'

In their recent book Already Compromised, authors Ken Ham and Greg Hall sound a warning call to parents enrolling their children at Christian colleges around the country. Why the alarm? As it turns out, not every Christian academic shares Ham's view on creation and Earth history. Presumably, students and parents alike opt for Christian higher education to avoid the influence of 'secularism' (i.e. evolution and 'millions of years'), but what "they don’t know," according to Ham, "is that, like the secular schools they wish to avoid...a growing number of the Christian schools they attend are...Already Compromised" (p. 8).

The book begins with a rather simple overview that chronicles the transition of Ivy League seminaries in America to secularized universities. Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Dartmouth—all began as modest institutions designed to raise up ministers in the Puritan and Protestant traditions. But to meet the demands of a growing and diversifying economy, and preserve their stature as major beacons to American intellectuals, these universities adopted principles of academic—and hence religious—freedom in their curriculum. Mr. Ham is correct about one thing: it is mildly disheartening to see the spiritual foundations of our university system blurred in a fog of relativism. But if schools such as Harvard had maintained the narrow disciplinary focus and guidelines that Ham envisions, they would not today be known to us as Harvard, etc., but as that little ol' seminary in Massachusetts.

Regardless of how one thinks the Ivy League schools should have responded to intellectual movements of the past 400 years, we can still ask whether Christian colleges today should follow a similar path. Ken Ham thinks not. In fact, he believes the transition has already begun, and that it's time to take a stand. Ham and Hall polled 312 faculty/administration from ostensibly Christian institutions to assess 'how bad' the situation really is. "Christian colleges took a test on the state of their faith," reads the subtitle, "and the results are in!" If you read the back cover, you might expect the results to be "revealing and shocking!"

But if you've paid any attention to the origins debate in recent years, then prepare to be utterly unsurprised.

Method and agenda

I love polls, and I love pondering the results. Therefore, I would recommend this book to everyone simply on the basis that it contains a detailed analysis of what faculty and administration believe about creation, the age of the Earth, and biblical authority. An independent research group polled faculty/deans from both the science and religion departments, as well as the President and Vice-President of each institution. Both Catholic and Protestant schools were represented. Some institutions required faculty to sign a statement of faith; others did not. Regardless of whether this book properly interpreted the results, the data are bound to be informative and stimulating.

Unfortunately, it seemed the authors had a predetermined agenda that even guided the wording of their poll. "We are at war," writes Greg Hall, "against thoughts...raised up against the knowledge of God...aimed at the minds of our children." (p. 37) Few Christians would disagree, I think, until one recognizes how the authors categorically limit "the knowledge of God." Ken Ham clarifies, anecdotally, "I consider the view of taking a strong stand on six literal days and a young earth as the correct biblical view, and the other views are incorrect."

So this poll is not so much about understanding the diversity in Christian opinion as it is exposing educators that would dare disagree with Ken Ham or Answers in Genesis. Since I am familiar with Ham's work, and the articles that appear at Answers in Genesis, I was not surprised by his suspect methodology (ambiguously worded questions and equivocation of answers). My hope, however, is that you will find it in yourself to think critically through this work, and consider that Ham and Hall may have overstated the case.

KJV Onlyism—what's the connection?

Not far into the 236-page book, I felt that I was reading inside of an echo chamber. Ham's hermeneutic, which I hope to elucidate in the following sections, was eerily familiar. Years ago, I became interested in the field of textual criticism, which seeks to reconstruct the original text of the Bible using variant manuscripts. In short, ancient (hand-written) copies of the Bible do not agree with each other letter for letter, but contain textual variations. A majority of these differences are as meaningless as spelling errors and accidental word omissions (i.e. 'typos'), but a sufficient number of major variants (i.e. additional or variant vocabulary, sentences, or even paragraphs that affect the meaning of a text) exist to keep scholars busy under piles of newly discovered papyri.

Most Christians ignore the issue of textual criticism, or see it as unfruitful. Others, however, are disturbed  that we can't know with 100% certainty the original words of Scripture, and even repulsed by the idea of a 'critical text'. Are these really the words of Jesus and the apostles? Can we still trust the Bible?

This sort of skepticism in Christianity is fertile ground for what is called the King James Version Only movement. Reacting to what they perceive as a threat to the authority of God's word, KJV Onlyists have posited that God inspired an English translation of the biblical text for our day and age. Which version is that? Well, the 1611 King James Authorized Version, of course! Never mind that the KJV was updated a century later, and ultimately rests on the textual critical work of Desiderius Erasmus. KJV Onlyists have elegantly dodged debates surrounding the elusive original text by arbitrarily defining a new datum. [Before moving on, I should note that KJV Onlyism comes in many forms, and I have intentionally simplified the debate here; see The King James Only Controversy by Dr. James White for an excellent, scholarly overview.]

After the King James Version of the Bible has been dogmatically defined as the standard for God's word, rational discourse effectively comes to a halt. If the NIV or NASB do not contain a word or phrase that is found in the KJV (e.g. 1 John 5:7), it is because translators of the newer versions are trying to manipulate God's word (in this case, by willfully removing a prooftext for the Trinity). In the mind of some KJV Onlyists, the appeal to more ancient and widely attested manuscript evidence is but a contrivance of academic elitism—or worse, a Satanic conspiracy.

Within this paradigm, one can only imagine how a poll might be conducted of faculty at Christian colleges. Imagine that you were faced with the following questions:

1. Do you believe the Bible is the Word of God?
(a) Yes
(b) No

2. Do you regularly read the Word of God?
(a) Yes
(b) No

3. Which version of the Bible do you read?
(a) King James Version
(b) New International Version
(c) New American Standard Version
(d) English Standard Version

Now consider the following (hypothetical) results:

1: (a) 97% (b) 3%
2: (a) 87% (b) 13%
3: (a) 11% (b) 42% (c) 15% (d) 32%

To the average person, these data may simply represent current opinions on the doctrine of inspiration or the palpability of each English Bible to the modern reader. But to the KJV Onlyist, there is only one right set of answers: a, a, and a. If an ardent KJV Onlyist were reporting the results, he/she might even comment that 'although 97% of respondents believe the Bible is the Word of God, and still 87% claim to read it, a whopping 89% are apparently confused, because they admit to reading something that is not the Word of God (i.e. the King James Bible) but a secularized corruption! Don't they realize that their answers for 1 and 3 are contradictory?'

If you think this kind of analysis would be misleading, and only muddles the results of the poll, then you can understand my frustration in reading Already Compromised. Consider, for example, the following set of questions from Ham's poll (p. 21–22):

13. Do you believe the Genesis 1–2 account of creation is literally true?
• Yes: 83.0%   • No: 14.7%   • Don't know: 2.2%

16. Do you believe in God creating the earth in six literal 24-hour days?
• Yes: 59.6%   • No: 38.5%

17. Do you believe in God creating the earth, but not in six literal days?
• Yes: 47.1%   • No: 50.6%   • Don't know: 2.2%

How would you respond? I would answer Yes, No, and No. The reason is that I have no trouble adhering to a 'literal' reading of Genesis 1–2 or proclaiming that God created things in 6 'literal' days, but I see no reason to believe these chapters have anything to do with the passage of time on Earth. Rather, it pertains to the 'work week' of the timeless God. Nonetheless, Ken believes my answers to be inconsistent, and so he comments (p. 22, emphasis added):

"It’s clear that we have some confusion here...people didn’t always mean what they said. For example, 83 percent said that they believe Genesis 1 and 2 are literally true. But when we asked whether they believe God created in six literal days, only 59.6 percent answered yes. That means about 23 percent are either confused, wrong, or just haven’t thought this through...Questions 16 and 17 are virtually the opposites of each other...but almost 10 percent of the people answered yes to both questions, indicating that they believe in six literal days of creation and they don’t believe in six literal days of creation!"

Ken's fiat declaration that a literal reading of Genesis requires a 24-hour day, young-Earth model—though well intentioned—is but an artifact of his own hubris. These results merely imply that respondents do not agree with Ken on what the 'literal' reading of Genesis is—not that they are confused or "wrong"! Nonetheless, he continues (p. 34): "nearly four in five who adhere to an old-earth theory believe the Bible is literally true. Keep in mind these two concepts are polar opposites." Like those who limit God's word to a 17th-century translation of the former, Ken has limited the meaning of God's word to his own interpretation, and then acts surprised to find that not everyone follows his line of reasoning.

The inquisition doesn't end at Genesis 2, of course. Ken goes on to analyze respondents' take on the Flood (p. 53, emphasis added): "Notice that while 75 percent and 84 percent said they believe the Bible is literally true, only slightly more than half...believe in a literal worldwide flood! Approximately 25 percent are being inconsistent in their answers." But a question like "Do you believe the Bible is literally true?" is very different from "Do you believe the entire Earth was covered with water several thousand years ago, during which continents rearranged, entire mountain chains were formed, and 99% of animals went extinct as they were buried under miles of sediment; and that every individual terrestrial/avian species today (including humans) is descended from the survivors of a 450-foot long wooden boat?"

Since Ken already knows the diversity of Christian opinion on the Flood story, I find it curious that he would deem it appropriate to phrase the questions as he did. It seems to me that he is creating an experiment in which he already knows the results, and plans to use the data to meet the needs of his agenda. One might give Ken the benefit of the doubt, however, and assume that he doesn't understand how the word 'literal' is or ought to be used. That assumption, accurate or not, is key to his recurring rhetoric. He notes, for example, that

"79.1 percent of those who believe the earth is old also believe that the Bible is literally true. The word “literally true” apparently means nothing to them." (p. 123, emphasis added)

No, Mr. Ham. The phrase "literally true" apparently means too little to yourself. Ken hits the nail on the head in page 83, where he says (regarding the 'global' nature of the Flood):

"...even those words donʼt necessarily mean to these academics what they mean to us. Iʼm not saying that theyʼre necessarily being deceptive; theyʼre just not being descriptive. If you want to find out what they really mean, you have to ask very specific questions."

That is absolutely correct. Moreover, you should recognize that the word 'literal' is hardly descriptive in and of itself, in part because our common, connotative use of the word diverges in meaning from the academic use. We don't believe that a 'literal' reading of Genesis requires belief in a young-Earth, or a recent, worldwide, geological catastrophe. Period. To reconcile that point, we must consider what the respondents actually had in mind regarding 'literal' this, and 'literal' that.

The literal literalism of lexical absolutism

I normally try to avoid speaking of the 'literal' reading of Scripture, because I see it a moot point to affirm or deny that God's word is 'literally true'. Regardless of one's answer, it will invariably die the death of a thousand qualifications: "Well, that part is actually metaphorical...and this here is an allegory...and we need archaeology to help us understand these numbers, etc."

We commonly use the word 'literally' in the following, nuanced sense: "I didn't think you would take me literally when I said to 'go fly a kite'!" In other words, 'literal' is pitted against 'figurative'. But in literary analysis, we can speak of 'literal' as being according to the letter—i.e. the plainest meaning of the text as the original audience might understand it. Simply put, there is no consensus on what the 'literal' reading of scripture actually is. But when exegetes speak of the 'literal' reading of the text, they are really asking "What did the original author intend this to mean?"

To answer this question requires some work in determining the literary genre and normal use of vocabulary, as well as the cultural and historical context of each letter. Since Genesis was written more than 3,000 years ago, we are far removed from those contexts, and have only recently uncovered the literary world in which Genesis 1–9 was drafted. Consequently, interpretations of Genesis across history are as fluid as the nuanced usages of its vocabulary. Consider, for example, how the phrase 'And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures..."' might sound to a 4th-century Greek fisherman versus a 21st-century American marine biologist.

Ken Ham and other young-Earth creationists (YECs) try to avoid the obscurity of ancient Near-Eastern cosmologies by committing, arbitrarily, to a flat-footed reading of the text. In other words, they demand a one-to-one correspondence between the text and its meaning. Rather than sowing confusion in throwing around the term 'literal', I would rather term this hermeneutic lexical absolutism, or simply literalism, because it appeals to modern dictionary definition over contextual meaning.

Such a distinction will require YECs to be more specific, particularly when discussing 'biblical truth'. At one point, Greg Hall complains (p. 42):

"I have heard other scholars say that “the Bible is true in all it affirms” (whatever that means)..."

What this means is that the Bible is true in what God meant it to say, not what you think it says. Despite his sarcasm, Greg applies the same principle in denying geocentricism or a flat Earth (or evolution, for that matter), because although some may use the biblical text to find support for any of the above, Greg could simply respond, "Oh, but that's not what the Bible ever intended to teach; you're twisting its words!" Fair enough. The accusation goes both ways, however, so the principle that Greg cites is, at very least, an admission that the human understanding of scripture inevitably results from a fallible, hermeneutical exercise. We affirm the inspiration, infallibility, and perspicuity of scripture by faith. But we also recognize the necessity of semper reformanda—that we should always be reforming our thought—in light of the human tendency to place tradition and personal interest above God's word. Greg continues:

'...but they go on to say that it...should be trusted only in matters of faith, not matters of science. That equivocation is heresy to me, considering that...“all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.”'

His citation is from 2 Timothy 3:16, which is the classic prooftext for inspiration and the sufficiency of scripture to bind the Christian conscience. Paul's fourfold use of scripture here pertains specifically to matters of Christian faith, however, and not to 'matter-of-fact' statements about astronomy, geology, and biology. In the surrounding context, Paul explains to Timothy how scripture is able to make one "wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus"—a matter of faith—"so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work"—a matter of Christian practice.

One may affirm Paul's exhortation in 2 Timothy, therefore, without demanding that Genesis clarify principles of geology. So what is the motivation behind Ken's and Greg's insistence on a 'literal' reading of Genesis that places God's word at odds with the evidence from creation? I think it is to protect believers from having to engage in the origins debate properly, and deal with the theological implications of an old Earth where life evolves to diversify. But instead, it portrays the author of Genesis 1–9 as an unimaginative stenographer, rather than a deep, theological thinker, who saw history and theology as intimately connected and sought to explicate his God's redemptive work through poetic narrative.

Admitting that the latter portrait may have been responsible for the Genesis text will require some humility on our part as we try to unravel the worldview of that author. Young-Earth creationists may have the hermeneutic advantage by avoiding the hard questions, but their arbitrary simplification does not make the problems go away. It merely leads to a picture of Earth history that has less and less to do with reality, all for the sake of maintaining an "us vs. them" mentality with regard to the doctrine of creation. There is no better way, in my opinion, to compromise the minds of our young ones than to root their faith in the spurious evidence for a young Earth and a global flood.

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

This review is continued in Part 2: Science vs. Religion (Departments)—which is more 'compromised' according to Ken Ham?

**A condensed version of this book review is available on Amazon, where I gave the book two stars. If you have found the discussion helpful, please vote for the review there.

Tuesday, July 26, 2011

Looking for a quick, eloquent explanation of evolution and common descent?

Thus far, I have not commented on topics that deal with biological evolution. As stated in my introductory article, my aim was to avoid the subject—not because it is controversial, but rather because it is beyond my expertise. Nonetheless, I wanted to share some reflections from my recent attempt to better grasp the subject. At the end of this article, I have linked a helpful video that discusses the genetic evidence for common descent, and human evolution in particular. Please, check it out!

Deciphering life's message in the rocks

As a geologist, I have a vested academic interest in biological evolution. For one, I have collected thousands of fossiliferous rock samples, and want to understand why specific fossil forms appear where they do in the rock record. And although I am not a paleontologist, these concepts do intercept with my primary disciplinary focus—biogeochemistry. To be succinct, the field of biogeochemistry studies how the chemical interaction of the oceans, atmosphere, rocks, and life have shaped the history of our planet. Why did mass extinctions occur? What caused periods of warming/cooling, and how did the planet respond? How did new organisms fill the niches left vacant by the 'victims' of oceanographic and atmospheric perturbations? When and how did oxygen fill the atmosphere and, conversely, when and how did carbon dioxide become depleted? Understanding the evolution of organisms is integral to every one of these questions when examined on long-term—or geologic—timescales.

For the most part, my schooling and research has only required a modest familiarity with evolutionary processes and the fossil record. In trying to publish my most recent research, however, I had to wrestle with questions about how the ecology of Earth's oceans would respond to a world of rising oxygen, falling carbon dioxide, an increase in major nutrient (phosphate/nitrate) availability, and a decrease in redox-sensitive nutrients (e.g. iron). In other words, how did organisms evolve to survive this dramatically changing world, and what kind of chemical (e.g. isotopic) record would they leave?

I apologize for thinking out loud here in jargon-ridden phrases, but I hope you can appreciate how the major sciences intertwine, and why I am pursuing a better understanding of evolutionary theory. Yes, I have taken basic biology courses and contributed to paleontological research, but these produced more questions than they answered.

Where next?

At the same time, I am aware of the controversy surrounding evolutionary theory in the mind of the general public, and particularly within the church. Personally, I do not have any objections to accepting biological evolution (on scientific or theological grounds), but I understand why many are skeptical of evolution in general, and why others are passionately opposed to accepting any part of it (let alone have it taught to their children!). Nonetheless, I find the emotionally driven, highly polarized 'non-discussion' that takes place between evolutionary biologists and their critics to be unfortunate at best, and childish at worst. Let me give you an example.

When I began my search, I purchased two best-sellers: The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins, and Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne. Yes, some might call this 'pop-science' writing, and an unusual place for a graduate student to seek science lessons. But I simply wanted to know from the start: "What do the most outspoken proponents of evolutionary theory believe is the best evidence?"

In short, I enjoyed reading both books. Their arguments transitioned smoothly from one to the next in logical fashion. When I finished, I thought: "Yeah, that sounds good. This is a well established theory." But I also felt disappointed. I had learned a majority of these arguments already, either years ago in science class or—strangely enough—while browsing through creationist literature! At very few points in each book did I come away with "Aha!" moments in response to novel explanations or examples of the evidence. That being said, Dawkins' explanation of the 'arms race' of evolutionary ecology (the 'tall forests' example), sexual selection, and DNA's role in embryology/development (the 'origami' analogy) were superb—I recommend them to any enquiring student of biology.

Unfortunately, these rather enlightening chapters were prefaced by numerous, rhetorical 'cheap shots' at creationists and an error-ridden explanation of isotopes and radiometric dating. Initially, his major defense against creationism was to call it a product of dogmatism, ignorance, and stupidity. But when Dawkins' touched on subjects that fell under my own expertise—namely, isotope geochemistry—I found that his information was erroneously translated from secondhand sources. In other words, he was arrogantly promoting false information about a subject in which he had never conducted research, because he didn't know enough to correct the errors. Not surprisingly, Dawkins can't seem to figure out why the percentage of people that reject evolution continues to grow.

Don't stop now!

Despite my criticism of Dawkins' approach (and, vicariously, many of his colleagues) to promoting evolutionary theory, my words should not be taken as an ad hominem attack on his conclusions. The evidence for common descent and biological evolution is considerable—overwhelming in some areas—and must be dealt with by any competing theory (of which there are none, currently). But if anyone is interested in convincing the public of this fact (or the church, for that matter), one must learn to address people with respect, while anticipating objections and presenting evidence against those objections. No skeptic of evolution will be convinced by the evidence from comparative anatomy and genomics, for example, if they believe that the challenge of 'irreducible complexity' is insurmountable. No skeptic of human evolution (common descent with the great apes) will be convinced by physical and genetic similarities if they believe 'common design' provides a viable, alternative explanation. Even if Dawkins is correct about evolution, he is preaching to the choir while alienating a majority of his audience.

But there is hope...

Recently, I came across the YouTube series entitled "Can an Evangelical Christian Accept Evolution?" by Dennis Venema—a biologist/geneticist at Trinity Western University and Senior Fellow of the Biologos Foundation. After reading his recent, autobiographical article at Biologos, I decided follow up on his work. I am posting the first video below in hopes that you will watch the full series (12 videos). Personally, I have never seen a better explanation of the genetic evidence for evolution. He cites original studies and presents the original data (so you can follow up on your own), while articulating each argument in an easily understandable manner. Best of all, he is respectful to the audience, their questions, and common objections to the evidence. Please, enjoy.*


*For those of you that prefer a written explanation, Dr. Venema's presentation above is taken from a 2010 ASA article (PDF found here).

Monday, July 18, 2011

Nebular hypothesis unwinds? New data recovered from the Genesis spacecraft elucidate Earth's planetisimal past

Following the latest science news, Brian Thomas at ICR commented here on a recent publication in Science regarding the Nebular Hypothesis. McKeegan et al., 2011 presented oxygen isotopic data collected from solar wind by the spacecraft Genesis, which crashed into Earth in 2004 (the collectors were recovered from the wreckage, surprisingly intact). The new data suggest that the inner planets did not derive their oxygen (in the minerals, not atmosphere) from a source that was isotopically homogenous with the sun. Judging by the tone of the article at ICR—titled NASA Data Derail Nebular Hypothesis—I fully expected that our understanding of the solar system was on the verge of a paradigm shift.

But I was wrong.

The Nebular Hypothesis remains intact, only corroborated by the new data. As it turns out, Mr. Thomas understood little, if anything, from the article in Science. In a single reference to McKeegan et al. (2011), Mr. Thomas says, "The bottom line is that the sun is "highly enriched" in oxygen, and astronomers have no idea why." The original article had nothing to do with oxygen concentrations, however, but with isotopic abundances. In other words, the sun is enriched in the ratio of 16O (light oxygen) to 17O and 18O (heavy oxygen)—not in oxygen itself. Second, the whole point of the article was to explain that we do know why the enrichment occurs. We just didn't know how much, because until now, nobody had been able to directly measure oxygen isotopes in solar materials.

The sun is enriched in the lighter oxygen isotope because of mass-dependent fractionation—a process in which one isotope is favored simply because it is heavier or lighter. One earthly example is the evaporation of water: the light isotope (16O) is preferentially evaporated because it is lighter. Therefore, rainwater is 'isotopically depleted' with respect to seawater. In the sun, a process called inefficient Coulomb drag causes lighter isotopes to concentrate in the sun's edge (i.e. the source of solar wind) and heavier isotopes to concentrate nearer the core. As an aside, the isotopic discrepancy is less for heavier elements because the relative difference in mass decreases (e.g. heavy hydrogen is twice the mass of light hydrogen, whereas heavy oxygen is only 12.5% heavier than light oxygen, etc.).

In the inner solar system, where the rocky planets formed, "isotope-selective self-shielding during ultraviolet (UV) photolysis of CO" caused—and still causes—planetisimal source material to become enriched in heavier oxygen isotopes with respect to the solar mass (McKeegan et al., 2011). In fact, this model accurately predicted the new data collected by Genesis.

I would suggest, therefore, that Mr. Thomas jumped too hastily to his conclusion that "the nebular hypothesis is dead...and only supernatural beginnings can account for the peculiarities of the solar system, including the unique amounts of oxygen contained in the sun, planets, and moons." Moreover, this 'God of the Gaps' addendum to the non sequitur resulting from his misreading of McKeegan et al.'s is neither helpful nor convincing (I know, that's a mouthful). Presumably, by "supernatural beginnings", Mr. Thomas is referring to the sudden appearance of fully formed planets and a sun less than 10,000 years ago. But how can this arbitrary and unsupported proposition aid our investigation of the solar system? (By unsupported, I mean absent even from the text of Scripture.)

Not surprisingly, Mr. Thomas and other YEC proponents are confident they can explain any new piece of data. But their ability to explain new data retrospectively does not arise from the scientific, predictive power of YEC. Rather, it arises from the fact that YEC offers no definitive expectations. If the sun's isotopic composition turns out to be X, it is because God created it that way; if the isotopic composition is Y, it is because God created it that way. Mr. Thomas did not explain how the new isotopic data "lead to a purpose-minded designer," despite his likening them to "forensic clues". He merely stated, mistakenly, that the data contradict part of the Nebular Hypothesis.

So, we can all put our minds at ease. The new oxygen isotopic data presented by McKeegan et al. (2011) not only corroborate the Nebular Hypothesis, but allow scientists to estimate the average oxygen isotopic composition of the primordial solar system! And if that doesn't just double your pulse with an astronomical dose of adrenaline, then you probably have no idea what I'm talking about. In fact, you should probably check your pulse anyways...in case you are dying from boredom. Until next time!