No problem on the space between posts. All at your speed, all in good time.

I find Plantinga a challenging thinker. I also enjoyed his book, God and Other Minds. So, by chapter 4, you have wandered through Plantinga’s critiques of Dawkins, Dennett, Draper, and Kitcher. He has discussed miracles, the Newtonian picture, and Quantum mechanics. I find it fascinating, and so pleased that you do, too. (I would hate to lead you down an unchallenging trail.)

Plantinga did define naturalism in the introduction (p. ix): the idea that there is no such person as God or anything like God—essentially that God is impossible. He confirms this definition on p. 122 in chapter 4.

As far as Dawkins and Dennett, I think Plantinga is astute in pointing out that, though they seem to claim that all knowledge is scientific knowledge, they cannot prove that position scientifically. It is not only a losing prospect, but a self-defeating one.

I find that most atheists with whom I have conversed have not thought through their positions thoroughly. (To be fair, most Christians have not, either.) That’s why it’s refreshing to read authors like Plantinga, J.P. Moreland, Richard Swinburne, and C.S. Lewis. The rational mind is an amazing thing, and I like Plantinga’s line of thinking, that if reasoning has come about by descent with modification (as Dawkins claims, a blind process), how can we confidently rest in its reliability?

Well, keep reading. I’m glad you’re enjoying it. We can discuss any parts of it you wish.

Please forgive my silence. And please allow me to continue quietly for a time. I am reading Alvin Plantinga’s book. In chapter 4 now. This is the best thing to happen to me! It probes deeply into subjects that I wrestle with. I may not agree fully with his approach or conclusions, but the fact that he is tackling this at all is enormously satisfying. It is challenging me. And that is precisely what I needed. I think I will have some more germane feedback and fruitful dialog after reading the book.

I will say this much so far. I have always seen myself as adopting a methodological naturalism mindset with regard to science. So I was surprised to see Plantinga use the lone term “naturalism” in the metaphysical sense with respect to science early on in the book (without clarifying, if I recall). Let me re-read it all again later.

I am further surprised to see Dawkins and Dennett try to push for justifying a metaphysical naturalism on the basis of science. That just seems like a losing project. I’d like to think most scientists are sort of like me, agnostic or reserved on the matter of metaphysical naturalism. That they don’t try to extend science’s power of explanation beyond its domain (which is of course naturalistic in the *methodological* sense). So much of what Plantinga is arguing then is a no brainer to me. I’m a bit disappointed in Dennett in particular, as I like some of his other work. But I have more reading to do.

Thanks for sharing the book with me!

This continues to be a good conversation. I hope we can continue.

I want to comment on your struggle, if I may. You seem to be troubled that Pat and I are not telling the same story. Hopefully you know that as Bible teachers, we never portray ourselves as infallible. Neither of us (hopefully) come across that way or claim to achieve that standard. Like, wouldn’t that be nice. Secondly, I would like to say that neither Pat nor I are scientists. We read what we can among everything else we are doing. The science is moving faster than we can keep up, and we can only access the material in a limited way. Obviously, when I need to speak to a group, I spend time researching, but I can’t begin to guarantee perfection. I know you understand that, but you feel indignant and stressed that one (or both) of us has misrepresented basic science.

You wonder if God and the Holy Spirit are alive and really acting in the hearts of men. As we read Scripture, we find that God continually accommodates the limited knowledge and understanding of Himself to the people He reveals Himself to. He reveals Himself to the ancients in their faulty science because that’s how to communicate Himself to them. (If He communicated in our science, He wouldn’t be communicating to them at all. Besides, our science is going to be supplanted by future science, and is itself inaccurate.) God’s accommodations of their limited knowledge is plain through Scripture. He works with us where and as we are, showing us truth even in our current limited understandings. It’s one of the many magnificent things about our God. He is alive and well, and can communicate to even me.

I find it both fun and challenging to investigate things and change what I think about them. Sometimes that makes me feel better, and sometimes it does cause some strain, depending on the disequilibrium it causes in me. But that’s the nature of knowledge and of learning. Instead of letting our faith erode by avoidance, we continually challenge it with all the doubts, questions, strain, and humility we can muster so that we can move deeper and fuller. It’s one of the many things I learned in my period of darkness. All questions are fair; doubt has value; strain can motivate, and God really is there, alive and acting in the hearts of men.

Why are you here and what is this all ultimately about? That’s what we’re discussing. Can we continue?

Thank you for sharing your own story. That was generous and personal. I am really struggling with this. For some reason, I feel indignant and stressed when someone seems to be misrepresenting basic science. I feel like someone else needs to be there to clarify and stand up for two things: what the current evidence is and what current scientific theories actually purport or suggest. I realize people draw different conclusions and we don’t know everything there is to know about nature and God. But to get the basic evidence wrong or the theories associated with that evidence, to not present them fairly or accurately, that feels different to me. It feels like something I shouldn’t sit idly by and allow to go unchallenged. Why should it bother me so? In part, I think it is because it causes people to stumble. I know I am struggling with it. In much the same way as we look to the story of believers as a witness to God’s presence and the truth of His existence, it feels like misinformation, unchallenged, acts as a counter-witness. It makes me wonder if God and the Holy Spirit are alive and really acting in the hearts of men.

But then there is all the potential strain in sitting down and discussing it. And doing it in a way that is warm and gentle and with good intention. Doing it with love and extraordinary humility. This is also a challenge. And so I avoid discussing it. And just let my faith further erode.

I don’t know why God has me here or what this is all ultimately about.

Thank you again for listening.

Thanks for the suggestion. This particular video was a sermon given by Pastor Pat Linnell at Bay Area Community Church, Annapolis, MD. They have it on their website and for their use. I'd have to ask to see if they would give permission for other uses.

[quote="jimwalton"]Steve taught that the science of “evolution” is undeniable, but that doesn’t remove God from the picture. That 48-min. lecture can be found at [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpcNi0Dl0Es[/url]. All of my assumptions were being challenged, and I found I was changing my thoughts.[/quote]

Jim would you ever introduce some of these lectures as part of your podcast? I know you'd likely have to get approval from the speakers, but alot of it is audio based without dire need for visuals and would be convenient for audio only situations like in the car. If not I understand. Probably a bit of an undertaking. Enjoying what ive listened to so far though.

Thanks for writing to a stranger with such openness and vulnerability. There’s no doubt that life is far more difficult than we wish it were, and that pain and suffering are agonizing and deeply disturbing. It’s safe to say that we all have our “fair” share of suffering and pain, but some have far more than their fair share, far more than their ability to endure. Your story pulls at my heart, and I grieve with you. I was tearing up just reading it.

We pray for God to speak to us and to help us. I went through a time (getting on 12-15 years ago now) of a desperate and deep depression, doubting everything I knew and believed. I cried out to God (cried, and yelled a lot) asking for help. For several years I sank deeper, growing more bitter at God by the day for not helping me when I needed Him so desperately. Certainly not on my timetable or according to what I thought were my needs, God did start to help me gradually sort through the whole mess. I look back at that experience as both the worst and the best time of my life: worst because I was so angry and depressed I almost walked away from family and faith; best because as I look back at it, God was doing tremendous spiritual things in me, though I couldn’t see it at the time. It was simply awful, but in those years I was remade. So weird.

On to Pat’s sermon. There were certainly parts about it I disagreed with. But, as I said, there are about 5 different Christian positions on these things, and very deep Christians hold to all of them. It teaches me to try to be understanding of people who disagree with me, that I may not be the one who has it right (though I wouldn’t hold to a position I think is wrong), and to try to stay in a learning mode. Though it may seem like Pat was speaking words of his own rather than words of God, look at what has happened: a friend of yours emailed you the link, you emailed Pat, and Pat put us in touch with each other. Though possibly Pat was speaking his own words, very possibly in those words God was at work, and you and I are now in dialogue.

I myself knew nothing about the transitional forms until 4 months ago. We learn as we go. Pat’s sermon was giving reasons for his faith as far as he understands them. It’s all any of us can do. We pray to be the mouthpiece of God each time we present, and we have learned that God uses us despite our limited understanding. I for one don’t believe that I have to have all the correct information and a thorough understanding before I open my mouth. In that case, the world would be silent. I speak from what I know and pray that God will use it despite its limitations. So also with Pat. We are all continually amazed that God uses us with all our impediments.

Pat and I disagree on some matters. I would ask that you not hold that against Pat, nor against me either. Which one of us is right? I recently watched a debate between William Lane Craig and Christopher Hitchens, both intellectual giants, each one in radical disagreement with the other. How can people so smart see the same data and come to such different conclusions? It motivates us all to be humble about the positions we take and to keep learning. You, Pat, and I are all in that boat, along with the rest of humanity.

I would encourage you not to feel alone, despondent, or discouraged. Those may be the feelings of the day, but God is at work. He has put us together for this conversation, however long it may last. I will certainly pray for you. I dumped a lot on you myself with those long posts about cosmology, biology, and evolution. It’s a lot to process. When you have gathered your thoughts and are framing up questions, let’s keep talking.

I tend to vacillate between a modest faith in Christ and having doubts that a God exists at all. It is a difficult struggle. When my mind is in a more faithful swing or mode, I think my beliefs align largely with yours. I will need to do some reading to develop my thoughts and beliefs more fully. I am reading several books now and will add Plantinga’s to that list (I began reading it this morning).

Perhaps I should not be troubled by what other Christians believe. Or for those Christians that preach or teach, perhaps I should not be bothered by what they might say in front of a church gathering. Pat’s sermon ([url]https://youtu.be/tx0eb8ydDyM[/url]) was emailed to me by a friend who knows of my personal struggles. She emailed it to me at a time of my pleading with God for help. So I think I may have incorrectly interpreted it as a message from God Himself, rather than as a message from an ordinary man like you or me.

I mention all of this because Pat seems to suggest some troubling things beyond what we have discussed already, things that would not seem to comport with our scientific views. One key thing for me to keep in mind though is what you have mentioned already about the cosmological component: the argument is being compressed into an incredibly short presentation. The same is true for the whole sermon. So it isn’t fair to treat it as something more. It is what it is.

I have been through a time of tremendous trouble, and recently I really broke down and asked God why. And asked Him to humble me and deal with whatever He needs to to help me. To talk to me.

It is with this backdrop that I receive the sermon about "Jenny’s Questions." And in it Pat seems to ridicule or question punctuated equilibrium. He seems to treat Young Earth models of the Earth as equally acceptable alongside Old Earth models. He seems to think that there are no intermediate fossils to show transitional links in the fossil record. When I see this, I feel enormous pain and grief. This can’t be a message from God. God knows the present science. He wouldn’t have trouble articulating it. He wouldn’t misconstrue it.

And so then I feel alone again, despondent, and discouraged. At a time when I desperately need hope and help making some sense of the conflicting medical information I have received as I try to fight my fatigue. And so with this discouragement, I wrote Pat and he forwarded me to you.

Forgive me for dumping all of this on you. I am in need of some prayer and encouragement. I need to gather my thoughts and form some specific questions for you.

I’m glad to talk about biology and evolutionary theory, though without a specific question, I’ll just ramble. Hopefully the post won’t get oppressively long, and also hopefully it will address some of things you are thinking about to spur on conversation.

I was raised to believe that evolutionary theory was of the devil. We were taught that Charles Darwin turned the hearts of the world against God, and that Clarence Darrow (The Scopes “Monkey” Trial in Tennessee in 1925) was tantamount to the antichrist! I remember even carrying around a little book in high school called “Evolution: Science Falsely So Called,” all about the false and misleading science behind evolution.

My adult research has brought me to a different place.

I guess the first crack in my edifice was a seminal book written by my brother, Dr. John Walton, called “The Lost World of Genesis 1” ([url]https://www.amazon.com/Lost-World-Genesis-One-Cosmology/dp/0830837043/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=john+walton&qid=1564575785&s=gateway&sr=8-2[/url]). Briefly reporting, in it he asserts that Genesis 1 is about how God ordered the cosmos to function, not how He manufactured it. Certainly God created the universe (as taught in other verses in the Bible), but that’s not what Genesis 1 is about. We talked about evolution, and he was saying that we learn why the universe was created and how it is designed to function from the Bible, but the Bible doesn’t tell us how God created it, what processes He used, or how long it took. We have to get answers about that from science. Hmm.

I read “Where the Conflict Really Lies,” by Alvin Plantinga. He explains there are 6 different possible definitions of evolution:

[list]1. The ancient earth thesis, some 4.5 billion years old

2. The progress thesis: The claim that life has progressed from relatively simple to relatively complex forms. In the beginning there was relatively simple unicellular life. Then more complex unicellular life, then relatively simple multi-cellular life (seagoing worms, coral, jellyfish), then fish, then amphibia, then reptiles, birds, mammals, and human beings.

3. Descent with modification: The enormous diversity of the contemporary living world has come about by way of offspring differing, ordinarily in small and subtle ways, from their parents.

4. Common ancestry thesis: Life originated at only one place of earth, all subsequent life being related by descent to those original living creatures—the claim that, as Gould puts it, there is a “tree of evolutionary descent linking all organisms by ties of genealogy.” According to this theory, we are all cousins of each other—and indeed of all living things (horses, bats bacteria, oak trees, poison ivy, humans.

5. Darwinism: There is a naturalistic mechanism driving this process of descent with modification: the most popular candidate is natural selection operating on random genetic mutation, although some other processes are also sometimes proposed.

6. Naturalistic origins thesis: Life itself developed from non-living matter without any special creative activity of God but just by virtue of processed described by the ordinary laws of physics, chemistry, and biology.[/list]


He wrote that there’s nothing in the first four that contradict Christianity, and even #5 is possible. Hmm. My mind was spinning. You mean it’s possible that evolution happened?

Then I attended a conference on Genesis 1-2 called “Genesis Recast.” One of the speakers was Dr. Stephen Schaffner, (Ph.D. in particle physics from Yale University, now a geneticist with the Broad Institute of Harvard University and MIT). Steve taught that the science of “evolution” is undeniable, but that doesn’t remove God from the picture. That 48-min. lecture can be found at [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpcNi0Dl0Es[/url]. All of my assumptions were being challenged, and I found I was changing my thoughts.

This past spring I attended a BioLogos conference in Baltimore. (The organization’s website is at [url]http://www.biologos.org[/url].) Many of the brightest scientists in the world who are believers and who believe in evolution: Francis Collins, of the genome project, Jennifer Wiseman, who is in charge of the Hubble telescope, Denis Alexander from Oxford, etc. I spent the conference sitting down with these people, grilling them with my questions, eating meals and probing, talking, protesting, learning, and asking. Afterwards I exchanged many emails with them: geneticists, biologists, astronomers. We talked about the Bible, Adam & Eve, biology, genetics, astronomy, the Big Bang, mutation, and natural selection.

I talked to biologist Ryan Bebej about micro- and macro-evolution. I had always heard that there are millions of examples of micro-evolution and not a single example of macro-evolution or of evolution from one species to another. He said there are literally thousands of examples of macro-evolution. Thousands. He showed me pictures. We talked and I asked hard questions. This was all new for me.

I had lunch with Denis Alexander ([url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denis_Alexander[/url]) and grilled him about biology and evolutionary theory.

Here’s what they say: Evolution is irrefutable. It happened. The science is solid.

Whoa. (Sound of my head exploding.)

I am now a solid advocate of evolution. I’ve been convinced. I’ve read the papers, listened to the speakers, and read some books (for instance, [url]https://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Scientific-Theories-Origins-Christianity-ebook/dp/B07L9XKXTS/ref=sr_1_7?keywords=john+walton+cosmology&qid=1564575944&s=gateway&sr=8-7[/url]).

Obviously, I’m not a young-earth creationist. I have come across various theories about origins, all of which are believed and taught by deep and sincere Christians.

[list]1. Young-earth creationism: the Earth is roughly 6-10 thousand years old, and God created it in 6 days. There is a conflict between the Bible and science.
2. Old-earth creationism: the Earth is roughly 4.5 billion years old, and the cosmos is 14 billion years old, and God created it in 6 days. There is some conflict between the Bible and science.
3. Gap theory: The cosmos is 14 billion years old. There was a cataclysmic event between Genesis 1.1 and 1.2, and the Genesis account picks up the story at the renewal of the Earth in more recent history. There is some conflict between the Bible and science.
4. Day-Age Theory. Each of the “days” of creation was actually a long era. Evolution happened during those eras. There is no conflict between the Bible and science.
5. Evolutionary Creationism: The cosmos is 14 billion years old, as the scientists say. The Earth is 4.5 billion years old, as the scientists say. Evolution happened, as the scientists say. God created all that is, using the mechanism of the Big Bang and the processes of evolution to bring about what we now see. There is no conflict between the Bible and science.[/list]

I was raised a young-earth creationist. I am now an evolutionary creationist.

To mention some specifics, I believe God was the causal mechanism of the beginning of the universe. I believe that punctuated equilibrium is a strategy God used. I believe that the Cambrian Explosion was orchestrated by God. I believe that evolution (natural selection and genetic modification) were processes that God used to create life on Earth. I take Genesis 1-2 as an account of God ordering the universe to function the way they do, not as an account of the material manufacture of the heavens and the Earth (though God did materially manufacture the heavens and the Earth).

In my conversation 4 months ago with the biologists and geneticists, it seems from all my discussions and my readings that the whole system is gamed for success. Almost all genetic mutations are deleterious, but the ones that are advantageous seem to have a special “power” to effect change. Natural selection seems, by my reading, to have cards up its sleeve to effect positive change. It’s as if the whole system has been designed by an intelligent being with literally incredible (miraculous) design, balance, and functionality. As a Christian, I see this is exactly what the Bible says. Go figure. Theism and Christianity in particular have no fight against science. As a matter of fact, reading Plantinga’s “Where the Conflict Really Lies”: "There is superficial conflict but deep concord between science and theistic religion, but superficial concord and deep conflict between science and naturalism.” His conclusion at the end of the book: Given what we see, the natural world is more concordant with theism than with scientific naturalism. If we are inferring the most reasonable conclusion, theism is by far the stronger case. (I took 60 pages of notes when I read this book. I’d be glad to send you the file if you’re interested: it’s like the Reader’s Digest condensed version of his 325-page book.)

So, um, there. I have summarized for you my views on this matter. Now, what are your questions, and what would you like to discuss further? Pick my brain; let’s talk. What fun!

I think I need to shelve the cosmological question. You have me thinking, which was the goal. So I shall sit, pray, read, and further meditate on it. I would like to turn to discussions of biology and evolutionary theory. That is a jump, but it also weighs on me.

Have you ever written anything more or less summarizing your views on this matter? I could read that initially. I have heard people speak of microevolution vs macroevolution, claiming that the former is well documented and agreed upon by everyone while the latter isn’t well accounted for by contemporary theories of evolution. Punctuated equilibrium is often brought up as one such theory. And it seems to be characterized as some sort of magical, instantaneous, significant jump in morphology or structure or function of an organism. Something that just isn’t possible or that we don’t have evidence for. I don’t get that sense about it though. So I am curious to pick your brain.

Thank you again. You are a blessing.