Theistic Evolution and Chrisitan Orthodoxy

3 views
Skip to first unread message

James Goetz

unread,
Sep 21, 2007, 7:42:31 PM9/21/07
to Towards a New Synthesis of Evangelical Christianity and Science
<http://theoperspectives.blogspot.com/2007_09_17_archive.html>

ABSTRACT
Some concepts of theistic evolution are compatible with Christian
orthodoxy when we consider a topical and figurative interpretation of
Genesis 1-11. And we are not obligated to enforce the false dichotomy
that implies that the divinely inspired ancient Near Eastern
literature of Genesis 1-11 is either a literal history or a string of
figurative stories with no historical basis. We may refer to Genesis
1-11 as a divinely inspired string of figurative stories with a
historical basis. And Christian orthodoxy is compatible with all
scientific discoveries while it is incompatible with physicalism.

INTRODUCTION
Despite the twenty-first century hype of the creation-evolution
debate, prominent Christian orthodoxy theologians from as early as the
nineteenth century had no theological or biblical problem with some
concepts of evolution and universal common descent. For example, in
1888, Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield gave a lecture to his students
and said, "if we condition the theory [of evolution] by allowing the
constant oversight of God in the whole process, and his occasional
supernatural interference for the production of new beginnings by an
actual output of creative force... we may hold to the modified theory of
evolution and be Christians in the ordinary orthodox sense."[1]

Warfield stated that Christian orthodoxy is consistent with a theistic
model of universal common descent as long as the evolutionary model
included divine interference, also known as divine intervention. And
in 1899, Augustus Hopkins Strong held to both Christian orthodoxy and
a belief in divine guidance during the evolutionary emergence of human
(Homo sapiens) anatomy.[2]

On the other hand, some denominations oppose all theistic
interpretations of universal common descent. For example, the
Assemblies of God (AG), and the AG has a 1977 position paper "The
Doctrine of Creation" that says that Genesis 2:21-22 is inconsistent
with any theory of evolutionary origins of humanity because these
verses teach that the first woman was made from a piece of flesh that
was removed from the first man. And no theory of evolution would
incorporate a literal interpretation of this event.[3]

CHRISTIAN ORTHODOXY AND CREATION
We see above that there are different ways of dealing with a Christian
orthodoxy interpretation of creation. In regards to creation, common
pillars of faith in Christian orthodoxy include the following: 1) God
created the material universe from nothing; 2) God has miraculously
intervened in the material universe; 3) God has specially created
human souls.[4] And Christian orthodoxy also maintains that the Hebrew
Bible and the New Testament are the word of God written accurately
through humans and are true in all that they teach. And for the rest
of this paper, we maintain a perspective of Christian orthodoxy.

TOPICAL AND FIGURATIVE INTERPRETATION OF GENESIS 1-11
Maintaining a belief in the truthfulness of all Bible teachings while
incorporating scientific inferences related to the timeline of the
universe and prehistory[5] has challenges for some interpretations of
Genesis 1-11 and all other Bible verses that refer to Genesis 1-11.
For example, some Bible interpreters teach that the ancient Near
Eastern writing of Genesis 1-11 is a literal history, which has
conflict with scientific inferences related to the timeline of the
universe and prehistory.[6] [7] On the other hand, some Christian
orthodoxy interpreters hold to a topical and figurative view of
Genesis 1-11, which means that the respective ancient Near Eastern
writing focused on the topic and used rich symbolism instead of
focusing on the chronology and literal history.[8] [9] This implies
that God never taught that all of the symbolic details of the
respective verses are a literal description of prehistory. Likewise, a
topical and figurative interpretation of Genesis 1-11 has minimal
scientific limitations and implies that the Bible is not teaching any
specific timeline of the universe and prehistory or any specific model
of creation, for example, six-solar-day creationism, the gap theory,
old earth creationism, or theistic evolution.

William Sanford LaSor and colleagues present an excellent Hebrew Bible
survey that describes a topical and figurative interpretation of
Genesis 1-11,[10] and the authors maintain that the Bible is the word
of God written accurately through humans and is true in all that it
teaches.[11] LaSor and colleagues call Genesis 1-11 the "primeval
prologue." And they recognize a strong use of literary devices that
were common in the ancient Near East while they also explain that all
of the events have a historical basis. Likewise, the primeval prologue
does not teach many historical details or chronology, but the primeval
prologue teaches several important truths that include the following:
God created everything in the universe; God intervened to form the
original humans; God created and formed a good universe; God designed
and instituted marriage; humans fell from their original paradise
through the disobedience of the original humans; humans continued to
live in depravity; and humans migrated throughout the earth.

In other words, we are not obligated to enforce the false dichotomy
that implies that the divinely inspired ancient Near East literature
of Genesis 1-11 is either a literal history or a string of figurative
stories with no historical basis. We may refer to Genesis 1-11 as a
divinely inspired string of figurative stories with a historical
basis.

PROBLEMS WITH A LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF GENESIS 1-11
A literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11 that fails to recognize the
purpose of the literary devices has problems. For example, in 419,
Augustine published City of God while noting some problems with a
literal interpretation of Genesis 1. Augustine said that a literal
interpretation might struggle with an internal inconsistency by
claiming that there was a literal day and night during the first three
days of creation (Gen 1:1-13) despite the verses that say God created
the sun and the other stars during the fourth day (Gen 1:14-19). And
in the context of the geological record and animal phylogeny, a
literal interpretation might insist that the origin of sea mammals and
birds (Gen 1:20-23) preceded the origin of all land amniotes (Gen
1:24-25). We affirm that Genesis 1 describes six solar days and
nights, but as noted by Meredith Kline, these days are a literary
framework that teaches about topics instead of chronology.[12]

Kline also notes that a traditional literal interpretation of Genesis
1 causes conflict by pitting Scripture versus Scripture. He explains
that Genesis 2:5 teaches that God did not form vegetation until there
was a natural means to preserve the vegetation. For example, Genesis
2:5 says that there was no vegetation until there was a water supply
that could preserve the vegetation. And this conflicts with a literal
interpretation of the third day in Genesis 1:9-13 that implies that
God formed vegetation before the formation of the sun, which would
literally mean that a source of light and heat other than the sun had
preserved the original vegetation.[13]

A literal interpretation of the primeval prologue is also inconsistent
with population genetics studies that estimate past (long-term)
population sizes of various extant species. For example, the study of
genetic diversity within a species can infer if the respective lineage
had a population bottleneck in the last few million years. And
population genetics studies of various mammals such as humans[14] [15]
[16] and orangutans[17] conclude that in the last few million years
there have been no ancestral bottlenecks with the effective population
size[18] that was less than ten thousand individuals. Likewise, unless
there is a major flaw in the respective research methodologies, these
studies imply that the lineages for these mammals in the last few
million years never had a population size that was less than an order
of ten thousand individuals. And these population sizes are
incompatible with a literal interpretation of Adam and Eve in Genesis
2:4-3:24 and a literal interpretation of the global flood in Genesis
6-8.

These estimated population sizes, however, are compatible with Genesis
2:4-3:24 if Adam and Eve in some ways figuratively represent the first
group of humans. We are not claiming that these verses suggest that
Adam and Eve represent a group of people with a community/tribal
leader, but the figurative structure of these verses do not prohibit
the possibility. And in the case that there are no major flaws in the
population genetics methodologies that estimate past population sizes
in humans, then is some ways Adam and Eve represent all of the
original humans. And in this case, we may assume the human fall from
paradise would have been a unanimous community/tribal decision.

The above population sizes are also compatible with various
interpretations of a regional Noahic Flood.[19] And the Table of
Nations in Genesis 10 primarily describes Caucasian populations, which
might be a clue within the primeval prologue that both the flood and
the following migrations were regional events. And Mark Isaak compiled
several potential scientific problems with a global flood in the days
of Noah.[20]

HEAVENLY ARCHETYPES AND PHYSICAL HISTORY IN GENESIS 1-11
Two-level hermeneutical principle
We noted earlier that Kline interprets Genesis 1 as a literary
framework. Kline also explains that the Bible in several passages
teaches about a two-level (two-register) cosmology, which involves a
heavenly level and a physical level. And Kline explains that in the
case of Genesis 1:1-2:3 there is a metaphorical relationship between
the archetype in the heavenly level and the history in the physical
level. In other words, the days of creation are a heavenly archetype
while a figurative physical history. And Kline also explains that the
figurativeness in the physical history is no problem for the doctrine
of the Sabbath taught in Exodus 20:8-11.[21] And this models an
important hermeneutical principle, which we call the "two-level
hermeneutical principle."

This principle helps to explain how a Bible writer could have
formulated doctrine while making a literal reference to Bible verses
that are figurative in the physical level. For example, Exodus 20:11
affirms the teaching of the Sabbath while saying that the Lord made
the heavens and the earth in six days while resting on the seventh
day. The doctrine of the Sabbath flows from a literal understanding of
Genesis 1:1-2:3. But the literalness is in the reference to the
heavenly archetype instead of the physical history. And we assume that
God had the prerogative to inspire the writing of the ancient Near
Eastern Bible in any way that God pleased. And as described above, God
gave clues within the Bible that affirms the use of the two-level
hermeneutical principle.

The two-level hermeneutical principle can apply to other verses in
Genesis 1-11 and other verses that refer to Genesis 1-11. For example,
as stated earlier, if we assume that there are no major flaws in the
population genetics methodologies that estimate past effective
population sizes of humans and other mammals, then we may consider
assuming that there was at least an order of ten thousand humans in
the original human rebellion. And some Bible interpreters might think
that this is incompatible with Pauline references to Adam and Eve (Rom
5:12-21, 1 Cor 11:3-16, 1 Tim 2:13-14). But we can extend the two-
level hermeneutical principle to all of these verses. And we can also
extend it to the Petrine references to the Noahic Flood (2 Pet 2:5,
3:6) and the primordial waters in Genesis 1:2-10 (2 Pet 3:5).

Two-level principle and Romans 5:12-21
We will begin by applying the two-level hermeneutical principle to
Romans 5:12-21. These verses refer to a literal Adam while teaching
that all humans inherited a destiny of sin and death from "one man."
However, based on the two-level principle, this could be a literal
reference to the heavenly archetype. So regardless if the number of
original humans that fell from grace was two or ten thousand in
physical history, there was one man in the heavenly archetype. And all
humans born after The Fall inherited a destiny of sin and death.

Two-level principle and 1 Corinthians 11:3-16
Paul teaches about men and women and the cultural importance of head
coverings in 1 Corinthians 11:3-16 while appealing to Genesis 2:20-25.
For example, Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11:8-9 (NIV), "For man did not
come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for
woman, but woman for man." These Pauline verses flow from a literal
interpretation of God forming Eve from a piece of flesh from Adam's
side (Genesis 2:21-23). However, these verses could be a highly
symbolic physical history while a literal reference to the heavenly
archetype. And regardless if this event was literal or figurative in
the physical history, the biblical doctrine about men and women and
head coverings are the same.

Two-level principle and 1 Timothy 2:11-14
Paul teaches in 1 Timothy 2:11-14 about the precedence of male
leadership in the church. And Paul supports this doctrine by appealing
to a literal interpretation of Genesis 2:4-3:24 by citing that God
formed Adam before God formed Eve and Eve sinned before Adam sinned.
However, these verses could be a figurative physical history while a
literal reference to the heavenly archetype. And regardless if these
events were literal or figurative in physical history, the teaching
about male leadership is the same.

Two-level principle and 2 Peter 2:5
Peter teaches about God's saving grace and judgment while referring to
God saving eight people from the Noahic Flood (2 Pet 2:5). However,
the respective verses could be figurative in the physical level while
a literal reference to the heavenly archetype. And regardless if the
Noahic Flood in Genesis 6-8 was physically regional and never touched
distant human populations or physically global and wiped out all but
eight humans, the doctrine about God's saving grace and judgment are
the same.

Two-level principle and 2 Peter 3:5-6
Peter teaches about the return of Jesus in 2 Peter 3:5-6 while
referring to the primordial waters in Genesis 1:2-10 and the flood
waters in Genesis 6-8. Again, these verses could be figurative in the
physical level while a literal reference to the heavenly archetype.
And regardless if the primordial waters and the quantity of the flood
waters are figurative in the physical level, the doctrine of the
return of Jesus is the same.

Two-level principle and natural science
If we assume that science has no major flaws in the methodologies that
infer the timeline of the universe and evolutionary phylogenies and
past population sizes of humans, then the above applications of the
two-level hermeneutical principle have no conflict with these
scientific discoveries. And we may conclude that God decided to teach
the respective doctrines with powerful figurative stories that people
of all cultures throughout history could understand. Likewise, God
ensured that people would need no scientific knowledge to understand
these doctrines.

And we caution against an excessive use of the two-level principle.
For example, we are not affirming ancient traditions of an allegorical
interpretation for every verse in the Bible. But if we see compelling
evidence in the Bible or nature, then we may consider applying the two-
level principle. However, a physicalist speculation such as "there
never was a supernatural miracle" is no reason for concluding that a
particular Bible verse must be figurative.

OPPOSITION TO A FIGURATIVE INTERPRETATION OF GENESIS 1-11
If we assume an interdisciplinary approach to the two-level
hermeneutical principle and natural science, then some people may ask
why God never inspired a Bible writer to clarify the truth about the
timeline of history and evolution and the original population size of
humans. But we can think of some reasons why God avoided this. For
example, explaining the basics about the timeline of the universe and
prehistory take a long time. And God decided to teach important
eternal truths about physical origins and prehistory in just eleven
chapters of the Bible while using powerful figurative stories that
require no knowledge of scientific discoveries. And there was no
theological reason for God to have inspired an extraordinarily large
book of Bible that would have explained the basics of the timeline of
the universe and prehistory so that it would have been comprehendible
to the ancient Hebrews. And such a book would not have served God's
purposes for the Bible.

Noel Weeks opposes a figurative interpretation of Genesis 1-11.[22]
And he asks, "Is there any explicit teaching within the Bible itself
that suggests its details are not to be pressed in matters of the
physical creation?"[23] And we agree that there is no explicit
teaching within the Bible that suggests that any of Genesis 1-11 is a
figurative description of the physical creation and prehistory.
However, we noted earlier that both Augustine and Kline describe clues
within the Bible that "imply" that some verses in Genesis are
figurative in physical history. So we cannot claim that it is
explicit, but we can claim that it is implicit. In other words, the
Bible implies that some verses in Genesis are figurative in the
physical history.

Weeks also argues that various Bible verses that assume a literal
interpretation of the respective verses in Genesis would suffer if we
insist upon a figurative interpretation of Genesis 1-11.[24] But we
suppose that the above explanation of the two-level hermeneutical
principle refutes that opposition.

ANATOMICAL EVOLUTION AND THE HUMAN SOUL
Evolutionary theory proposes to explain the origin of human anatomy,
but Christian orthodoxy teaches that humans contain more than physical
anatomy. Ironically, there are no Hebrew or Greek words that refer
exclusively to the nonphysical soul. For example, the Hebrew and Greek
words for both "soul" and "spirit" have multiple meanings.

The Hebrew word for "soul" is nephesh. The word nephesh primarily
means "possessing life," and sometimes refers to animals. And the word
nephesh sometimes refers to the seat of human physical appetite, the
source of emotions and will and moral action, an individual person,
and a dead body. And the Hebrew Bible teaches that the soul departs at
death. And the word nephesh has overlapping meanings with other words
that mean "heart" and "spirit."[25]

The Greek word for "soul" is psyche. The word psyche has various
similar meanings to nephesh.[26] And Matthew 10:28 teaches that
killing the human body does not kill the psyche while Revelation 6:9
refers to the psyche of the martyrs below the heavenly altar.
Likewise, depending on the context, psyche can refer to everything in
human life or specifically the nonphysical soul.

The Hebrew word for "spirit" is ruah while the Greek word for "spirit"
is pneuma. These words have various meanings that include wind,
breath, divine power, human spirit, and divine spirit. And several
times the word pneuma refers to angelic or demonic spirits.[27] So
sometimes we refer to the nonphysical world as the spiritual world.

Also, the Hebrew Bible teaches that humans exist in Sheol after death.
[28] And the Greek equivalent to the word Sheol is "Hades" while the
New Testament teaches that humans exist in either Hades or Paradise
after death and before the end-time resurrection. And these references
to human existence after death and before the end-time resurrection
imply that humans have a nonphysical soul.

Despite the lack of biblical words that refer exclusively to the
nonphysical soul, all of the above imply that humans have a
nonphysical soul. Perhaps part of the reason for this lack of
exclusive terms is because the mind and will and emotions of living
humans are a dichotomy of the physical and nonphysical. For example,
humans have neurological wiring that facilitates spirituality.[29]

THE NONPHYSICAL IN A MATERIAL WORLD
Methodological materialism (the scientific method) does not imply
physicalism (philosophical materialism/naturalism).[30] For example,
methodological materialism assumes that all physical and chemical and
biochemical properties reduce to the fundamental laws of nature
(reductionism). But this type of reductionism does not indicate
whether or not nonphysical elements (the supernatural) interact with
the physical world. In other words, methodological materialism has no
opinion about the supernatural. On the other hand, physicalism is a
philosophical concept that insists that there are no nonphysical
elements in the universe. (Or epistemic physicalism says that any
nonphysical elements are unknowable and irrelevant.) Likewise,
Christian orthodoxy is compatible with methodological materialism
while incompatible with physicalism. And Christian orthodoxy believes
that God created the fundamental laws of nature.

As stated above, reductionism implies that physics and chemistry and
biology reduce to the fundamental laws of nature. Some people take
reductionism to an extreme and also say that human psychology reduces
to the laws of nature. But Christian orthodoxy believes in a
nonphysical soul, so this implies that psychology reduces to both the
laws of nature and the laws that govern the nonphysical.

Christian orthodoxy also believes that God and various angels have
miraculously intervened in the material world. And as previously
stated, methodological materialism has no opinion about the
supernatural.

DIVINE SUPERVISION AND INTERVENTION
God supervises everything in the universe (Ps 139:1-18, Heb 4:13). And
God intervenes in the material universe according to divine purposes
(Gen 50:20, Rom 8:28). And some periods of biblical history
experienced more miraculous intervention compared to other periods. So
in some ways, God periodically intervenes. However, in some ways, God
constantly intervenes. For example, God constantly intervenes in the
lives of New Covenant believers through the indwelling of the Holy
Spirit (Rom 8:9).

God also constantly intervenes in the spiritual world. For example,
the New Testament calls Satan "the prince of this world" and "the god
of this age" (John 12:31, 1 Cor 4:4 NIV). And Satan presumably held
this position since the fall of humanity. But God intervenes to limit
the malevolent activity of Satan and his demons (Job 1:12, 1 Cor
10:13).

CONCLUSION
Prominent Christian orthodoxy theologians since the nineteenth century
have affirmed that there is no theological or biblical conflict with a
theistic model of evolution and universal common descent. And the
Bible itself implies that some verses in the primeval prologue and the
respective Bible verses that refer to the primeval prologue are
figurative in physical history. And we affirm that the two-level
hermeneutical principle stems first and foremost from the Bible with
no knowledge of scientific discoveries. Likewise, the Bible has no
conflict with scientific discoveries that include inferences of
evolutionary relationships and past population sizes of humans.

We should never pit the Bible against firmly established scientific
evidence. And we should never confuse scientific discoveries with
physicalist speculations because physicalist speculations are
philosophy instead of science. We may conclude that Christian
orthodoxy is compatible with all genuine scientific evidence while
incompatible with physicalism.

And Christians who hold to both orthodoxy and universal common descent
have various views based upon the evidence in evolutionary science.
For example, I propose that the Creator or related agents occasionally
intervened in probabilistic evolutionary mechanisms.[31] And this is
consistent with Warfield's 1888 lecture. On the other hand, some
Christians hold to both Christian orthodoxy and Darwinism.[32] [33]

We reject Darwinism without occasional intervention from the
perspectives of both the evidence in evolutionary science[34] and
biblical theology. However, many Darwinists hold to the central
pillars of Christian orthodoxy faith, which include the following:
1) The Bible is the word of God written accurately through humans and
is true in all that it teaches
2) God created the material universe from nothing
3) God specially created human souls
4) God intervened in the universe by accurately speaking through the
Prophets and Apostles according to the biblical records
5) God intervened in human history according to the biblical records,
which include the divine incarnation and bodily death and bodily
resurrection of Jesus

Among the central pillars of Christian orthodoxy faith, the primary
pillar is the divine incarnation and bodily death and bodily
resurrection of Jesus. And the resurrection of Jesus has amazing
implications. Jesus physically died on a Friday late afternoon and
physically resurrected the following Sunday early morning. This means
that his corpse was dead for roughly thirty-six hours, which suggests
that his corpse experienced peak rigor mortis and then physically
resurrected. Belief in this amazing divine intervention sets apart
Christian orthodoxy from liberal and neo-orthodox Christianity.

The Bible has many important teachings, and most of them are secondary
to the central pillars of faith. And there are many disagreements
about secondary Bible teachings that have no consequences concerning
eternal salvation. For example, Warfield teaches that Christian
orthodoxy implies that God occasionally intervened beyond divine
superintendence during the formation of biological species, presumably
interpreted from Genesis 1-2. We agree with Warfield, and we rank this
as a secondary teaching.

[1] B.B. Warfield, Evolution, Scripture, and Science: Selected
Writings, ed. M.A. Noll and D.N. Livingstone (Grand Rapids: Baker Book
House, 2000), 151.
[2] A.H. Strong, Christ in Creation and Ethical Monism (New York:
Griffith & Rowland, 1899).
[3] The above position paper does not represent a fundamental truth
for the AG or I never would have received AG ministry credentials.
[4] We believe in the immediate divine creation of each human soul,
but this paper is also compatible with the doctrine of traducianism.
[5] The scientific view of the timeline of the universe and prehistory
includes inferences about the chronology of energy/mass creation and
the expansion of the universe and star formation and planetary
formation and biological evolution and prehistoric human migrations.
[6] N. Weeks, "Problems in Interpretation of Genesis: Part 1," Ex
Nihilo 2/3 (1979), 27-32.
[7] N. Weeks, "Problems in Methods of Interpretation-Genesis 1-11:
Part 2," Creation 2/4 (1979), 22-6.
[8] B. Ramm, The Christian View of Science and Scripture (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954).
[9] B. Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation, 3rd ed. (Grand
Rapids: Baker Book House, 1970).
[10] W.S. LaSor, D.A. Hubbard, and F.W. Bush, Old Testament Survey:
The Message, Form, and Background of the Old Testament, 2nd ed. (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), Chapter 2.
[11] Ibid., Chapter 45.
[12] M.G. Kline, "Space and Time in the Genesis Cosmogony,"
Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 48 (1996), 2-15.
[13] Ibid.
[14] N. Takahata, Y. Satta, and J. Klein, "Divergence Time and
Population Size in the Lineage Leading to Modern Humans," Theoretical
Population Biology 48 (1995), 198-221.
[15] S. Sherry, H.C. Harpending, M.A. Batzer, M. Stoneking, "Alu
Evolution in Human Populations: Using the Coalescent to Estimate
Effective Population Size," Genetics 147 (1997), 1977-82.
[16] A.G. Clark, K.M. Weiss, D.A. Nickerson, S.L. Taylor, A. Buchanan,
J. Stengard, V. Salomaa, E. Vartiainen, M. Perola, E. Boerwinkle, and
C.F. Sing, "Haplotype Structure and Population Genetic Inferences from
Nucleotide-sequence Variation in Human Lipoprotein Lipase," American
Journal of Human Genetics 63 (1998), 595-612.
[17] Y. Zhang, O.A. Ryder, and Y. Zhang, "Genetic Divergence of
Orangutan Subspecies (Pongo pygmaeus)," Journal of Molecular Evolution
52 (2001), 516-26.
[18] The "effective population size" is the hypothetical equivalent to
the number of randomly breeding adults in a population.
[19] C.A. Hill, "Noachian Flood: Universal or Local?" Perspectives on
Science and Christian Faith 54 (2003), 70-83.
[20] M. Isaak, "Problems with a Global Flood," Talk.Origins (1998),
URL = <www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html>.
[21] Kline.
[22] Weeks, "Problems in Interpretation of Genesis: Part 1;" Weeks,
"Problems in Methods of Interpretation-Genesis 1-11: Part 2."
[23] Weeks, "Problems in Methods of Interpretation-Genesis 1-11: Part
2."
[24] Ibid.
[25] W.J. Cameron, "Soul," New Bible Dictionary, 2nd ed. J.D. Douglas
and N. Hillyer (Wheaton: Tyndale House, 1982), 1135.
[26] Ibid.
[27] J.D.G. Dunn, "Spirit, Holy Spirit," New Bible Dictionary,
1136-42.
[28] D.K. Innes, "Sheol," New Bible Dictionary, 1103.
[29] A. Newberg, E. D'Aquili, and V. Rause, Why God Won't Go Away:
Brain Science and the Biology of Belief (New York: Ballantine Books,
2001).
[30] E.C. Scott, "Science, Religion, and Evolution," Evolution:
Investigating the Evidence, eds. J. Scotchmoon and D.A. Springer, The
Paleontological Society: Special Publications 9 (1999), archive URL =
<www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/
6366_science_religion_and_evoluti_6_19_2001.asp>.
[31] J. Goetz, "The Extravagant Creator of Junk DNA," Progress in
Complexity, Information, and Design (in review), URL = <www.iscid.org/
boards/ubb-get_topic-f-10-t-000105.html>.
[32] K.R. Miller, Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for
Common Ground between God and Evolution (New York: HarperCollins,
1999).
[33] M. Ruse, Can a Darwinian be a Christian? The Relationship between
Science and Religion (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001).
[34] Goetz.

Copyright © 2007 James Edward Goetz

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages