The Logic of Christianity 13: Creation is True until Proven False

Two blog posts ago, I threw down the gauntlet: “IF UNBELIEVERS MUST PROVE THAT THE BIBLE IS FALSE, THEY MUST FIRST DETERMINE EVERY POSSIBLE MEANING OF EVERY GREEK, HEBREW, AND ARAMAIC WORD IN THE SCRIPTURES. THEN, THEY MUST CONSIDER EVERY CONCEIVABLE GRAMMATICAL COMBINATION IN WHICH THOSE WORDS MAY BE FOUND. NEXT, THEY MUST CONSIDER EVERY POSSIBLE TROPE, EVERY FIGURE OF SPEECH, AS A MEANS OF DETERMINING THE MULTITUDINOUS POSSIBLE INTERPRETATIONS OF EVERY VERSE OF SCRIPTURE. AND, THEY MUST DISPROVE NOT JUST ONE OR TWO INTERPRETATIONS THAT THEY MIGHT PREFER TO DEBUNK, IN A “STRAW MAN” LOGICAL FALLACY APPROACH. THEY MUST DISPROVE EVERY SINGLE INTERPRETATION THAT IS REMOTELY POSSIBLE—THAT HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY ADVANCED OR THAT WILL BE ADVANCED AT ANY POINT IN THE FUTURE.”

So, what elements of the Genesis creation account do unbelievers doubt? 1. They doubt that the universe was created by any “god.” (They prefer a non-purposive Big Bang theory, instead.) 2. They doubt that the universe came into existence within the time span indicated by Genesis. (They prefer a much longer time frame than they think Genesis supplies.) 3. They doubt that the order of the elements of the universe coming into existence is correctly indicated in Genesis. (Specifically, they object to the timing of the appearance in Genesis of the Sun, Moon, and Stars.) 4. They doubt that any “god” was active in the progressive expansion of life forms. (They prefer a non-purposive “evolutionary” model instead.) 5. They doubt that man was made “in the image” of any god. (They prefer a behaviorist view of man: that like all other animals, man behaves in predictable, non-creative ways.) 6. They doubt that Adam was a specific distinct creation. (They prefer an evolutionary model of the development of man/Homo sapiens: from Neanderthal or Heidelberg man.)

My book Disneology: Religious Rhetoric at Walt Disney World tackles all of these issues. It approaches the “creation” issues from the premise that Walt Disney and his company did not seem to flinch at the notion of holding both a Scientific Realist position and a Christian Realist position, simultaneously. Furthermore, I demonstrate that—apart from their removal of God from the picture—Scientific Realists can be easily accommodated within the interpretive possibilities in the Bible. It is possible for a Scientific Realist to be simultaneously a Christian Realist, if s/he follows the gauntlet I laid down. In short, if the Scientific Realist accepts the “presumption” that the Bible is true unless and until proven false, s/he can and will continue, simultaneously, to be a Christian Realist.

On page 4 of Disneology, I point out: “Disney was a huge fan of President Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln is the president who receives the greatest attention in the ‘Hall of Presidents’ at the Magic Kingdom . . . . Lincoln asserts that all men are ‘created’ equal. He identifies the Declaration of Independence as the ‘truth.’ . . . Mention of the ‘creator’ in the Declaration of Independence is reiterated in the ‘American Adventure’ in EPCOT.” Yet, on page 5, I continue: “The ‘Universe of Energy’ attraction at EPCOT presents the origins of the universe from a wholly god-less perspective. The perspective of physics informs riders that originally, there was a ‘big bang’ in which a great amount of energy was converted into huge supplies of mass. . . . The perspective of Geology (the study of the Earth) then takes over. This originally very hot planet was a fiery, molten, and gaseous mixture. The gasses surrounded the planet until the planet cooled; then, water condensed onto the surface of the earth and became the seas. (Not too many years ago . . . WDW had corroborated these views of physics and geology in a preshow to ‘The Living Seas’ exhibit. Again, no mention of a creator was to be found.) The perspective of Evolutionary Biology is/was presented in both the Energy and Seas shows, as plant life is followed by water life, then amphibian life, etc.”

THE EVOLUTION ISSUE. Many followers of my blog have anticipated one of my next links in the Logic of Christianity series by revisiting my earlier blogpost: Disneology #8: What About Evolution? That specific post, written and published years ago, has enjoyed a major resurgence in hits in the past month or so. I begin that post (and its corresponding Chapter in my book Disneology, p. 55) with the following comment: “The most stressful and emotionally divisive debate between scientists and theologians is over the issue of evolution.” For those who are not inclined to accept any semblance of evolution, those who believe that any evolutionary explanation of biological existence is counter to the Bible, I offer the following encouragement (p. 57):

“Believers in gradual evolution have been hoping that the study of fossils (paleontology) will yield scientific evidence of the various transitional stages of development each genus and species went through as it evolved. They are searching for ‘missing links.’ The website AllAboutScience.org (http://www.allaboutscience.org/missing-link-faq.htm) reports: ‘Stephen J. Gould, America's most famous evolutionist . . . stated, “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary . . . textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism. I wish only to point out that it was never seen in the rocks.”’”

Nevertheless, for those who would dismiss the Bible because they are persuaded by the evolutionary argument, I submitted also the following (pp. 57-58): “Genesis 1:11 indicates ‘how’ God made plants. He SPOKE to the land: ‘Let the land produce vegetation.’ Genesis 1:12 confirms: ‘The land produced vegetation.’ One way of viewing this phenomenon is to say that God delegated to land the capacity for producing plant life. . . . In a somewhat similar manner (but with a curious departure in the way it is phrased), in Genesis 1:20, God SPOKE to the waters: ‘Let the waters teem with living creatures.’ . . . Water animal life was the first level of animal life. . . . In Genesis 1:24, we return to a formula similar to the formula for making plants. God SPOKE to the land: ‘Let the land produce living creatures.’ If God delegated to land the capacity for producing plant life, and then (later) the capacity for producing living creatures, it may be that once God created elemental animal life (in the waters), the land was given the capacity for developing that animal life. In other words, there appears to be some room for a somewhat theologically-based evolution/gradualism theory.”

THE HUMAN ISSUE. Genesis, however, does NOT say that God SPOKE humans into existence. On pages 58-59 of Disneology, I observe: “Genesis 1:27 states: ‘God created man in his own image . . . male and female created He them.’ Genesis 2:7 adds the detail that God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life before man became a living being. . . . The term ‘create’ is used by Genesis only in terms of creating the ‘heavens and the earth’ in 1:1 . . . creating ‘the great creatures of the sea and every living’ thing in the sea in 1:21 (the beginning of animal life), and God creating ‘man in his own image’ in 1:27. . . . [A]ll creation seems to have been accomplished by God ‘speaking,’ with the lone exception of the creation of Adam.”

To the matter of what it means to be in the “image of God,” I devote several chapters of Disneology (Chapters 10-15). My observations on the senses in which man is unique from all other animals are not the musings of a theologian; rather, they are the observations of a Twentieth Century (agnostic) genius in the field of Communication, Kenneth Burke. Burke asserts that the human is the symbol-using (symbol-making) animal. Skeptics are hard-pressed to find any other animal species that “creates” or “makes” its own communication, as does the human. Since God, in Genesis, also creates/makes, human communication is effectively an image of God. Burke asserts that since the human is the only animal capable of using the hortatory negative (Thou shalt not!), and since the hortatory negative is the basis of morality, the human is “moralized” by the negative. Morality makes the human into the image of God. Burke asserts that the human is the “tool-making, tool-using” animal. Other animals may use tools that are found in nature or created by man, but humans (using symbolicity) actually make and use their own tools. They are, thus, separated from their natural condition by instruments of their own making. This “creative” nature is, again, the image of God. Burke asserts that human are goaded by a “spirit of hierarchy.” His use of the word “spirit” here is akin to his use of “symbol-making.” While other animals have natural, instinctive, hierarchies (back-biting for wolves, pecking order for chickens, etc.), humans symbolically create zillions of hierarchies. This creative function, along with the hierarchal element evident in all creation, makes humans the image of God. Burke asserts that the human is “rotten with perfection.” He is not saying that the human is, by any means, perfect—just that he has an innate notion of what perfection means in many situations. This is also the image of God. The Dedication of my book Implicit Rhetoric: Kenneth Burke’s Extension of Aristotle’s Concept of Entelechy reads: “To God, the Ultimate Symbol-User.”

THE HOMO SAPIENS/NEANDERTHAL ISSUE According to the Smithsonian Institute website http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species/homo-sapiens, human evolution researchers/paleoanthropologists admit that they still do not know “Who was our direct evolutionary ancestor? Was it Homo heidelbergensis, like many paleoanthropologists think, or another species? . . . [or] How much interbreeding occured between our species and Homo neanderthalensis?” In other words, it is clear that Homo sapiens is a separate “species,” originating thousands, not millions, of years ago. That some interbreeding between the Homo sapiens and the (older and extinct species) Neanderthals occurred is accepted by paleoanthropologists: According to Charles Q. Choi, “Why Neanderthals Likely Fathered Few Kids with Modern Humans,” Live Science [http://www.livescience.com/54359-neanderthal-y-chromosome-caused-miscarriages.html]: “Humans today often carry around a small chunk of DNA from Neanderthals, suggesting we interbred with our closest known extinct relatives at some point in our history. So why isn't there more Neanderthal DNA in modern humans? Turns out, the Y chromosome may have been key in keeping the two lineages apart by creating conditions that might often have led to miscarriages if or when the two got together, researchers now say.” The very point that the two species were separate species and that interbreeding was a rare and difficult possibility suggest that Homo sapiens was a distinct creation. But what about the Bible and God making man “in His own image”? Doesn’t the very existence of Neanderthal, Heidelberg, Floresiensis, Erectus, Rudolfensis, and Habilis fossils disprove that notion? In my forthcoming book Angels and Demons: The Personification of Communication, I address the issue of the marriages in Genesis 6 between the “sons of God” and the “daughters of man,” drawing on the suggested interbreeding between Neanderthals and Homo sapiens, while at the same time considering the Hebrew language: “Genesis 1:26 quotes God: ‘Let us make man INTO our image.’ The Hebrew consonant (ב) that I have translated ‘into’ is typically translated ‘in.’ Nevertheless, ‘into’ is a perfectly legitimate translation. . . . Due to the . . . fossil record that seems to provide evidence of the existence of a non-symbol-using version of man that predates the symbol-using variety, a translation of ‘into’ . . . could accommodate such evidence. In other words, a possibility exists that God originally made a man . . . who did not have symbol-using capacities. He could not speak a language, make tools, paint pictures on cave walls, etc. Then, at some point, God made the same type of being WITH symbol-using capacities (i.e., with His image: He created Adam). . . . The sons of God, in this scenario, would be the offspring of Adam—those who were created ‘with’ [or ‘made into’] God’s image, and hence, could be thought of as his ‘sons.’ The daughters of men, in this scenario, would be the female offspring of the purely ‘animal’ man, the Neanderthals or some such. . . . What would happen if one bred a very intelligent (. . . son of God) man with a very physically adapted (. . . daughter of man) woman? Would their offspring not have the capability of being ‘heroes’ and ‘men of name?’” My point is not that one must accept the preceding explanation/interpretation, but only that the Hebrew text is capable of one or more interpretations that could accommodate the views of paleoanthropologists. THE BIBLE IS TRUE, UNLESS AND UNTIL IT IS PROVEN FALSE.

THE BIG BANG ISSUE In Disneology (pp. 31-34), I point out: “’Big Bang,’ Einstein’s E=MC², Aristotle’s HULĒ, Disney’s Universe of Energy, and Kenneth Burke’s Logology all converge. . . . According to Einstein, Mass (or Aristotle’s HULĒ) can be changed into Energy, and vice versa. Einstein explains his theory of relativity, as follows: ‘It followed from the special theory of relativity that mass and energy are both but different manifestations of the same thing -- a somewhat unfamiliar conception for the average mind. Furthermore, the equation E is equal to m c-squared, in which energy is put equal to mass, multiplied by the square of the velocity of light, showed that very small amounts of mass may be converted into a very large amount of energy and vice versa. The mass and energy were in fact equivalent, according to the formula mentioned above. This was demonstrated by Cockcroft and Walton in 1932, experimentally.’ . . . The Big Bang theory of the origins of the universe is based on the notion that ‘in the beginning’ there was a huge conversion of Energy into Mass—a Big Bang. But what was the source of this tremendous supply of Energy? Theological answer: God. Even more specifically, for John, the energy present in the spoken Word of God. . . . This view . . . supplies an important answer for adherents of the Big Bang Theory that physics . . . [does] not supply—the source of the tremendous supply of Energy that was converted into Mass.”

THE AGE OF THE UNIVERSE ISSUE In Disneology (pp. 25-28), I comment: “Certainly, it is possible to interpret the Genesis account of creation as stating that the entire universe and its inhabitants (up to and including humans) were completely created in six twenty-four hour periods, just a few thousand years ago. This translation is possible because the word ‘day’ (YOM, in the Hebrew) most frequently refers to ‘one twenty-four hour period. . . . unless the term day/YOM can mean something other than a twenty-four hour period.’ . . . In addition to the twenty-four hour denotation, the word YOM also, at times, simply means ‘light,’ as opposed to ‘darkness’(Genesis 1:5). YOM also refers to time periods other than the twenty-four hour variety. In the first chapter of Genesis, God created man—both male and female—and gave them instructions to multiply and fill the Earth, all in one YOM (Day Six). In the second chapter, there is an expanded discussion of several steps in this process. First, God creates Adam, a male, and instructs him to keep the Garden of Eden, to name the animals, to refrain from eating of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, etc. Then, God . . . brings a deep sleep upon him, removes a rib from his side, fashions it into a female (Eve), and brings her to Adam. Later (when Adam and Eve are not together), a serpent successfully induces Eve to eat from the Tree, and Eve subsequently successfully tempts Adam to do so. They invent clothing and hide from God. God discovers them and interrogates them. They are cast from the Garden of Eden and FINALLY told to be fruitful and multiply in the Earth. These are quite a few events to have all been completed in one twenty-four hour period. Nevertheless, Genesis 5:1-2 confirms that Adam and Eve were created in a YOM. Consider another example of YOM lasting longer than twenty-four hours. In Genesis 2:17, God tells Adam that “in the day you eat” from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, you shall surely die. Since (according to Genesis 5:8) Adam lived 930 years, the YOM in which he ate and died appears to be quite long. In fact, this nearly-one-thousand-year-long YOM appears to be close to the famous formula found in Psalm 90:4: ‘For a thousand years are in [God’s] eyes as a YOM . . . .’ Changing the Hebrew word YOM/day to the Greek term HEMERA/day, Second Peter 3:8 declares: ‘One day with the Lord is as a thousand years, and a thousand years is as one day. . . . A third example of YOM lasting longer than twenty-four hours is found in Genesis 2:4. This verse seems to suggest that ALL of creation—heavens, Earth, plants, animals, and humans—occurred in a single YOM. Even those who suggest that God created all things in 144 hours are hesitant to assert that it all happened within 24 hours. While sound Biblical scholarship certainly permits the interpretation that the heavens and Earth and all varieties of inhabitants were formed in 144 hours, this is not the ONLY possible interpretation . . . . Furthermore, the first word of the Bible has [possibly] been mistranslated.’ The first word of the Bible in the original language of Hebrew is BERESHIT. It is almost always translated: ‘In the beginning.’ There is, however, a problem with that translation. The problem lies in the fact that the term BERESHIT is a Hebrew ‘construct’ form. This means that the term ‘Beginning’ should be connected with another noun by the word ‘of.’ The second word of Genesis is NOT, however, a noun; it is the word BARA’, a verb, translated as ‘He created.’ . . . It [also] is quite permissible [by changing vowel pointings] . . . to read BARA’ as a noun (or Gerund): ‘the creating.’ This is how the translation of Genesis 1:1-2 might, thus, read: ‘In the Beginning of God’s creating the heavens and the Earth, the Earth was formless and void.’ If the translation just offered is true, we do not know for certain exactly where the Genesis creation account begins. What is the exact point in the beginning of creating that the first day described in Genesis actually begins? It’s somewhere in the beginning, but the Earth is apparently already in existence, albeit in a formless and chaotic state. Of course, this is not the ONLY possible translation/interpretation of Genesis 1:1-2, but NEITHER is the translation: ‘In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth.’”

THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE SUN ISSUE I note, on page 43 of Disneology: “The order of Creation in Genesis mirrors the order of the origins of the universe as depicted by science in Disney’s Epcot exhibits.” Nevertheless, some take issue with the introduction by Genesis of the Sun, Moon and stars on Day Four. This, they assert is out of order in the origin of the universe. I point out (pp. 45-46): “The Bible does not say plants were ‘created’ before the sun, moon, and stars. The term ‘create’ is used by Genesis only in terms of creating the ‘heavens and the earth’ in 1:1 (which seems to imply [in the term ‘heavens’] that the Sun, Moon, and stars were already created by Day One), creating ‘the great creatures of the sea and every living’ thing in the sea in 1:21 (the beginning of animal life), and God creating ‘man in his own image’ in 1:27. The Bible only implies that on the 4th day, the sun, moon, and stars were made visible in the firmament, to divide day from night. On the implication of ‘visibility’ in Day 4, what else could lights dividing day from night, being markers for seasons, days, and years, and shedding light upon the earth be? This chronological issue of when the Sun, Moon, and stars came into being seems to be the only serious objection non-believers cite regarding the order of creation in the first chapter of Genesis. Disney’s exhibits provide a visual tour of prehistory: The big bang happens, the earth is hot, there is light (from the hot magma and volcanoes) and the ‘waters’ are so hot, they are nothing but vapors surrounding the earth so dense that no light from sun-moon-stars is visible, the earth starts to cool, water vapors begin to condense and gather into seas, vegetation begins, and finally the condensation is so thorough the sun-moon-stars are visible from the surface of the earth. The point I am making has to do with the fact that, at some time prior to the sun-moon-stars becoming visible from the surface of the earth, the earth’s waters were in a gaseous form, hovering above the land surfaces. We know that these water vapors, if they were suspended above the surface of the Earth in gaseous form would be impenetrable by sunlight since we can see that, after they condensed and became the sea, we need only go below the surface of the sea a few thousand feet before we encounter absolute darkness.” The now-discontinued Disney pre-show film of the Living Seas (replicating the order described by physicists) shows this exact order—with vegetation beginning to grow PRIOR TO the emergence of the visibility of sun, moon, and stars. For further reading on creation issues, I refer you to my book Disneology: Religious Rhetoric at Walt Disney World.

Creation issues are extremely important for Christian Realists. If even the Ten Commandments assert that God created, and with all of the theology in both testaments predicated on the Genesis account of Creation and Adam and Eve, how could any Christian dismiss these issues as unimportant? Along with issues of the end of time in Revelation and the New Testament mini-apocalypses, and with questions about the reliability of the Gospel accounts, Creation issues are the front lines of the war. With regard to creation issues (and to the other issues), the Bible is true until proven false.

The Logic of Christianity 11: Are there Proofs that the Resurrection Never Happened?

The first historical attempt to deny that Jesus actually rose from the dead is described in Matthew 28:11-15. Matthew’s audience (living decades after the crucifixion) is, apparently, still well aware of an explanation offered among Jews for the disappearance of Jesus’ body: The Roman Guards who were securing the tomb holding Jesus’ body, according to the explanation, all fell asleep during their watch. Jesus’ disciples, sensing that this likelihood would “probably” occur (wink and nod), had the cunning, alertness, and presence of mind to immediately capitalize on the Guards’ temporary lapse to sneak in quietly, roll the stone away, and steal Jesus’ body, thus violating the Commandment against working on the Sabbath at the same time they were violating Roman law, since the purported theft involved the illegal breaking of the seal of the Roman procurator, Pontius Pilate. How the Guards who were soundly asleep could possibly have known that a “theft” of the body had occurred is not explained. If the Guards were truly asleep during this purported theft, they would not know at all what had happened to the body. If one of them had awakened during the process (and, hence, noticed the theft occurring), he would have, most certainly, alerted his fellow guards and disrupted the theft. Surely, at least one of the thieves would have been captured or some physical evidence of a dead body being moved would have been discovered. Furthermore, if a theft of a dead body that had been sealed in a tomb by Pilate were actually accomplished, where would the disciples hide this dead body that, by now, had begun to stink? Why is it that, even decades after the purported theft (in Matthew’s account), no physical evidence of the stolen body of Jesus had ever been located? The only “proof” offered in this scenario is the “EYE-WITNESS TESTIMONY” of Guards WHO CLAIM TO HAVE BEEN “ASLEEP” WHEN IT HAPPENED.

Abdullah Kareem, in his web post, “The Resurrection Hoax” (http://answering-christianity.com/abdullah_smith/the_resurrection_hoax.htm) argues that the resurrection of Jesus is a hoax because Mark, the earliest gospel, “never contained the story.” Mr. Kareem’s use of the term “never” is quite clearly erroneous. (If Kareem were a biblical author, the anti-Christian forces would surely swoop down to demonstrate that he can have no claim to inerrancy!) The fact is, you see, that some early manuscripts of Mark definitely contain Mark 16:9-20, which recounts resurrection appearances to Mary Magdalene, the Eleven apostles, and two men walking in the country. So, one cannot say that Mark “never” contained the story. Kareem’s claim might be better phrased: “The earliest manuscripts of the Gospel of Mark do not contain the accounts of resurrection appearances to Mary Magdalene, the Eleven apostles, and two men walking in the country.” That much is true, but that does not mean that Mark did not contain the resurrection story. In a passage that is not disputed by textual critics, Mark 16:1-8 contains the early Easter morning story of Mary Magdalene and two others coming to anoint Jesus’ body. They found the stone rolled away from the mouth of the tomb, and upon entering, they saw a person robed in white who said to them, “Be not afraid. You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He is risen; He is not here; see the place where they laid him.” Mr. Kareem’s argument, therefore, is again erroneous. Even without Mark 16:9-20, Mark still contains the resurrection story. Mr. Kareem continues with innuendo and slanted arguments, none of which are particularly compelling, and then closes with this challenge: “We challenge Christians to prove his resurrection.”

The problem with Mr. Kareem’s challenge is that it presumes that the burden of proof rests upon Christians. Who says it does? Who gets to decide what “presumptions” should take precedence? In American jurisprudence, we constitutionally grant a “presumption of innocence” to anyone who is accused of a crime. We say that s/he is presumed innocent, until proven guilty. But, who could prove that this presumption is the best presumption? Why not presume that anyone who is accused is guilty, until proven innocent? The answer is that “cultures” decide which presumptions the cultures will accept. In my book, ArguMentor (p. 69), I discuss “those ‘starting points’ of Perelman’s argumentation—those facts, truths, and presumptions—that each specific culture unconsciously admits.” Put differently, there are no “facts,” unless the culture in which one states the fact admits that it is a fact. Especially, in the postmodern era, there are no “truths,” unless the culture in which one states the truth admits that it is a truth. And, we cannot “presume” anything unless the culture in which we expect the “presumption” to hold sway admits that it is the acceptable presumption. Foss, Foss, and Trapp (p. 89) note: “[T]he audience’s adherence to presumptions falls short of being maximum; thus, presumptions, unlike facts and truths, can be reinforced by argumentation. Speakers engage in preliminary argumentation to establish certain presumptions or to reinforce the presumptions in the minds of the audience. . . . [P]resumptions can be violated, whereas facts and truths cannot.” Perelman states on pages 24-25 of the Realm of Rhetoric that presumption “imposes the burden of proof upon the person who wants to oppose its application.”

So, I disagree with Abdullah Kareem’s assessment of the presumptions when it comes to the resurrection of Jesus. My position is that, given the 2000-year-long general acceptance in western culture of the resurrection, the burden of proof is on Mr. Kareem to prove that it did NOT happen. And, I challenge anyone to prove that the resurrection did not happen. How would someone even begin to go about proving such a thing? For that matter, how would someone prove that God did NOT create the universe? How would someone prove that the Bible is NOT inspired of God? These are some of my presumptions: • The resurrection did occur. • God did create the universe. • The Bible is inspired of God. Furthermore, they are presumptions held by a massive Christian Culture. My presumption is that these premises are “true, until proven false.”

I will stipulate that NOT ALL who study the Scriptures admit these presumptions. There was a major paradigm shift in biblical studies around the turn of the 20th Century—probably, the result of (a now discredited) modernist philosophy and the application of Occam’s Razor. In his book Between Faith and Criticism, Mark A. Noll writes of two biblical studies cultures operating under opposing presumptions (p.7): “The story of these clashing communities is, however, really two stories. Of most interest to outsiders is the record of traditional Bible-believers first competing in the intellectual marketplace as full partners in the academic discussion of Scripture (roughly 1880 to 1900); then retreating from that world to the fortress of faith (roughly 1900 to 1935); then slowly realizing the values of some participation in that wider world (1935 to 1950), finding the strategies to put themselves back in the professional picture once again (1940 to 1975), and finally confronting new spiritual and intellectual dilemmas because of success in those ventures (1960 to the present). This part of the story is largely an account of . . . conflicting ASSUMPTIONS about the Bible.” On page 45, Noll observes that, after 1900, “a new paradigm emerges for the practice of normal science (The Bible, however sublime, is a human book to be investigated with the standard ASSUMPTIONS that one brings to the discussion of all products of human culture).” Replace the term “assumptions” in the quotations I have cited above (and placed in all caps) with the term “presumptions” and you will have a better grasp of the “logical” situation I am describing. The big difference is that when the new paradigm emerged, the term “assumption” for the advocates of considering the Bible to be a human book became much more of a “premise” or a “creed” than an “assumption” or “presumption.” That is to say, advocates of considering the Bible to be a human book leave no room for the possibility of being proven wrong. For them, the description of the Bible is not “human until proven divine” in a way analogous to our legal formula: “innocent until proven guilty.” They simply allow no room for the possibility of their assumption being wrong. There is no way they would grant the Bible any divine nature. It is as if their “assumption” takes on the full weight of “truth.” It is, therefore, with much more humility that I advance the “presumption” formula concerning the Bible that it is “divinely inspired until proven human;” that it is “true until proven false.” This more humble “presumption” of mine is akin to the postmodern view expressed in 1974 by University of Chicago Professor Wayne C. Booth in Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent: “It is reasonable to grant (one ought to grant) some degree of credence to whatever qualified men and women agree on, unless one has specific and stronger reasons to disbelieve” (101).

“Granting some degree of credence” is another formula for defining the term “faith.” In my first blog post in this series, The Logic of Christianity 1: The Shroud, the Pope, and the Faith Continuum, I remarked: “Even miniscule faith in a tiny possibility is still faith.” I offered extreme examples: “Faith is a continuum. It runs all the way from the tiniest, faintest possibility that something is true (such as the faint possibility that I was within 15 to 20 feet of the actual DNA of Jesus [at the Shroud of Turin]) to the almost certain probability that something is true (such as the almost certain fact that I was within 15 to 20 feet of Pope Francis [in St. Peter’s Square of the Vatican]).” I cited Aristotle to the following effect: “Faith . . . must admit at least two possibilities. In his book, On Rhetoric, Aristotle teaches how rhetorical logic works. In rhetoric (as opposed to dialectic), the aim is not to provide absolute truth, but only possible or probable truth. It applies only to matters of which we cannot be certain. Nevertheless, although certainty is impossible, we can logically conclude that something is ‘probably’ or ‘possibly’ true. Aristotle says that the goal of this type of logic is to achieve ‘faith.’” With this post, I am further positing that “faith” is the accepting of presumptions. I stated that some of my presumptions include the following: • The resurrection did occur. • God did create the universe. • The Bible is inspired of God. Furthermore, I pointed out, they are presumptions held by a massive Christian Culture. My presumption is that these premises are “true, until proven false.” That, for me, is the essence of effective Christian faith. Although I argued that even atheists possess a small degree of faith in God, I would not consider such miniscule faith to be “effective Christian faith.” Effective Christian faith begins at the point one chooses to join the culture that accepts presumptions such as those identified above. Accepting these presumptions does not mean that one must relegate his or her brain and cognitive powers to the closet. It means simply that Christians give God, Jesus, the Bible, the Resurrection, etc. the benefit of the doubt. We will believe that these presumptions are “true until proven false.”

Simply shifting the burden of proof from the believers to the unbelievers produces stunning results. If unbelievers must prove that the resurrection did not occur, I believe they would need some powerful evidence: the physical remains of Jesus’ body, uncontested confessions from some of his close followers that a hoax had been perpetrated, etc. If unbelievers must prove that there is no God or that He did not create the universe, they would need to produce evidence that it is impossible to produce. If unbelievers must prove that the Bible is false, they must first determine every possible meaning of every Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic word in the Scriptures. Then, they must consider every conceivable grammatical combination in which those words may be found. Next, they must consider every possible trope, every figure of speech, as a means of determining the multitudinous possible interpretations of every verse of scripture. And, they must disprove not just one or two interpretations that they might prefer to debunk, in a “straw man” logical fallacy approach. They must disprove every single interpretation that is remotely possible—that has been previously advanced or that will be advanced at any point in the future.

In my academic career, I frequently pursue the interpretive “possibilities” of biblical texts, and my pursuits are often guided by the debunking activities of some of my fellow scholars who have chosen to follow unbelieving presumptions. If unbelieving scholars attempt to debunk a “young earth” interpretation of Genesis, I pursue the possibilities in the Hebrew text to see if any evidence of an “older earth” interpretation is possible. If unbelieving scholars attempt to assert evolutionary biological theories, I investigate the language used in Genesis. My goal is not to cave on creationist theologies, but to investigate the range of possibilities. What if the interpretations accepted by generations of Christians are incorrect—as, for example, Christians still mistakenly identify “Lucifer” in Isaiah with “Satan”? I was raised in a non-denominational Christian movement that pledged no allegiance to man-made creeds. I am not committed to defending the various Christian creeds developed over the last two millennia. I do not presume them to be inspired. I do, on the other hand, presume that the Bible is inspired, and in the next few blog posts, I will offer some of the new perspectives I have pursued in investigating some of the texts unbelieving scholars have attacked. My faith remains unscathed.

Disneology #8: What about Evolution?

ASSIGNMENT 9: CATCH A MEAL AT THE “SCI-FI DINE IN” RESTAURANT AT DISNEY'S HOLLYWOOD STUDIOS. STUDY THE ALIENS. DO YOU NOTICE ANY SIGNS OF AN IMPLICIT BELIEF IN EVOLUTION? WALK THROUGH PANGANI FOREST OF THE ANIMAL KINGDOM. IS THERE ANY EVOLUTIONARY RHETORIC TO BE FOUND?

The most stressful and emotionally divisive debate between scientists and theologians is over the issue of evolution. Conservatives (who may have even misinterpreted fellow conservatives’ positions on this issue) consign fellow conservatives to Satan because they think the others do not totally agree with them. Liberals dismiss as silly anyone who is not a “true believer” in Darwinism (something that is far from being proven, itself). The entire discussion gets rather mean-spirited, at times. My goal in this commentary is give fair theological consideration to all sides of the theological issue, to help people wrestle with their own views.

In my last commentary, I mentioned evolutionists who believed that logically, there must be more intelligent life on other planets. The “logic” of this belief is expressed in the Drake Equation, developed by Frank Drake, in 1961: N = R* fp ne fl fi fc L, whatever that means! The name of this “branch of science” (that, so far, has produce zero empirical evidence of any kind of life on other planets) is “astrobiology.” A famous popularizer of extraterrestrial intelligent life theory and astronomy, Carl Sagan, even came up with a plan for attaching some sort of message to U.S. spacecraft that may be destined to leave the earth permanently. Sagan, clearly, was not thinking some extraterrestrial “plant” would be able to decipher his message. Sagan’s hope was that his message might eventually be interpreted by some extraterrestrial intelligent life form that might find our spacecraft. Some of Sagan’s notions are dramatized in the 1997 movie, Contact. These ideas were clearly floating around before Sagan and Drake became famous. Disney producers were already toying with the relationship between evolutionary theories and extraterrestrial life in the 1950s.

On December 4, 1957, the Disneyland television series on ABC TV aired an episode entitled “Mars and Beyond,” directed by Ward Kimball. The episode is included in a Walt Disney Treasures collection entitled Tomorrowland: Disney in Space and Beyond, available through Amazon.com. Film critic Ernest Rister (http://dvd.ign.com/articles/518/518352p1.html) explains that the episode offers “the history of evolution on Earth (creationists, beware) in a sequence that strongly echoes the "Rite of Spring" sequence from Fantasia, without re-using any of the 1940 animation. Then we are shown how life may have evolved on other planets in a bravura animated set-piece that is as strong as anything to come out of the Disney studios in the 1950s.”

This piece of textual evidence may be important proof that Walt Disney believed in evolution, but does that mean he rejected creation theology? Even if Disney accepted evolution as an explanation of the origin and development of life on earth, has evolution been scientifically proven? Believers in gradual evolution have been hoping that the study of fossils (paleontology) will yield scientific evidence of the various transitional stages of development each genus and species went through as it evolved. They are searching for “missing links.” The website AllAboutScience.org (http://www.allaboutscience.org/missing-link-faq.htm) reports:

“Stephen J. Gould, America's most famous evolutionist . . . stated, ‘The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary . . . textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism. I wish only to point out that it was never seen in the rocks.’”

Gould’s comments may be used by theologians who wish to reject concepts of evolution altogether. Such theologians may insist that “the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record” may be taken as proof that gradualism (evolution) did not occur. Such a view may, of course, be supported by the biblical creation account, which uses the phrase “according to its/their kind/s” throughout creation (Genesis 1:11, 21, 24, 25). This “kind/s” terminology may indicate a doctrine of the existence of biological boundaries that are not crossed by evolution. Hence, there would necessarily be missing links. Nevertheless, there may be other theologians who are persuaded that some evolution/gradualism did occur. Does the biblical creation account rule out any possibility of evolution/gradualism?

The issue is “how” God created and/or made things. Genesis 2:8 states that God had “planted” a garden in Eden, but this is surely not an indication of how God made plants. Planting presupposes that one has seeds to plant. Given the existence of seeds, even humans can “plant” a garden. Did God form each plant or seed that grew? Perhaps, but Genesis does not make that claim.

Genesis 1:11 indicates “how” God made plants. He SPOKE to the land: “Let the land produce vegetation.” Genesis 1:12 confirms: “The land produced vegetation.” One way of viewing this phenomenon is to say that God delegated to land the capacity for producing plant life. If land, then, was given by God the capacity to produce life, we should not be terribly surprised if, at some point, humans—putting together the right combination of chemicals from the land—are able to see that “land” (i.e., a chemical combination) produce life (in a test tube, for example). My high school science teacher predicted to me nearly a half century ago that we were on the verge of such an accomplishment. It has not happened yet.

In a somewhat similar manner (but with a curious departure in the way it is phrased), in Genesis 1:20, God SPOKE to the waters: “Let the waters teem with living creatures.” Did God, then, endow the waters with the capacity to produce animal life? Possibly. Possibly not. Note that in Genesis 1:21, “God created . . . every living and moving thing with which the water teems.” This seems to be a special act (hence, the use of the word “created”). Water animal life was the first level of animal life. As I noted before, there are just a few times Genesis employs the term “create” in the creation account. This is one of them.
In Genesis 1:24, we return to a formula similar to the formula for making plants. God SPOKE to the land: “Let the land produce living creatures.” If God delegated to land the capacity for producing plant life, and then (later) the capacity for producing living creatures, it may be that once God created elemental animal life (in the waters), the land was given the capacity for developing that animal life. In other words, there appears to be some room for a somewhat theologically-based evolution/gradualism theory.

Note, however, that Genesis once again employs the term “create” when it comes to humans. Genesis 1:27 states: “God created man in his own image . . . male and female created He them.” Genesis 2:7 adds the detail that God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life before man became a living being. I commented in Disneology #6: “The term ‘create’ is used by Genesis only in terms of creating the ‘heavens and the earth’ in 1:1 . . . creating ‘the great creatures of the sea and every living’ thing in the sea in 1:21 (the beginning of animal life), and God creating ‘man in his own image’ in 1:27.” Nevertheless, all creation seems to have been accomplished by God “speaking,” with the lone exception of the creation of Adam. Those theologians who wish to accommodate some form of evolution/gradualism theory in their theology would do well to pay attention to the significant shifts of these three “create” events.


Regardless of whether biblical theologians choose to reject evolution altogether or to accommodate some elements of evolutionary theory in their theologies, there is a motto borrowed from the Restoration Movement that could be useful in reducing the theological community stress over this issue. I refer to the motto on page 36 of my book, The Seven Cs of Stress:

There was a nineteenth century motto promoting church unity, which suggested: “In essentials, unity. In opinions, liberty. In all things, love.” The second element of that catch phrase is a principle of anarchy. There may be instances in which each individual should have the latitude to decide for himself or herself. When there is no compelling reason for everyone in the group to be doing the same thing, why not provide liberty/anarchy?

Is there a compelling reason for every theologian to hold exactly the same view regarding the evolution issue? When Martin Luther debated the Catholic Church over The Ninety-Five Theses, he tried to establish the compelling basis upon which he thought all Christians could find unity: Sola Scriptura (the Bible alone). If a theologian cites a plausible biblically-based argument for the opinion s/he holds, it may be a situation that cries out for liberty (and love).

Disneology 7: Does Creation Theology Matter?

ASSIGNMENT 8: RIDE THROUGH “SPACESHIP EARTH” AT EPCOT AND NOTICE DISNEY’S RAPID PRESENTATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF HUMAN COMMUNICATION. BEGINNING WITH CAVE DRAWINGS (WHICH SCHOLARS DATE NO EARLIER THAN SOME 30,000 YEARS AGO) HUMANS HAVE FOUND WAYS TO COMMUNICATE SYMBOLICALLY WITH ONE ANOTHER. EGYPTIANS TURNED THESE SIMPLE ART SYMBOLS INTO A LANGUAGE OF HIEROGLYPHICS. PHOENICIANS DEVELOPED A MORE UNIVERSAL ALPHABET. GREEKS PHILOSOPHIZED, AND ROMANS SPREAD COMMUNICATION THROUGH A NETWORK OF ROADS.

Creation accounts have been a part of the religious traditions of these ancient cultures and virtually all other cultures since the beginning of recorded history. While some modern Judeo-Christian theologians find it convenient to distance themselves from biblical creation accounts, others question why that is the case. Science is certainly not afraid to tackle issues of the origins of the universe, as we have been discussing. Even if the author of Genesis could not have personally known what happened so many years before he was born, there is no reason he should be prohibited from offering an explanation of how the world began. Furthermore, there is room for argumentation that could place the account in Genesis 1 in a context similar to that of current scientific theory.


Virtually every ancient culture offered explanations of our origins. The Egyptians focused on the role of the Nile River in creation. They saw the beginning as a mass of chaotic waters, called Nu or Nun. To this beginning they added Sun, Moon, Earth, and Sky gods. The (immortal, but not eternal) earth god and sky goddess eventually gave birth to Isis and Osiris, names better known to our generation, but Egyptian mythology (with such features as the earth god lying on his side to form mountains) did not survive as a serious explanation of the beginnings of the world. According to an account of Phoenician creation mythology dating at least as far back as the first century A.D., there was first chaos; then from a cosmic egg, creation of the universe began. Mayan creation stories begin with sky and sea, and then the creation god Kukulkan (whose pyramid, incidentally, may be seen at the Mexico Pavilion in Epcot) speaks the word “Earth,” and the Earth rises from the sea. Following this, the thoughts of Kukulkan create mountains, trees, birds, jaguars, and snakes; finally, humans are created (first, out of mud; second, out of wood; third, as monkeys; and finally, as full-fledged humans). Vying with Genesis as the oldest creation account is the Babylonian creation myth. The Babylonian account we have is developed from Sumerian myths, in the 12th century B.C. According to this account, god/s did not exist at the beginning of the universe. Instead, sweet and bitter waters comingled and created many gods. Then, one god born of two others, Marduk, eventually defeated and killed the bitter waters, Tiamat, in a colossal struggle. Earth was created, followed by the moon, then the Sun. Finally, humans descended from the gods. Greek creation mythology began with chaos, a watery state ruled by Oceanus, and as in the Babylonian account, reproductive activity on the part of the gods and goddesses produced the Greek gods. Poiseidon, one of the great Greek gods (known by the Romans as Neptune), is featured in a fountain statue in the Italy exhibit in the “World Showcase” at Epcot.

Of all ancient explanations of the origins of the universe, only the Hebrew account has withstood the test of time. Only the Hebrew account has continued throughout years of Modernism and Postmodernism to survive the vast onslaught of scientific skepticism and Postmodern relativism. Even so, the Hebrew account of world origins remains under severe attack and is strongly derided by many. So, should theologians bother to fight this battle? The answer to that question is “Absolutely!” This issue goes to the very heart of keeping the terms “creator” and “omnipotent” in definitions of God. How could the world and everything in it be the product of one omnipotent agent, if there is no agent capable of creating the world? Without an Agent, would the world have any Purpose? How could any hope of an “afterlife” be placed in God, if He was not even capable of creating the “present” life? If there is no afterlife, not only the descriptive terms “omnipotent” and “creator” but also the terms “eternal” and “immutable” should be removed from our definition of God. If God did not create the universe, how could anyone claim that He is “omnipresent” in it? If He is not omnipresent, how could He possibly know all things (be “omniscient”) about it? In short, what happens to our entire definition of God (from my November 28, 2009 commentary, “Disneology 1”), if we apply Occam’s Razor to creation?

If God is not omnipotent, eternal, immutable, omnipresent, and omniscient, are we to assume that no one is and that the humans we call geniuses are at the top of ladder, when it comes to approximations concerning these characteristics? Not even evolutionists are willing to go there. They believe that, since there is “intelligent” life on Earth, logic demands that there must be “even more intelligent” life elsewhere in the universe. There must be aliens who are more intelligent (-scient), aliens who are more powerful (-potent), aliens who can extend their lives further (approximating eternity), etc. Do we have any clear proof of the existence of such aliens? No, it’s just a theory. Yet, here is this Hebrew account of the existence of a God who created the universe, written more than 3,000 years ago, positing a more intelligent, powerful, eternal being, capable of creating the entire universe. This ancient account still stands in basic agreement with the best scientific evidence we have concerning the chronological order of the origins of the universe. It even supplies the missing link that the Big Bang theory cannot: Where did the energy to produce the Big Bang come from? It supplies a dramatistic (cf. Burke’s Pentad) explanation for our existence, something Occam’s Razor had complicated for science. Since humans seem to be hard-wired with a dramatistic nature, it explains why we have that nature. And, since humans have the capacity to be intelligent, powerful, and creative life-extenders, the very existence of the human species seems to argue for the existence of God, a being with even greater supplies of these same characteristics. There is something built into the human psyche that seems to cry out: “God created the heavens and the Earth.” Perhaps, that is why “creation accounts have been a part of the religious traditions of . . . virtually all cultures since the beginning of recorded history.”


The other ancient religious traditions of creation have fallen by the wayside, because they were filled with silly, base, and clearly erroneous stories. How then could a Hebrew author, living 3000 years ago, provide such an insightful (and difficult to destroy) account of the origins of the universe? On pages 95-96 of my book Psychotic Entelechy: The Dangers of Spiritual Gifts Theology, I offer the following obvious observation:

“Genesis provides a rapid-fire account of more than two thousand years of human history prior to Israel’s four hundred year sojourn in Egypt. Prior to the account of human history, Genesis offers a one-chapter account of the creation of heaven, earth, and the plant and animal kingdoms. Presumably, if Moses authored the creation and human history accounts, he would need some inspiration from God to certify that his account was accurate.”