Pages

Tuesday, January 17, 2006

Intelligent Thoughts on Intelligent Design

Editor's Introduction

Upon reading this post, you might ask, "what does this have to do with Reformed Baptist faith or practice?" Reformed Christianity, on the whole, has usually recognized the need for thoughtful, intelligent, and faithful interaction with the culture around us (not adaption, not accommodation, but interaction). The following, written as a letter to the editor for the Washington Post by Walter J. Chantry, editor of the Banner of Truth Magazine, does just that. This is a clear, well-argued, and thought-provoking piece that interacts with the current debate on Intelligent Design from the perspective of the philosophy of science (which, is a perspective often ignored by evangelicals, to their own peril). The careful reader, however, will notice something more: namely, Reformed theology and anthropology at work. Although he does not put the matter in precisely these terms, by decrying lawyers and school-boards for crying "religion, religion!" against this particular theory of origins, Walt pinpoints the real reason Intelligent Design has sparked so much debate: fallen man's innate, but irrational, suppression of the truth of natural revelation in all unrighteousness and ungodliness (Rom 1:18ff.). Here is a helpful reminder, then, that all things are in fact disciplined by theology. Bad theology produces bad fruit; Reformed theology produces thoughtful interaction with the cultured despisers of the revealed truth of God. With that said, read on...

Cultural Dogmatism against Intelligent Design

Walter J. Chantry

Much of the media seems to be pleased that lawyers and judges in government courts may outlaw discussion of “intelligent design” in science classrooms. To others of us it is chilling that thought police have limited the discussion of ideas within schools.

If a decision were taken to teach in science classes only scientific methods of observation, experimentation and measurement, then there would be no place for discussion of “intelligent design”. However, there would be no place for discussion of any philosophy of science. Yet the philosophy of science, which does not arise from observation, experimentation and measurement, is of vital concern to science.

Science has always rested upon philosophical assumptions. Its set of philosophical assumptions changes through history. At the end of the 20th century most serious scientists had to read The Structure of Scientific Revolution by Thomas S. Kuhn. Kuhn’s work noted radical changes in the philosophy of science. In fact the most productive scientists have thought outside the accepted norms of the scientific philosophy of their day and consequently have advanced our civilization. Newton and Einstein come to mind as changing philosophical direction in science and thereby making science enormously more productive. It is to be expected that great scientists will amend present thinking in the philosophy of science to make future advances in science (but the courts have ruled that no new philosophical paradigms are to be admitted to the classrooms of science).

By its methodology (empirical or sensual investigation) science has limited itself to examining and discussing material reality. This is either a metaphysical assumption that all reality is material, or it is an a priori admission that science has no knowledge of non-material reality…if any such exists.

The idea of “creation” is that all material reality was brought into existence by an entirely non-material Being. In other words, all that is material had a spiritual first cause and has a continuing spiritual management. By its chosen methodology science is incapable of proving or disproving this viewpoint. Science refuses to discuss what most of humanity past and present considers to be by far the more important reality—the spiritual. Most men think themselves to be an amalgam of both material and spiritual reality. Science is not all. For example, there are fine arts.

Yet science, with its empirical and therefore necessarily material outlook, cannot keep itself from speculating about origins of the material universe. In doing this it jettisons its own principles of reporting only upon the empirically observed facts. No man was present at the beginning of the universe to make sensual observations.

Darwin has become the darling of a majority of scientists, and now, we suppose, of the lawyers as well. What Darwin gave us as a philosophy of science was a materialistic determinism. In chromosomes or DNA or genetic code or in some yet-to-be-discovered element of material there lies an inevitable upward (improving) force of development from within material itself. This is claimed although in a world of merely the material there is no ground for judging improvement! Strangely, this predestinarian view of physical development is not thought to be inbuilt or directed by a personal intelligence. It is the worst of all predestinarian views, because it presents the idea that there are inevitable, purely material impulses creating change that gains dominance by destruction of all competing forms.

When those who believed in such materialistic determinism employed “The survival of the fittest” politically and militarily in the last century, we had Bolshevism and Nazi Fascism. This was hardly a cultural advance. Ideas have consequences!

The media has recently focused on school board members who may have introduced the teaching of “intelligent design” for religious reasons. Horrors! Lawyers have cried, “Religion! Religion!”, and have frightened a nation. Religion does have a philosophy of “Intelligent design” wrapped into its view of creation. Religion teaches intelligent (spiritual, personal) design as opposed to impersonal, unfeeling predestinarian materialistic forces. Should there be a discussion of philosophy or merely the imposition of Darwin’s philosophy?

What is worse, from the point of view of the media, “intelligent design” did not originate with religiously motivated school board non-scientists. Many of our finest scientists do not share Darwin’s philosophy of science (one wonders if there is money to be made by lawyers in silencing them all). Some who began their scientific work assuming Darwin was correct have changed their minds as a result of science itself.

Only since the 1950’s have we had microscopes powerful enough to give us images of cells of the human body. Scientists using these microscopes have observed and described the complexity and marvel of the operations within one human cell. After recording their findings, some sat back and pondered their results. A number of them have concluded from their studies that the existence of a human cell does not fit into Darwin’s philosophy. They could not conceive of cells evolving through the “survival of the fittest” scheme. Nor could they imagine such development from impersonal materialistic determinism. Some scientists are thinking that a change of paradigm is needed in science itself. This did not have religious origins, but it might encourage religious opinions. However, there is the great “bugbear” again—religion! Run for your life!

Are students to be ordered not to read scientists who are suggesting a change in the philosophy of science? What would the courts have done to a theory of relativity before Einstein? I am afraid that the pontifical courts and the lawyers are all “emperors without clothes” on this one; they are for suppression of thought.

Wednesday, January 11, 2006

A Little Humor from the Good Doctor

A little ecclesiastical humor, courtesy of Jim Renihan. This would be funnier, however, if it weren't true of many present day churches.

http://tinyurl.com/9fmfm

p.s. if it wants you to download Quick Time or iTunes, you don't have to. You can change the format (right above the "screen") and it should play in Windows Media Player or your default media player. If it doesn't work, sorry. I repeat, I am not computer savvy.

Tuesday, January 10, 2006

A Baker's Dozen (+1)

The idea was simple: pick what I deem to be the best 10 books out of my small library and say a few words about them. This proved to be more difficult than anticipated, because I quickly realized I have some mighty fine books. Choosing between them necessitated cracking the cover of several volumes, and I quickly became lost in biblical, theological, and historical thought. I also had a hard time narrowing the list to 10. Hence, what follows is a baker's dozen list of the best 13 books in my library (you'll see why the list goes to #14 when you get there). The list is confined to my library, so I'm not pretending to speak authoritatively about the best books of all time. Also, these books are in no particular order, and the list does not include any Confessional documents or Bibles, English or otherwise.

Much of this list is predictable, but hey, it's my list.

1. Richard Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms. A wealth of theological wisdom, but in a concise and accessible package.

2. Richard Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, 2nd edition, 4 volumes. Yes, a set counts as one on my list, and this is a critical work in historical theology.

3. John Calvin, The Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2 volumes. I know, obvious.

4. Edward Fisher, The Marrow of Modern Divinity. Important, both theologically and historically. The inability to distinguish properly between the covenant of works and the covenant of grace has crippled much of modern Reformed theology. Fisher's dialogue would be helpful in rectifying that problem.

5. Geerhardus Vos, The Pauline Eschatology. Vos, in my opinion, had to be on this list, and it was between this volume and his Biblical Theology. This is less accessible than Biblical Theology, and more specific in scope, but a gem for setting forth the basic structure of Paul's thought. If you aren't familiar with Vos, but you are familiar with the modern milieu of eschatological thought, don't be fooled by the title (and shame on you!). Neither Paul's eschatology nor Vos's conception of it deals exclusively with 'last things' narrowly considered.

6. D. G. Hart and John Muether, With Reverance and Awe: Returning to the Basics of Reformed Worship. The most important book on the most important subject.

7. John Brown, Galatians. The Old Perspective on Paul -- and the biblical perspective on Paul. Needs to be read alongside Calvin's commentary and sermons on Galatians.

8. John Owen, The Works of John Owen. No, it isn't cheating to include a massive set like this on a short list; but, if I had to pick one volume, it would either be vol. 4 or vol. 5.

9. Nehemiah Coxe, A Discourse of the Covenants That God Made with Men Before the Law. Recently republished in Covenant Theology from Adam to Christ. The original title is much longer, and gives the reader insight into the book's substance and intent. Not just another book on covenant theology; the most important on the subject. Coxe, a 17th century Particular Baptist, argues for credo-baptism (and against paedobaptism) on the basis of covenant theology. Quite frankly, this is brilliant. I thank God every day for Nehemiah Coxe, and for the man who introduced me to this volume, Dr. James M. Renihan, professor of the Institute for Reformed Baptist Studies (at Westminster Seminary California).

10. Herman Witsius, The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man: A Complete Body of Divinity, 2 volumes. Very fine, especially on the covenant of works with Adam, and the intratrinitarian covenant of redemption.

11. Francis Turretin, The Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 3 volumes. Meaty.

12. J. Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism. Arguably the most important book written in the 20th century, by arguably the most important confessional Presbyterian of the 20th century.

13. Carl Trueman, The Wages of Spin: Critical Writings on Historic & Contemporary Evangelicalism. I've only had this little book for less than 6 months, but I've read it cover to cover and I find myself returning to it often. Well worth the price of admission.

14. James M. Renihan, Things Most Assuredly Believed Among Us: A Commentary on the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith (1677/1689). THIS IS NOT A REAL BOOK, BUT IT SHOULD BE. This author has not (yet) written this book, but he is the world's leading expert on the theology and the history of the Confession of Faith. He needs to write this book, and when he does, it will be at the top of this list. I'm simply reserving the space in advance. [By the way, I have no idea what his title would be, or if he is currently working on this project; this is purely hypothetical and fictional on my part -- don't ask Jim if he is working on this, or if he has decided this is his title, he will never forgive me for it.]

I'll probably revise this list several times before I die (or before February, whichever comes first). Nevertheless, enjoy...

Monday, January 09, 2006

My Maiden Voyage...

There are some in this world who are computer savvy -- I am not, even though I own multiple PCs.

There are some in this world who are blog savvy -- I am not, even though I have responded to posts on a friend's blog (http://zoomstick.blogspot.com).

There are some in this world who seem to have countless hours to devote to this (mediocre, and often self-aggrandizing) form of publishing -- I do not, even though I am mediocre in many of my pursuits (e.g., golf, texas-hold-'em, etc.). As a man, a husband, a father, and a minister of the gospel, I do not have that kind of time. I have no intention of becoming a slave to this blog.

There are some in the ecclesiastical world (particularly the Reformed and Protestant world) who seem to think that blogging is a helpful tool for advancing biblical and theological acumen amongst God's people -- I'm skeptical, at best. Often blogging ends up being nothing more than a bunch of strangers sharing their collective ignorance. Instant publishing, in fact, is much like light beer when compared to a finely crafted cask conditioned ale -- less filling, no taste. While there may be profit in internet banter, especially when the subject is the living God and his inspired Word, as a general rule of thumb internet research is no safe guide, and for the Christian it is a far cry from the outward and ordinary means of grace God has appointed for his church (more on that in a future post).

So, then, why have I started this blog? Mob mentality, I guess. Everybody else is doing it, so why shouldn't I? Admittedly, that is very poor reason, and I already regret having posted such an admission in my very first entry.

Nevertheless, as the title and description of this blog would suggest, I am a confessional Reformed Baptist (again, more on that in a future post) -- and I am a minister in a confessional Reformed Baptist church. As such, I have created this blog so that I (and invited ministerial cohorts) might have a forum to address certain matters theological and ecclesiastical that might not appear in printed format, either in a book or theological journal.

Enjoy. And don't forget to come back.