Why don't I open us up in prayer first?
Father God, I thank you for this day.
I thank you for this opportunity for us to think about you and to learn about you, Lord.
I ask that you give me clarity of mind and clear speech,
and that this would be helpful and edifying to your body.
We love you, Lord. In Jesus' name, amen.
Okay, so let me start with a lot of preamble.
So the preamble is, this is like a really huge subject.
And when I was asked to give a class on it, initially I was like, okay, I'll do one tight class about it.
And then I realized that's not going to work. I had to do more than one.
And then the longer I was reading and looking, there's just no way for me to put everything that I would like to say into a class,
unless we want to go all year.
And so I had to focus on one specific thing.
So I'll talk about what the goal of this class is in a second.
But first, I'm Luke Batty.
I'm one of the deacons here at church.
I'm also what would be called a natural theologian back in the day.
And we'll get into that.
But this is a little controversial.
I don't know if you guys have noticed, but there is sort of a discussion going on in Christian circles.
And it has been for a long time.
And so what I hope to do in talking about creationism, intelligent design, theistic evolution, all these different topics,
is to provide a framework for unity in the body.
I feel like a lot of times among Christians,
when we want to be having useful, helpful discussions about these topics,
you know, sort of like Bilbo hanging out and smoking a pipe and talking to Gandalf.
We want to be doing that.
But a lot of times it's more like that, right?
We're kind of yelling at each other and we're just not connecting.
And so that's what I want to do.
My goal here was to provide a couple tools to help us to understand each other,
all the different positions that are there,
and more generally talk about two sort of big picture philosophical positions
that carry a lot of weight in this discussion.
So with that, let me go into what we're doing today, which is introduction.
I know everybody loves introductory classes,
but I felt like there really wasn't any way for me to avoid it
because to understand a lot of the tension and a lot of the rancor in the debate,
we have to really understand how we got where we are right now.
So I wanted to give sort of a historical overview of the debate in Christianity,
in science, and how science and faith sort of have been together and not together.
And then we can go into this specific part of that debate,
which is intelligent design and theistic evolution.
So I'm going to apologize ahead of time for this PowerPoint.
It is probably the most boring PowerPoint I've ever made.
But I promise next week it'll probably be as bad.
So let's be honest.
Okay.
So let's start with the rise of the scientific method.
Now, believe it or not, the scientific method didn't actually pop out of the Enlightenment
after those horrible dark ages.
But in fact, actually, the beginnings of the scientific method
were actually developed in medieval Christian universities.
And the way this developed is actually very interesting
because if you go back to antiquity, when thinking about the natural world,
especially if we're talking about ancient Greeks, for instance,
they would actually do propositional thinking,
which meant they would think about first principles
and then using reason apply those first principles to nature
and say this must be what's going on in nature.
Because their view of God and creator, the logos,
is reason sort of imprinted on nature.
And so you didn't have to go out and look at nature and, you know, observe.
You just had to think about it and be like, okay, that's what's going on.
And you didn't have to worry about it.
But with the rise of Christianity, we had the rise of a free creator,
a creator that was personal and that now he had a will.
And because God had will, that meant he could have done otherwise.
He chose to create things a specific way.
And so the only way that we can know what's going on in nature
is to actually observe it, to go and look at it and say,
this is what must be going on.
So empiricism, the view that we can look at nature
and over testing and observation,
we can learn something about the way that it works,
develops from Christian theology of the nature of God as a free person.
And the other component of this sort of development
is that God is rational and we are made in his image,
which means that we can actually,
we have reason to believe that we can go into nature
and determine what's going on, that we can understand it.
I mean, it seems obvious to us now,
but before Christianity, there was no feeling
that nature could be intelligible to human beings, right?
So with these two pillars,
we have the will of God and we have intelligibility,
we can now, as some of the early natural theologians,
which was what they called scientists back in the day.
So I'm a scientist, if that wasn't clear from earlier on.
These natural theologians sought to think God's thoughts after him
and by learning about how God created the world
to then glorify him and praise him for his amazing works,
which is the impetus for a lot of the early scientific breakthroughs.
But over time, this was formalized and systematized,
institutionalized throughout the 17th and 19th century.
Earlier, you know, as the effort of science sort of progressed,
we go from sort of medieval university professors
sort of thinking about it.
It wasn't a huge, it wasn't like it exploded, right?
But it started there.
And over time, you had a growth of sort of independent scientists
sort of doing their own thing, like,
oh, hey, I was, you know, out in my mansion
and I was looking in the backyard and I was like,
hey, what about these peas, you know?
So that moved on.
And then over time, it became,
there started to become philosophy of science
where people were thinking about how we do science,
what's best practices, what is the scientific method,
how can we best challenge hypotheses
and bring up evidence, et cetera.
And in the second half of the 19th century,
science over time gets continuously narrowed
and narrowed and narrowed down in its scope.
So in, oh, hold on, I skipped a thing.
But at the end of the 19th century,
that's when we have the narrowing of science
into sort of the epistemological method
outside of the supernatural, right?
So science now becomes this method
to determine things outside of theology and philosophy.
This is where we go out and we see what's in nature
and we don't, we try not to bring any philosophy
or theology into it.
And this is actually when this sort of assumption,
and it's informal,
it's not actually ever been formally inserted
into the scientific method,
but methodological naturalism is now assumed, right?
And what methodological naturalism is,
is the assumption that everything that we look at in nature
has a natural explanation, right?
So we do not appeal to agents.
We do not appeal to God.
We just say, this must have happened because of this.
And it's an endless sort of chain of causation.
And this is methodological naturalism.
Now, at the same time, throughout this period,
that science is becoming institutionalized,
we also have the rise of a variety of new sort of disciplines
and new discoveries from these disciplines.
So we have advances in geology, paleontology, biology.
And the interesting thing about these advances is that
while starting from a Christian foundation
of understanding how we can understand nature,
we started to discover things about nature
that didn't really gel easily
with the contemporary Christian worldview.
So, for instance, geology was moving away
from what's called catastrophism
and towards uniformitarianism.
Basically, the idea that most of the geological formations
that we see today
are the result of the same sort of forces
that we see every day on the street,
but over long periods of time.
So instead of there being catastrophic events
that produce these geological formations,
it's actually little tiny things
over a long period of time.
And so this implicated that the Earth
seemed to be very old.
Also, paleontology started to unearth
some pretty crazy things, you know?
Dinosaurs were showing up, you know?
Like, what are these?
We don't have these anymore.
You know, all these strange
and wonderful different created...
Well, I guess I'm inserting
my own worldview there, right?
But all these interesting new body plans
and biological systems
and new sort of creatures
we had never seen before
are being discovered,
their bones are being discovered
out of the Earth.
And so this sort of shakes the idea
that the biological makeup of the Earth
right now is permanent.
Like, this is how it's always been.
Apparently, this isn't always how it's been.
There were things around
that aren't around anymore.
And then finally, most famously,
Charles Darwin and Alfred Russell Wallace
were discovering mechanisms of adaptation
and natural selection,
which, in biology,
which now posited the possibility
that there were a continuum of animal forms
just slowly morphing one into the other.
And so, as you can see,
these new discoveries are sort of...
They're poking.
They're not very comfortable
with the traditional Christian theistic worldview.
Suddenly, things are starting
to look a little dissonant.
And this is actually when we get
the appearance of a new worldview.
And this new worldview is scientific materialism.
So, cumulatively,
all these different research areas
started to allow the creation
of a secular worldview.
Right?
So now we have a universe that is...
an Earth that is very old.
We have creatures that have been dying.
We have this new theory
that allows us to explain
how one animal can get into another animal
in principle.
And so this becomes scientific materialism.
Now, what scientific materialism is
is basically it marries
two different philosophical positions.
The first one is familiar to all of us,
which is materialism.
What materialism says is that
the world, the physical world,
is all that there is.
Right?
There is nothing but atoms
and other kinds of atoms.
And there's just a whole bunch
of different atoms
and different configurations.
And that's what we call
the physical world.
And that's all there is.
Now, this was actually married
to another view called scientism.
And so what scientism is
is that science alone...
Now, this is the hard version.
There actually is a soft version,
but I won't get into that
unless somebody wants
to ask a question about that,
which, by the way,
if you have any questions at all
about anything,
even in the middle of the class,
please raise your hand.
I wanted this to be clear.
But scientism posits
that the scientific method alone,
especially in the hard sciences,
is capable of explaining truth.
The only way to get at truth,
the only way to get
at verifiable information,
knowledge,
is through the scientific method.
Now, you can see how these both
sort of reinforce each other.
Right?
Science, as I had said before,
over the course of this period,
had continuously narrowed
and narrowed and narrowed
into the point where we have
this assumption
of methodological naturalism,
which says,
we're not going to appeal
to outside agents.
We're not going to appeal
to God for anything.
We're going to assume,
for the sake of argument,
let's say,
in the case of Francis Bacon,
he posited methodological naturalism
as a thought exercise.
Right?
I'm going to assume
that there's nothing supernatural
going on here.
There's no design going on here.
I'm just going to look at,
well, I guess he wouldn't say
there's no design,
but I'm going to assume
that a natural process
is going on.
So that,
coupled with this new view
that the material world
is all there is,
you can see that
science is our method
of getting verifiable information
from the natural world.
and if the natural world
is the only thing
that exists,
then science
is the only thing
that can give us
any real information about it.
So this is how
we get to the point
where there is
an open hostility
between sort of
institutionalized science
and theistic worldview.
Right?
So we have these early
sort of discoveries
which are uncomfortable
with the contemporary
theistic worldview,
but not insurmountable.
But this new secular
comprehensive worldview
is very much
uncompatible
with Christianity.
And this is how
the scientific establishment,
you might say,
you know,
becomes hostile
to religious belief
in general.
And this institutionalization
has been
one of the major drivers
of most of the philosophical
and metaphysical trends
that we see
in our culture.
You know,
modernism,
postmodernism,
they're all
as a baseline
assuming scientific materialism
in many ways.
and they rely
on the authority
and the track record
of scientific discoveries
to sort of
prop up
that philosophical worldview.
And that's one of the things
that we're going to talk about
in this class
is that a lot
of the perceived hostility
between science
and specifically
the Christian worldview
is actually
a philosophical disagreement.
Where we,
as Christians,
reject scientific
materialism,
obviously,
right?
Because there's
at least one thing
that is not material
and that's God,
right?
And so
we have to reject that
and because
this has sort of been
this philosophy
has sort of been
interwoven
with the way
that we do science
and the assumptions
that we make,
this creates
a lot of tension
in our world.
So
this leads us
to the Christian
bind.
So if you're thinking
about the
development
of the scientific method
over time,
then we're going
to be looking
at the fact
that Christianity
at a base level
has the assumptions
that brought science
into the fore,
right?
we started off
talking about
how the theology
of God
as a independent
person
with a free will
and our status
as image bearers
is what
cumulatively
sets up
the system
for science.
but
over time
this has become
more difficult
and so the
Christian bind
is that we
acknowledge
wholeheartedly
that men
can understand
the physical world
and learn
something true
about God
and nature.
We're made
in the image
of God
and this is
what allows
us
to confidently
come
to nature
and say
we can learn
something.
But secondly
the world
view of
scientific
materialism
which has
been supported
by the
findings of
this method
are clearly
contrary to
scripture.
Scientific
materialism
doesn't mesh
with scripture
and so
Christians
are seemingly
stuck
between
what I
call
truth
lowercase
t
truth
being
what we
can know
about
general
revelation
what we
can learn
about
the world
nature
you know
in the
bible
Paul
tells us
that
God
is clearly
seen
in the
works
of
nature
so
this
is
the
basis
of
what
we
would
call
general
revelation
but
we
also
have
a
capital
T
truth
right
which
is
scripture
God's
actual
revelation
to us
specially
and this
special
revelation
has its
own
truth
claims
right
and so
when
scientific
materialism
based on
lowercase
t
truth
and
Christianity
based on
uppercase
t
truth
come into
conflict
Christianity
Christians
feel like
right
because we
want to
affirm
that we
can learn
something
from nature
but we
also want
to
affirm
the truth
of
scripture
and so
historically
this
actually
developed
this
bind
sort
of
developed
sort
of a
split
in
at least
in
American
Christianity
between
what we
would call
the
fundamentalist
movement
these
were
Christians
that
above
all
wanted
to
protect
the
truth
of
special
revelation
and as
a result
they stayed
what we
would call
theologically
orthodox
but they
actually
became
intellectually
sort of
isolationist
they
stayed
true to
scripture
but they
no longer
wanted
to
work with
or
interact
with
that's the word
I'm looking for
they no longer
wanted to
interact with
the scientific
establishment
or many
other forms
of intellectual
pursuit
because they
thought that it
was all
sort of
corrupted
but on the
other side
we had
a different
group of
Christians
who tended
to side
more with
general revelation
than with
special revelation
and these
became what we
would call
the liberal
mainline
denominations
that we have
today
and they
became
less and
less
orthodox
over time
due to
a greater
and greater
desire
to fit
sort of
this
new
materialist
intellectual
milieu
into
Christianity
to the point
where a lot
of
times
they will
deny
the deity
or even
existence
of Christ
they will
deny the
resurrection
often
they will
reinterpret
the gospel
and maybe
even reject
theism
itself
so
I guess
what I'm
trying to
explain to
us as we
approach this
topic is
because a
lot of
the emotion
right
a lot of
the anger
in this
topic is
because we
have groups
of Christians
who guard
jealously
special revelation
right
because historically
we've had
situations
in which
Christians
have
slowly
disregarded
the authority
of special
revelation
and fallen
away
right
but then
at the other
end of the
spectrum
we have
Christians
saying
but
we have
every reason
biblically
to believe
that we
as image
bearers
have a
responsibility
and an
ability
to know
about the
natural
world
and so
there is
this
tension
right
and a lot
of it
has to do
with our
historical
situation
as we
are right
now
evangelicals
which
broadly
we are
right
evangelicals
didn't really
ever fit
neatly
in the
fundamentalist
category
or
the
mainline
category
so
in a
certain
sense
we are
like
hey
man
let's
all
be
together
but
at the
same
time
we can't
help
but be
influenced
by the
major
big
streams
of
Christianity
going
through
our
culture
and so
if this
is the
origin
of
this
view
of the
scientific
versus
science
versus
faith
dichotomy
this is
something
that we
need to
look at
how
do we
balance
general
revelation
and special
revelation
how do
different
people
different
Christians
come to
different
conclusions
about how
we do
that
and that
is going
to be
the
topic
of our
next
class
is
the
different
ways
of
balancing
general
and special
revelation
and the
different
ways
in which
this
influences
how we
understand
scripture
and the
natural
world
okay
this is
the most
boring slide
but also
the rest
are
equally
boring
so
let's
move on
to
what
we're
going to
be
talking
about
more
specifically
in this
wider
science
versus
faith
debate
which is
intelligent
design
and
theistic
evolution
so
today
I'm not
going to
go into
a whole
bunch of
details
about
what
intelligent
design
what are
the arguments
what are the
arguments
against
that's
going to
be
our
third
class
where
we're
going to
talk
about
a
different
sort
of
balance
but
I want
to
start
off
with
a
definition
right
I want
us
to
all
be
on
the
same
page
about
what
it
is
that
we're
talking
about
so
we
don't
get
confused
so
what
is
the
intelligent
design
movement
well
if we
take them
at their
own
word
which I
think
is the
intellectually
honest
thing
to do
intelligent
design
is
primarily
a
scientific
movement
or
ID
I'm
going to
call
them
ID
because
that's
how
they
go
they
have
a
variety
of
minor
sort
of
philosophical
metaphysical
arguments
associated
but
what
ID
really
seeks
to
argue
is
that
many
elements
of
nature
are
best
explained
through
the
activity
of an
intelligent
agent
they
try to
argue
that
design
is
scientifically
detectable
specifically
in the
biological
realm
and so
the
challenge
to
intelligent
design
often
is
actually
that
they
are
pseudoscientific
right
and
pseudoscientific
is a
way
of
arguing
that
their
methodology
is not
in line
with the
scientific
method
okay
let me
let me go
a little
bit
into that
so we
can
understand
that
criticism
before we
move on
to
criticism
of their
arguments
on the
merits
of their
arguments
this is
the
challenge
of
pseudoscience
is sort
of a
dismissal
and
basically
their
critics
argue
that
you
can't
appeal
to
an
agent
when
doing
science
that
this
now
puts you
outside
of the
scientific
method
but as
we talked
about
earlier
that doesn't
necessarily
need to
be the
case
right
you'll
find
that
most
of the
time
when
scientists
are
dismissing
the
intelligent
design
movement
on this
basis
they're
actually
arguing
implicitly
for
methodological
naturalism
right
now
interestingly
if you
actually
look
at the
various
explanations
and
demarcations
of what
the scientific
method is
you won't
actually find
methodological
naturalism
it is not
a
expressed
tenet
of the
scientific
method
right
so a lot
of times
because
the ID
crowd
rejects
methodological
naturalism
right
because their
argument is
that we
can actually
see
the
activity
of God
in
nature
now of
course
they don't
make
well I'll
explain that
what they
aren't
but
this
sort of
tension
between
methodological
naturalism
and the
ID
crowd
is really
what I
think is
at the
root of
this
challenge
of
pseudoscience
now
the
problem
is
because
methodological
naturalism
isn't a
core
tenet of
the
scientific
method
they
actually
can't
argue
for it
so
often
times
they
will
argue
that
the
ID
community
doesn't
present
falsifiable
claims
or that
it's an
argument from
ignorance
or doesn't
make
predictions
these are
all
different
tenets of
the
scientific
method
but
I
don't
think
most of
those
challenges
actually
pass
muster
I think
most of
the time
they are
confronted
critics of
intelligent
design
are confronted
with the
fact that
they are
expressing
rejecting
methodological
naturalism
and being
brought to
the fore
and they
are like
oh man
I can't
actually
argue
the problem
is
with
scientific
materialism
is that
scientism
one of
those
pillars
that
the hard
sciences
are the
only way
to
get
true
knowledge
is
not
is a
self-refuting
statement
right
so
that
the
sentence
science
is the
only way
to get
true
knowledge
is not
testable
by
science
you see
the
problem
and so
because
that
sentence
is not
testable
by
science
it
cannot
be
true
by
its
own
argument
right
and so
a lot
of times
when
the
ID
crowd
brings
up
their
arguments
methodological
naturalism
starts to
come to
the fore
and then
scientists
are like
well I
can't
argue
for
methodological
naturalism
because
that's
a
philosophical
argument
and
based on
scientific
materialism
I can't
argue
for that
so
they're
putting
a
bind
I
think
it's
an
uncomfortable
position
and I
don't
mean
to
dismiss
the
critics
of
intelligent
design
because
there
are
legitimate
criticisms
of
the
different
claims
on
scientific
grounds
on
philosophical
grounds
I
think
what I
want
to
say
is
I'm
not
going
to
really
focus
primarily
in
this
class
on
the
challenge
that
it's
pseudoscientific
I
think
it's
not
really
worth
our
time
and
I
think
it's
not
worth
our
time
because
it
doesn't
really
work
so
that
is
what
intelligent
design
is
what
isn't
it
okay
it
is
not
a
religious
movement
so
ID
proponents
don't
make
arguments
from
scripture
they
don't
they're
not
expressly
Christian
they're
not
even
all
theists
to be
honest
with
you
there
are
agnostics
part of
the
ID
crowd
there
are
Muslims
there
are
what's
up
I'm
sorry
say
yeah
I mean
there's
just a
whole
bunch
there's
like
neoplatonists
as part
of it
you know
so
there's
like
a
whole
it's
a
hodgepodge
so
I
think
to
argue
that
it
is
sort
of
a
creationist
group
is
not
necessarily
true
although
the
implications
of
intelligent
design
really
point
to
the
fact
that
there
is
some
sort
of
intelligent
agent
so
you know
they would
argue
that
when they're
given the
charge of
creationism
that they
would say
well
it doesn't
have to
be
God
it could
be
you know
like a
super
advanced
alien
right
that's
doing
it
but
really
when
we're
I mean
when we're
talking
about
the kinds
of
things
that
the
ID
movement
is saying
has been
done
in the
history
of
biology
it
looks
a lot
like
God
so
I
understand
the
sentiment
but we
want to
understand
what
the
movement
is
on
its
own
grounds
right
they
would
never
argue
from
scripture
and
they
would
never
argue
from
theology
either
now
individual
ID
proponents
will say
yes
but I
also am
a
Christian
and so
to
Christians
they will
talk about
theology
and stuff
but not
as a
major part
of their
scientific
work
so they
do
take great
pains
to separate
theological
arguments
from their
scientific
case
they don't
make
interpretations
of
Genesis
although
if you
were to
take a
poll
you would
find
that
most
Christians
who are
in the
ID
movement
would be
called
old earth
creationists
is the
general
field
and they're
not dedicated
to any
specific
designer
it could
be
anything
that has
the
power
and capacity
to design
which
in our
situation
let's
call this
guy
God
so
that's
intelligent
design
again
I'm
happy to
take any
questions
after
the lesson
or during
the lesson
but my
goal here
in this
class
is to
try to
present
what the
arguments
is that
each
side is
actually
presenting
for
themselves
and not
caricature
them
so that
is what
we're doing
today
is trying
not to
caricature
each
side
so
what is
theistic
evolution
so theistic
evolution
as you
might
imagine
has something
to do
with evolution
and something
to do
with God
as well
so what
theistic
evolution
is
it is
a movement
or actually
I shouldn't
say movement
it is a
theological
slash
philosophical
position
so
they don't
really
make
specific
scientific
claims
what they
do
is they
argue
that
the
Darwinian
macro
evolution
is
compatible
with
theistic
belief
that's
the
through
line
in all
of the
different
sort of
groups
within
what could
be called
theistic
evolution
because the
problem
is
unlike
ID
which is
a specific
thing
you know
it's ID
trademark
there are
groups
saying like
we are
part of
the
intelligent
design
movement
they have
institutions
etc
theistic
evolution
isn't like
that
it's not
a group
you know
it's not
like
there isn't
the theistic
evolution
center
right
it's a
position
it's a
philosophical
position
and what
that means
is that
there's
like a
huge
super
broad
category
of
different
views
that could
be
identified
as
theistic
evolutionary
right
so
and
depending
on
where
you are
on that
spectrum
within
theistic
evolution
you're
going to
get
very
different
interpretations
different
ways that
this is
going to
play out
in
in your
arguments
so
just to
give you
a small
taste of
the different
forms of
theistic
evolutionary
thought
you have
people who
argue
that
for
something
that
could
be
called
evolutionary
design
right
you could
have
a group
that argues
for
evolutionary
creation
which is
that
that is
associated
with the
biologos
consortium
evolutionary
creation
tends
to
disagree
with
the
evolutionary
design
arguments
and I'll
explain that
in a second
you also
have
theistic
evolutionists
to hold
a
deistic
worldview
about
the fact
that
God
set
the
clock
and
walked
away
and
that's
all there
is to
it
right
so
I mean
these are
primarily
descriptors
that I'm
presenting
one of
the difficulties
with a
philosophical
position
is that
a lot
of times
they don't
really
define
their
terms
correctly
or
differentiate
themselves
from other
groups
so
I'm
trying
to
bring
clarity
yeah
sorry
so this
is
sort of
a
term
primarily
used
by
Christians
and it's
to
differentiate
the
different
kinds
of
evolution
evolutionary
theory
so
Darwinian
indicates
that
the
mechanism
by which
the
evolution
occurs
the
transition
of
species
into
other
species
into
different
animal
forms
the
method
by which
or the
mechanism
by which
that
happens
is
natural
selection
and
adaptation
well
neo-Darwinism
would say
there's also
the component
of genetic
mutations
is part
of that
genetic
mutations
on top
of
natural
selection
basically
random
changes
in the
genome
are then
sort of
weeded out
by nature
itself
right
so
if you
have a
random
genetic
variation
that makes
you
better
slightly
better
at
digesting
a nut
and
you're
in this
environment
that has
like a
whole
bunch
of
these
different
nuts
then
you're
going
to be
better
fed
than
the
other
members
of
the
population
and
then
that
means
you
will
out
compete
them
in terms
of
breeding
etc
and over
time
that
genetic
marker
essentially
becomes
dominant
and
this
happens
over
and over
again
and over
time
these
small
changes
make
big
changes
so
that's
what
the
macro
in the
macro
evolution
is
talking
about
macro
evolution
is
talking
about
the
common
ancestry
of
all
biological
forms
starting
from
single
celled
all the
way
through
there's
a
branch
of
ancestry
going
through
that
we're
all
connected
through
this
Darwinian
mechanism
now
scientists
don't use
the word
macro
evolution
scientists
would
just
say
evolution
right
we
in the
Christian
community
often
use
the
term
macro
evolution
to
differentiate
the
big
sort of
world view
picture
of
Darwinism
from
micro
evolution
which is
again
another
Christian
mostly a
Christian
term
which is
talking
about how
that mechanism
works in
small scale
and discrete
places that
we can
actually see
so
basically
nobody
argues that
micro evolution
doesn't happen
and what
micro evolution
is is what
I just
described
that you
have a
mutation
you know
it makes
the bird
better at
eating a
nut
and the
bird
proliferates
and that
genetic
marker
is expanded
that is
micro evolution
something we
can test
in nature
and that's
what really
the pioneering
thought of
Charles Darwin
was this
idea that
adaptation
and natural
selection
can make
these changes
that can
explain these
morphological
changes
and what
Christians often
argue is that
micro evolution
is true
but you can't
extrapolate the
micro evolution
into the past
to make the
big worldview
picture that we
call micro evolution
but scientists
would just call
everything evolution
right
so
the reason
I use
that term
here
is because
if I were
to say
theistic
evolutionists
argue that
evolution is
compatible with
theistic belief
it's too
broad
because
most creationists
almost all
stripe
would argue
that some
evolution is
compatible with
theistic
belief
in fact I
would say
almost everybody
says that
some form of
evolution
the argument
is what
kind of
evolution
what shape
does it
take
and what's
interesting
about theistic
evolution
what sets
it apart
is they
argue that
this specific
Darwinian
macro evolutionary
model
is compatible
with theistic
belief
and that
argument has
its own
discrete
tensions
with Christianity
specifically
you know
this descent
of man
is one of
the big
sticking points
there
another
problem that
many people
have is
with animal
death
before the
fall
what does
that look
like
how old
is the
earth
Darwinian
macro
evolution
assumes a
very old
earth
has to
otherwise
it doesn't
work
and so
if you
are a
young
earth
creationist
then you're
going to
be like
that doesn't
work
right
so
this is
sort of a
term of
art that I'm
using and I'm
glad that you
asked me to
explain it
because I'm
in this stuff
so much
that I just
what's jargon
and what isn't
it just kind of
flies over my
head
so
basically what
differentiates
the different
sort of
views within
theistic evolution
is to what
extent we can
say that
evolution is
directed
so if you're
somebody who
argues for an
evolutionary design
argument
then you
would be
more
comfortable
saying that
God
set up
this
evolutionary
paradigm
to
create
a specific
end
he had
this end
the world
right now
well
the world
pre-fall
let's say
but the world
that resulted
pre-fall
that was
God's
intention
and through
providence
God created
that
we can say
God created
that even
though
mechanistically
there's this
natural
system
producing it
now an
evolutionary
creationist
sort of
on the
biologus
form
would be
a little
less
comfortable
with that
they wouldn't
be so
comfortable
saying that
God
specifically
meant for
this
particular
creation
at the
end
just that
God
used
evolution
to
create
something
like
this
and
then
if you
go all
the way
other
to the
other
end
of the
spectrum
on the
deistic
side
now
sorry
I should
be clear
biologus
is also
its own
big
spectrum
of
different
beliefs
I'm
just
trying
to
paint
with a
broad
brush
if you're
on the
way
other end
of the
deistic
view
God
didn't
really
even
care
what
came
out
right
he's
just
like
I'm
creating
and look
oh man
this
mechanism
look at
that
it's
creating
stuff
so
and then
maybe
that's
a
caricature
but
there are
not many
Christians
who would
argue
for that
deistic
worldview
in some
sense
God is
directing
the
evolutionary
framework
so let's
talk about
what
theistic
evolution
is not
it's not
a scientific
movement
they very
rarely make
scientific
arguments
they don't
make
predictions
they don't
argue
for
they don't
produce
their own
well I mean
if they're
scientists
they may
produce
their own
research
but not
as an
effort
of
theistic
evolution
and this
makes sense
to us
right
because
the
tenet
is
that
the
scientific
consensus
on
evolutionary
theory
is
true
so
they're
not
going
to
make
scientific
arguments
for
theistic
evolution
they're
saying
their
argument
is
we don't
have to
worry
about
it
right
we don't
have to
worry
about
the
scientific
evidence
and so
theistic
evolutionists
will often
disagree
with
sort of
mainstream
scientists
on their
philosophical
presuppositions
right
and their
big
worldview
but they
don't
argue
against
usually
the
science
that's
produced
by this
institution
and this
often
ends up
you know
the problem
you know
I feel bad
for
the theistic
evolution
community
because
they get a lot
of flack
from
sort of
Christians
creationist
Christians
right
but then also
they don't
get a lot
of respect
from the
scientific
community
either
you know
the scientific
community
says
you guys
are just
adding
you know
this
you know
sky
the sky
guy
to our
movement
and we
don't
I mean
this
in our
theory
we don't
need it
so
I feel
bad
they get
hit
all over
the
place
so
they don't
they rarely
actually even
argue from a
scientific
position
now
often times
they'll
argue
maybe
with
a critic
of
evolution
right
they'll
argue
for
sort of
the
mainstream
consensus
scientific
position
on it
but that's
really not
the thrust
of their
argument
the thrust
of their
argument
is that
we can
live in
harmony
theistic
I mean
evolution
can be
in harmony
with the
Christian
worldview
or theism
in general
I should
say
so the
scientific
arguments
are usually
tertiary
so
when we're
talking about
intelligent
design
versus
theistic
evolution
because there
has been
quite a bit
of argumentation
between these
two different
groups
you can
see why
a lot
of times
they don't
really get
anywhere
and the
problem
is
and this
is something
that people
in both
camps
would acknowledge
the problem
is they
are different
movements
trying to do
different
things
and they
have
different
philosophical
positions
that that's
usually not
where the
argumentation
is happening
right
so if you're
an intelligent
design
proponent
you're going
to be
arguing
scientifically
that
you know
XYZ
scientific
argument
is invalid
the
theistic
evolutionist
doesn't want
to deal
with that
they're like
I don't
want to
even deal
with that
I want
to deal
with why
you think
that's a
problem
right
and so
usually
these
discussions
go round
and round
in circles
and so
what I want
to do
in this
class
for the
third
class
is discuss
what
is one
of those
major
philosophical
disagreements
that each
side has
that determines
their openness
to these
different views
right
why
would
somebody
be more
convinced
by an
intelligent
design
argument
from science
than they
would be
from a
theistic
evolution
perspective
what theological
argument
are they
making
so
that is
what I
want to
talk about
in this
class
there are
a lot
of things
I could
talk about
there are
a lot
of things
that I
would like
to talk
about
but I
felt like
if my
goal
in the
course
is to
provide
tools
for
this
church
specifically
to have
cordial
and beneficial
discussions
with each
other on
these issues
without it
becoming
superheated
you know
things get
heated
sometimes
but
superheated
is I
want to
give
hopefully
some tools
to understand
the other
person's
position
so you
can argue
at that
plane
or on
other
planes
but with
that in
mind
so we
don't get
too
confused
and angry
so what
are the
two
tensions
these are
going to be
the topics
of my
next two
classes
the first
tension
is general
versus special
revelation
I already
talked about
this
how do we
balance
these two
basically
this class
is going
to be
why are
we even
talking
about
this
why even
talk about
intelligent
design
and theistic
evolution
right
the bible
tells us
everything
we need
to know
right
or does
it
or should
we think
it does
that is
what this
class is
going to
be about
my next
class
the class
after that
the final
one
is going
to be
talking
about
how we
balance
how we
understand
God's
activity
in the
world
is God
primarily
acting
in the
world
in creation
through his
primary
agent
I use
primary way
too many
times in
that sentence
does
God
usually
is God
working
in creation
through
primary
causation
meaning
is he
doing
something
like we
as we
would think
of an
engineer
is he
creating
the parts
and is he
putting them
together
as the
analogy
would go
is that
is he
working
primarily
that way
like an
artist
or is he
creating
in secondary
causation
sort of
in a
sovereign
providential
way
is he
creating
a system
that can
create
other
ends
and by
providence
by secondary
causation
we can
say God
created
right
that is
the central
tension
I think
between
intelligent
design
and theistic
evolution
is what
should we
expect God's
activity in
the world
to look
like
and based
on that
what
what is a
compelling
argument from
either
from either
side of
that
so with
that
I will
end the
class
and
take any
questions
my goal
is hopefully
to expand
our
our minds
so that we
can
we can
better
discuss
things
because this
is a really
fun discussion
and it should
be fun
it should
be less
angry
that's the
first time
I've heard
anyone
describe
this as
fun
within
the
church
so
the
clarity
is helpful
and the
history
and the
background
is helpful
yeah I
mean I
should say
that I'm
not a
historian
even though
I like to
think of
myself as
one
I
there are
many ways
to discuss
the
fundamentalist
modernist
discussion
I was
trying to
focus
primarily
on the
changes
in the
scientific
community
but we
can talk
about
philosophical
disagreements
metaphysical
stuff
theological
stuff
that I
would
very much
not be
qualified
to talk
about
at all
I'm
barely
qualified
to talk
about
this
so
but yes
I was
hoping
that it
would
sort of
provide
a place
for that
Tyler
could you
describe
the
hermeneutical
tension
that exists
within
these two
camps
we're
in
hermeneutics
in interpreting
Genesis
where does
the rubber
hit the
road
and how
they
understand
what
Genesis
is
teaching
yes
so
that is
mostly
what
next
class
is
going
to be
about
but
because
I
like
you
so
much
I
know
generally
so
the
rubber
hits
the
road
when
it
comes
to
what
you
believe
the
purpose
of
Genesis
is
what
is
Genesis
trying
to
convey
right
and
what
I'll
talk
about
next
week
is
the
basic
argument
that
the
literal
interpretation
of a
biblical
passage
is
not
necessarily
by
definition
the
correct
interpretation
right
often
it is
but
sometimes
it's
not
and
how
can
we
understand
that
in
relationship
to
Genesis
right
and
Christians
come down
on so
many
different
sides
on this
and
that's
what
I
hope
to
overview
next
week
is
how
we
come
down
on
different
sides
of
this
but
at
the
end
of
the
day
it
comes
down
to
what
is
Genesis
trying
to
convey
and
there
are
positions
that
I
would
say
that
is
not
allowed
right
and
I'll
talk
about
that
next
week
but
there
is
I
feel
like
there's
a
lot
of
room
there
for
discussion
the
difficulty
is
how
do
you
look
at
it
with
clear
eyes
and
absent
the
tension
that
we're
talking
about
right
because
if
you
think
about
what
the
correct
interpretation
of
Genesis
is
has
nothing
to
do
with
our
disagreements
with
scientific
materialism
and
our
attempts
to
understand
what
the
facts
on
the
ground
are
right
Genesis
has
its
own
message
to
tell
us
and
sometimes
it's
hard
to
separate
those
two
and
but
that's
you know
that's
the way
I think
it should
be done
so we'll
talk about
that next
week
but yeah
any
other
questions
clarifying
questions
you can
ask another
question
if you
want
Beth
oh
real quick
so
Francis Collins
the human
genome
project
yep
where does
he fall
in the
is he
intelligent
design
or is he
a theistic
evolutionist
or is he
so he
is definitely
a theistic
evolutionist
he is the
founder of
the BioLogos
group
so he
he wrote a
book
I believe
called the
language of
God
if I'm
not mistaken
and in
that he
makes the
argument
for theistic
evolution
and that
is what
or what he
would call
evolutionary
creation
because it
has its
own
like I was
trying to
explain in
the broad
scheme of
things
it has its
own
arguments
so yeah
he's definitely
a theistic
evolutionist
yeah
can you
tell us a
little bit
about what
you do
and what
your work
is and
also about
the interplay
of your
faith with
that
oh sure
yeah
so I
am a
scientist
what I
do is
I guess
technically
science
most of
the time
I make
bunches
of mistakes
so I
work in a
field called
tissue
engineering
in this
field
what we
do
is we
take
biological
cells
and we're
trying to
apply them
to three
dimensional
synthetic
scaffolds
to create
a therapeutic
so in
my
sorry I
touched the
microphone
rule number
one
don't touch
the microphone
so in
my lab
that means
we create
biodegradable
tubes
we seed
smooth muscle
cells on
them to
create an
artificial
vessel
for people
for instance
who have
had coronary
artery
disease
or other
vascular
diseases
so that's
what I
work on
I actually
more specifically
work on
sort of the
large animal
testing of
that
how can
we test
these
in large
animals
before we
test them
in humans
to make
sure that
they're safe
but yeah
generally that's
what I work
on
although
my
background
is in
biochemistry
so
at the
graduate
level
it is a
little
fuzzy
what I
do
I'm
technically
in
pathology
because I
work on
diseases
but I
don't really
do
pathology
it's very
confusing
I'll get a
degree in
pathology
I don't know
what that'll
do for me
but yeah
so I'm a
biochemist
who works
on cells
basically
is what I
would say
and how
does that
work with
my faith
that's an
interesting
question
I was
homeschooled
growing up
me and
my eight
other siblings
were all
homeschooled
and my
mom was
the daughter
of a
medical
doctor
and from
the time
that she
was young
she loved
science
all the way
through
she was
an artist
but she
wanted to
actually
what she
was in
college for
was to
do the
medical
illustrations
so if
you go
into an
anatomy
textbook
and you
see the
picture of
the heart
that's what
she wanted
to do
and she
was doing
that
before she
got married
and had
a billion
kids
so she
really loves
science
she really
loved learning
loved
she's still
alive
she's coming
tomorrow
to my
house
so don't
worry about
that
but
she
loved
science
and so
from an
early age
we just
were sort
of saturated
in this
culture of
loving
science
you know
ironically
I would
say if I
had to look
back and
place myself
sort of in
a tradition
I would say
I grew up
in a
fundamentalist
household
but we
didn't really
ever see
a problem
with that
and the
love of
science
so
anyways
that's
where I
I've come
from
my oldest
brother
is a
biochemist
my next
oldest
brother
has a
degree
in
chemical
engineering
my next
oldest
brother
is a
nurse
I'm
next
I'm
whatever
I am
and then
my younger
brother
is a
biochemist
so there's
a lot
of scientists
in my
family
which is
great
I mean
you know
it's a
testament
to my
mom
and her
love
of it
neither
of my
parents
had any
college
degrees
but education
and science
were very
important to
them
and then
theologically
we were
doing a
bunch of
apologetics
so that
sort of
helped
in any
of the
places
where I
would
normally
if you
hear the
back story
of the
person
who's
into
science
but they
were like
oh man
Christianity
apologetics
really helps
with a lot
of the
dissonance
that you
would
normally
feel
just to
know
that there
are people
out there
who acknowledge
you know
who are
willing to
acknowledge
the scientific
information
and don't
see a
problem
with that
with
Christianity
it's really
a confidence
building thing
and I would
suggest that
everybody do
that with
their kids
get them
into
apologetics
it'll
help
them
yeah
thanks for
that
any other
questions
yeah
Amos
lay it
on me
he's the
real scientist
in the room
I don't
he actually
does real
stuff
not a
scientist
anymore
no
my question
is
evolution
is kind
of tricky
to discuss
because
you know
getting into
like kind
of the
facts
is
hard
yeah
but
physics
I've
found
to be
a little
bit
simpler
in some
ways
yeah
and it
makes
some
you know
the
physicists
make some
pretty
concrete
claims
like
specifically
age of
the
universe
yeah
so
like in
one hand
biology is
messy
any
biologist
would
disagree
with
that
yeah
physics
is a
little
bit
cleaner
yeah
in that
sense
but it
seems like
the
discussions
tend to
focus on
biology
and evolution
and
yeah
but it
seems like
the first
quite like
in order to
assess micro
versus macro
the first
thing you
have to do
is decide
how old
you think
because
obviously
small changes
can add up
to big
changes
right
yeah
of course
very definition
of you know
that's a
mathematical
statement
right
so the
first thing
you have
to do
is decide
how many
years
has
evolution
has
micro
evolution
which
everybody
agrees
with
how many
years
has
micro
evolution
had a
chance
to operate
yeah
before you
start even
deciding
what could
or could
not have
happened
or you
know
where
you know
where the
where you
draw the line
between micro
which everybody
agrees with
and macro
which
if you're
using the
phrase
you're
maybe saying
that you
don't agree
with
right
yeah
you're using
that phrase
to outline
the category
of things
exactly
yeah
so there's
kind of like
a
how do I
say it
what's my
question
where
why is it
that people
or do people
tend to talk
more about
evolution
more so than
physics
or
yeah I think
it depends
on your
your area
I find
that
philosophers
professional
philosophers
like William Lane
Craig
Alvin
Plantinga
these guys
really
didn't really
like to talk
about biology
at all
you know
they wanted
to talk
about physics
because like
you said
it's very
clear
you know
William Lane
Craig is
famous for
his
his reworking
of the
cosmological
argument
Alvin
Plantinga
has his
own
set of
philosophical
arguments
like the
contingency
argument
but the
philosophers
I've
found
are
more
comfortable
talking
about
the
evidence
for God
in physics
and actually
I would
I should
say that
intelligent
design
people
and
theistic
evolutionists
both agree
on arguments
such as
the fine
tuning
argument
of physics
they are
they agree
on
mostly
on
the
cosmological
arguments
for God
they would
agree
on the
contingency
arguments
so
I think
sometimes
the reason
that
biology
is
in the
forefront
from a lot
of these
discussions
is that
there's
less
agreement
there is
more
agreement
on the
physics
side
of things
but
I
understand
what
your
argument
is
which
is
I
would
say
that
for
when it
comes to
the age
of the
earth
there
are
a
variety
of
different
streams
of
evidence
that
seem
to
indicate
an
age
an
old
earth
right
now
young
earth
creationists
would
either
dispute
each
of these
different
lines
of
evidence
on their
own
terms
or
they
would
argue
in
general
of
they
would
make
a
philosophical
argument
about
what
the
capabilities
of
science
are
to
discuss
the
earth
but
you're
right
the
thing
is
if
you're
a
young
earth
creationist
evolution
is
impossible
right
because
the
age
of
the
universe
precludes
that
possibility
so
you're
right
one of
the
reasons
I
wanted
to
do
the
next
class
which
is
on
the
balance
between
general
and
special
revelation
is
because
in
this
class
in a
lot
of
ways
it's
sort
of
excluding
a lot
of
young
earth
creationists
because
they
would
just
say
why
are we
even
talking
about it
right
because
it's
impossible
what
I
want
to
bring
them
into
the
discussion
and
explain
where
they
come
from
where
other
positions
are
coming
from
and
if
you
think
about it
if
intelligent
design
is the
argument
that we
can
see
the
detectable
evidence
of
design
in
nature
you
would
expect
a
young
earth
creationist
to be
like
obviously
right
because
nature
animals
human
beings
all of
nature
was
specially
created
in a
miracle
right
and so
they
would
they are
all
from what
I understand
almost all
young
earth
creationists
are
ID
proponents
but
they
at the
same
time
would
say
well
a lot
of
those
ID
guys
they're
older
creationists
you know
they don't
really know
what's
going on
but their
arguments
about
science
are good
right
and so
yeah
the problem
is because
of all
these
overlapping
arguments
because
really
the age
of the
earth
is sort
of a
backdrop
in which
the scientific
discussion
of biology
is happening
right
and so
for me
to do
a class
on
intelligent
design
versus
theistic
evolution
I have
to sort
of
I want
to acknowledge
the backdrop
but I have
to sort
of move
in to
the specific
arguments
of biology
so yeah
it's a
tough
picture
you know
and I
think
there are
if
one of the
reasons why
I felt
inadequate
doing this
class
is because
I could do
a whole
class
just on
young earth
creationism
and their
various arguments
for
the age
of the
universe
age of the
earth
their biblical
arguments
I want
to touch
a little
bit on
that
next
week
but I'm
not going
to do
them
justice
and I
feel
you know
I want
to make
sure that
they know
that I
know
that there
are people
who do
them
justice
right
whether or
not we
agree
with
them
right
you
mentioned
the
your
gratitude
for
apologetics
but
I wanted
to kind
of talk
about that
a little
because I
remember
a lot
of my
youth
group
apologetics
classes
being
more
of a
sword
to use
against
arguments
so
it would
be
my
thought
is
that
they
ultimately
failed me
is kind
of what
I was
going to
get at
and my
thought
is
going
through
this
is
seeing
that
it
seems
like
it
was
one
of a
couple
things
that
broke
down
was
that
it
was
either
philosophical
arguments
being put
forward
as
scientific
arguments
or
to
defeat
scientific
arguments
on the
opposing
side
or
cherry
picking
examples
for example
giraffes
have
these
special
mechanisms
in their
necks
so that
their brains
don't explode
when they
bend over
how would
that evolve
maybe that's
worth something
but then
you put
that forward
there's always
someone who's
going to be
able to
come back
at you
with three
more
arguments
that you
don't have
an answer
for
so
my
question
is
how can
you spot
good
apologetics
versus bad
apologetics
that is a
great question
I think
the
usefulness
of
apologetics
is primarily
in its
philosophical
training
many
apologists
will spend
the majority
of their time
teaching you
basic
philosophy
to understand
where
for instance
fallacies
are coming
from
where
yeah
so basically
so for instance
when I was
talking about
earlier
how scientific
materialism
or scientism
is a self
refuting
argument
that is
where
apologetics
is useful
right
where you
can see
common
objections
common
arguments
that are
really weak
right
now when it
comes to
specific
arguments
I'm not
necessarily
sure I
would call
a scientific
argument about
the
nature of a
giraffe's neck
as apologetics
necessarily
right
because
what apologetics
is is the
defense of the
faith
and if
you
marry
the
idea
that you
need to
be able
to explain
why evolution
is impossible
for your
faith to be
real
is really
shaky
ground
right
that led
to a lot
of
deconstruction
among my
friends
and even
a period
of questioning
for myself
it's like
we make
all these
absolute
claims about
our faith
and worldview
that are all
dominoes
that hinge
on each
other
and so
you take
one out
and everything
falls to
pieces
yeah I
think the
benefit
what I
would say
if I
was
counseling
somebody
in this
position
which really
you don't
want me
as a
counselor
don't ask
me to be
your
counselor
but
if I
was in
this
position
I
would
say
listen
to a
diverse
view
of
apologetics
because
you're
going to
find
orthodox
Christians
in apologetics
who
disagree
with the
giraffe
argument
right
so I
would say
it's not
so much
a problem
with apologetics
as a
field
as it
is a
problem
with
creating
a bubble
for yourself
whether that
be a
young earth
bubble
or an
old earth
bubble
or any
other
bubble
because I
think you'll
find that
once you
puncture that
and you
go into
anybody
else's
bubble
you're
going to
find that
people are
a lot
more reasonable
than you
thought they
were
right
and you
can't
caricature
their
arguments
anymore
and especially
within the
Christian
community
where again
we want to
have helpful
discussions
without rancor
we want to
be able to
understand where
our fellow
Christians are
coming from
in their
world view
and so
having a
diverse view
so for
instance
you know
I was
exposed to
young earth
apologetics
old earth
theistic
less theistic
evolutionists
but a little
bit of that
I mean so I
had a variety
of views
where I
could
you sort
of get a
big picture
over time
seeing
okay here's
a strength
here's a
weakness
and how
can I
best
balance all
of these
different views
like where
would I
really feel
confident
arguing
so for
instance
you know
I would
feel very
confident
arguing for
the cosmological
argument
right
you know
the Kalam
cosmological
argument
I think
is very
strong
I know
that there
are
critiques
of it
but I
find the
critiques
to be
pretty
weak
and they
seem
very
ad hoc
is what I'm
saying
so there
are really
strong
arguments
that you
can make
and then
there are
arguments
that you
hold
tentatively
right
and then
you say
you know
so I guess
when it
comes down
to it
build your
foundation
with the
strong
stuff
don't build
your foundation
with the
weak
stuff
and then
what the
process of
growing and
learning wisdom
is being able
to differentiate
the strong
and weak
you know
yeah
Amos
last question
lay it on me
I wanted to
jump off of that
to mention
something
that I was
thinking during
an earlier slide
which was
Galileo
and the church
took a very
strong stance
against
the sun
being the
center of
the solar
system
and it
seemed to me
like
I'm no
historian
I don't know
any of this
stuff
but it
certainly
seemed to
me like
the scientific
field reacted
pretty strongly
to that
position
such that
once
the church
was
demonstrated
to be
wrong
about it
then at
that point
it kind
of opened
the flood
gate
to
well look
the church
can make
really strong
arguments
and off
of nothing
yeah
I think
that's kind
of like
your apologetics
thing
like be
careful
what arguments
you make
and say
and stand
on them
strongly
because
if you're
overstating
yourself
then
if you're
overstating
yourself
then that's
a big
problem
if you're
wrong
exactly
I think
it comes
down to
our
Christian
witness
right
but
I would
say
we all
have
blind
spots
and what
you think
is a
strong
argument
or a
weak
argument
is going
to be
different
from
another
person
who's
looking
at it
a
different
way
and I
think
what the
benefit
of
cordial
discussion
and
brotherly
pushback
on your
arguments
and just
general
intellectual
training
is so
that we
can
sharpen
each
other
iron
sharpens
iron
and knowing
that
every time
I hear a
good
criticism
of one
of the
arguments
I like
a little
part of
me is
like
oh no
but
growing up
you've got
to learn
how to
deal with
those
little
oh no's
and then
remind
yourself
what's
really the
foundation
of what
I believe
and can
I let
this go
is this
criticism
even really
very good
etc
so yeah
I think
one of the
last thing
I'll say
is one
of the
problems
with the
Galileo
incident
is
you know
you have
the Catholic
churches
and ecclesiology
believes in
the authority
of tradition
and that
creates a lot
of issues
when you have
a church
that's 2,000
years old
right
so
revisions
of ideas
are very
difficult
in that
situation
and it's
different in
the Protestant
world
right
where we
have
sola scriptura
so we're
pretty open
about
non-scriptural
things in
general
right
all right
well thank you
guys
thanks for
coming
next week
hermeneutics
everybody's
favorite topic
not
you