Searching for Truth with a Broken Flashlight
-The Reality of Misconception and Wishful Thinking in the Evolution/Creation Controversy by Michael Hawley
Chapter 2 - Dual Revelation
God writes the gospel not in the Bible alone, but on trees and flowers and clouds
and stars. - Martin Luther (1483-1546)
Roadblocks to Truth: Misconception and Wishful Thinking
In between completing my undergraduate degree in geology/geophysics and my graduate research in paleontology, I became a commissioned officer and naval aviator in the U.S. Navy for a decade. After a year and a half of military training, academics, officer leadership courses, and flight training, I was assigned to a helicopter squadron at
That year, a sailor had tested positive on a urinalysis test for marijuana use, which is an illegal act in the
In this case, the facts were quickly shaping up to a guilty verdict. I was quite convinced that this sailor was guilty. My confidence in his guilt wavered when I began interviewing his workmates, his immediate supervisors, and finally the sailor himself. My first impression of the young sailor was that he was extremely likeable and honest. Tears were flowing down his face as he was denying any drug use. He even “looked” innocent, and my intuition was telling me he was a victim of unusual circumstances where the facts just might convict an innocent man. His personnel record showed that he was an outstanding sailor. All of his immediate supervisors personally vouched for his honesty, moral character, and work ethic. They all believed beyond any doubt that he was completely innocent. Two of his supervisors were close friends of mine, and I trusted their judgment. His fellow workmates echoed the comments made by his supervisors. It was obvious that this sailor was well respected by everyone he came in contact with. I remember feeling that I wished him to be innocent. I was beginning to doubt the facts and favor my intuition.
I spoke to my executive officer about my dilemma, and he stated with complete confidence that this young man is “lying through his teeth”. My commanding officer agreed with the executive officer, and eventually convicted the sailor of drug use based upon the physical evidence. Since the sailor had such a strong record and contributed greatly to the Navy, my commanding officer agreed to give him a relatively minor consequence, although he still recommended discharge from active service.
Once the sailor was administratively discharged, he came back to my office to sign some paperwork. We had a very cordial relationship, so I asked him, “Now that you are a civilian and there is nothing I can do to you, would you mind telling me the real story?” He said, “Of course I’ll tell you. I was lying my butt off! I was bothered that I had to lie to you, but I didn’t want to get into trouble.” My intuition failed me. He scammed us all (other than the commanding officer and the executive officer), not because he was an evil person, but because he just wanted to be cleared of the charges. He had motive to deceive. My desire for his innocence and my belief in the truth-searching power of intuition made me doubt the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I learned a valuable lesson.
Because of experiences like these, I became convinced of two things: first, misconception blinds people from the truth, and second, wishful thinking hijacks people’s sense of reason and closes their mind to accepting reality. The significance of my Navy experience was that I connected the dangers of misconception and wishful thinking to an entirely different issue, the evolution/creation controversy. As a person with a passion and background in science and as a Christian who embraces the divine inspiration of the Bible, the evolution/creation controversy has always been a constant obsession of mine. Even during my active duty days, I was researching, discussing, and debating people about evolution and creation. I quickly realized that most people, regardless of their educational background, were under the misconception that they had a clear understanding of the controversy. I also realized that their acceptance or rejection of evolution had little to no connection with their knowledge of the evolutionary process. Every time I listened to arguments on either side of the evolution/creation controversy one particular H. Jackson Brown, Jr. quote came to mind,
“The greatest ignorance is to reject something that you know nothing about.”
Misconception creates such a smoke and mirrors effect in the search for truth that it diverts one off the path right from the start. Because of this, I will address misconception first, and discuss how it has influenced our ideas, opinions, and beliefs in all areas pertinent to the evolution/creation controversy. In so doing, the veracity of many claims will quickly become apparent. I will then address the issue of wishful thinking and how it has the remarkable ability to effectively close ones mind to the truth. In my opinion, this roadblock is the most damaging, because it obstructs the truth even when one is fully aware of it.
Nature and Scripture – Misconception within
In divine providence, or “under God’s sovereign guidance and control”, believers accept that God is omniscient. We also accept that within God’s infallible providence he has revealed to us truth without error. If true, problems arise not from what has been revealed to us but from our fallible ability to interpret revelation, and this unavoidably leads to human misconception. Inherent in misconception is the power of illusion, because it creates a false sense of reality. It is my contention that misconception through misinformation created the evolution/creation controversy in the first place and continues to perpetuate the controversy. For example, nowhere in the Bible, does it say that one must either believe in God or accept evolution. Much of this either/or misconception lies in the difference between Scripture and the interpretation of Scripture.
Dr. Robert Schneider, professor emeritus of classical languages at Berea College, quotes conservative Baptist theologian Bernard Ramm in his article, Does the Bible Teach Science?,
“First, one must realize that revelation is not interpretation, and conversely, interpretation is not revelation. Revelation is the communication of divine truth; interpretation is the effort to understand it. One cannot say: “I believe just exactly what Genesis 1 says and I don’t need any theory of reconciliation with science.” Such an assertion identifies revelation with interpretation.”
Conversely, one must also recognize that evolution, and the scientific process that discovered evolution, does not conflict with a belief in God, as argued by a number of atheists. Science deals strictly with the natural, not the supernatural. To allow research into the supernatural will sabotage the entire scientific process. As I will explain later, this fact is the reason why science is so effective in discovering the realities of nature. Because of this limitation, though, a particular scientist (or anyone for that matter) cannot claim to be an atheist because of the science, such as evolution. If they do, they are basing their disbelief upon a logical fallacy.
A number of Christians have likened the Bible to how Americans view the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Constitution is the law of the land and most Americans whole-heartedly embrace it, and some even consider it an infallible document. Problems arise in interpretation. Even though it is the law and is considered the accepted truth, we still need the court system to properly interpret it. This is also the case with the Bible. Even though many Christians consider it God’s Word, thus, the accepted truth, it still needs to be properly interpreted. When we call upon Scripture as we search for truth, filtering out misconception can only get us closer to the truth.
According to the World Christian Encyclopedia, there are over thirty thousand different Christian denominations with a new one forming each week. Members in each denomination believe they have been fully inspired by the Holy Spirit, thus have interpreted the Bible correctly. This means matching interpretation with revelation is a bigger problem than most Christians want to admit. Confidence in a particular interpretation being the truth just might be misplaced. Specific to the creation/evolution controversy, there are multitudes of interpretations of Genesis. There are even dozens of different literal interpretations (not just one as many creationists insinuate to the public) and many of these allow for the reality of both.
Religiously motivated activists often claim that Christians who interpret Genesis with science in mind are dangerously compromising the simplest and most literal interpretation of God’s Word. They claim that placing conclusions made by atheistic scientists on the same level as the Bible (or above the Bible) undermines the authority of God’s Word. Young earth creationist Ken Ham, president of Answers-in-Genesis, states in his article, Jesus wrote all of the Bible! (April 2004):
“…the majority of them [Christian leaders endorsing evolution] have compromised with the idea of millions of years and evolutionary beliefs in astronomy, geology and so on. As a result, the Bible’s authority has been undermined through such compromise, and it is thus not understood to be the absolute authority.”
Almost all anti-evolution creationists believe that there is a connection between a belief in evolution and the undermining of biblical authority. Notice that a rejection of evolution is not based upon their knowledge of biological evolution and an objective evaluation of evidence, but is based upon this belief. Creationists, such as Ken Ham, do take scientific discoveries into account, but they must be filtered with a favored biblical interpretation.
There are certain groups of Christians that look for truth no further than in the pages of the Bible. These Christians believe that looking in non-biblical sources, such as scientific research; can only cloud the path to absolute truth. It may come as a surprise to some that there are still people living in the
The flat earthers not only believe the Earth is the center of the universe, but they also believe the Earth is flat. The modern flat Earth movement can trace its origins to an English inventor, Samuel Rowbotham (1816-1884). He called this geocentric view Zetetic Astronomy, where the Earth is a flat disk centered at the North Pole and bounded on its southern edge by a wall of ice. The Sun, Moon, planets, and stars are only a few hundred miles above the surface of the Earth. John Alexander Dowie, in 1895, established a society in the
What both of these organizations have in common is that they base their beliefs entirely upon a restrictive literal interpretation of the Bible. When they argue their beliefs to others they use selected physical evidence, but this evidence is not what they base their belief upon. For most of us, it may seem silly to still believe that the Earth is the center of the universe because of the discoveries made in modern science, but if one bases their belief entirely upon one interpretation of the Bible it can be very convincing. Note the following verses that do more than just hint of the Earth being the center of the universe or it being flat:
-“He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.” (1 Chronicles 16:30)
-“Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm…” (Psalm 93:1)
-“Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.” (Psalm 104:5)
-“…who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast…” (Isaiah 45:18)
-“And God set them [the Sun and the Moon] IN the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth.” (Genesis 1:17)
-“…the stars in the sky fell to the earth…” (Revelation 6:13)
-“I saw four angels stationed at the four corners of the earth…” (Revelation 7:1)
-“Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.” (Chronicles 16:30)
There are over a hundred verses hinting at an Earth-centered universe. Restrictive literalists, such as Ken Ham, who claim that the Bible promotes a Sun-centered solar system can at best find only a couple of verses that support their argument. Young earth creationists and all other anti-evolution creationists have accepted all of the discoveries made by science, including the Sun-centered model of the solar system, but they deny scientific discoveries made in the historical sciences.
Most creationists recognize that scientific discoveries need to be taken into account, but not at the expense of a favored interpretation. The Bible takes precedence over the science. Only then can we be confident the Holy Spirit has inspired our reasoning. According to this way of thinking, the spiritually safe approach is to filter science with the Bible. Cofounder of modern flood geology and creation science, Henry Morris, puts it this way:
“It is not only legitimate then, but absolutely mandatory, for the Christian to depend implicitly on the scientific and philosophic framework revealed in Holy Scripture if he is to attain a true understanding of any of the factual data with which science deals, and their implications.”
The danger to this approach is that we must assume a favored interpretation of Genesis is the absolute truth. There are many literal interpretations of Genesis, and the flat earthers have taken the simplest and most literal one. Biblical interpretation has a history of human error. As stated earlier, the fact that there are over 30,000 different Christian denominations is a testament to the difficulties in biblical interpretation. This means that using the Bible as the primary source in understanding nature introduces human error.
Augustine of Hippo (354-430) was the most influential Christian theologian up until the Early Middle Ages. Augustine warned Christians seventeen hundred years ago against denying discoveries made in science merely because they contradicted a favored literal biblical interpretation. He states in his work, On the Literal Meaning of Genesis,
“Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, …and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men…. Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by these who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.”
Fifteen hundred years later,
“…theologians should not ignore the teachings of science…it is unwise for theologians to insist on an interpretation of Scripture which brings it into collision with the facts of science.”
Anti-evolution creationists are faced with an undeniable fact; the scientific community of experts considers biological evolution a reality (both establish theory and fact). It seems that the anti-evolution claim is an excellent example of what Augustine and Hodge were warning about, since it collides directly with the facts of science. The practice of evaluating Scripture to filter out the correct literal interpretation of Genesis has not produced agreement among creationists.
A Christian friend of mine replied to me after I had explained to him some of the biblical proofs for an ancient earth, “Well, we can agree to disagree. You can believe in the interpretation you want and I can believe in the interpretation I want.” If this is the case, then one of us is settling upon believing in something that is absolutely wrong. It also suggests that searching for truth about nature (as in the origins of the universe and of life) by primarily interpreting Scripture has an inherent limit and has no way of confirming ones beliefs.
Modern science has a rigorous self-correcting process, which is designed to filter out incorrect scientific interpretations, i.e., human error. The advances in science and technology in the last hundred years is a testament to the effectiveness of this process. Interpreting the Bible is at the mercy of a fallible interpreter’s thinking. If there was another infallible divine source, i.e., a source of absolute truth, then we could evaluate every literal interpretation of the Bible with it and filter out the bad ones. The remaining interpretation would most likely be the truth. Is there another infallible source? The answer is, yes, and it is God’s other infallible revelation, nature itself. This should be ideal for issues that involve both the Bible and nature.
According to the Bible, God’s revelation does not begin and end with just the Scripture. Notice what the apostle John says in chapter 21, verse 25:
“And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.” (KJV)
So, the Bible does not contain God’s complete revelation. It may be sufficient for our path to salvation, but it does not contain everything. Paul explains that we must look in the physical world to help us further understand his revelation:
“The invisible things of God are understood by the things that are made.” (Romans 1:20 KJV)
Is the Bible silent on what “the things that are made” is? No. The Bible does identify another source of his revelation in Psalm 19:1:
-"The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth his handywork." (KJV)
Nature is the other source of revelation. If nature is God’s work, then it must be infallible. Regardless of the context of Psalm 19:1, it reveals that the heavens, i.e., everything in nature, are another source of absolute truth. Since Christians believe that the Bible is God’s Word and nature is God’s handiwork, then there should be perfect harmony between the two. All we need to do is compare the two. If two of the interpretations are not in harmony, then one or both of the interpretations must be wrong. If two are in harmony, then we may have found the truth.
There is a possible reason why religious leaders do not explain to their followers this point. To a hammer, everything looks like a nail. To a theologian endlessly studying the Bible, absolute truths are only found in Scripture. Some claim that God’s Word is completely sufficient, as explained in 2 Timothy 3:16. This verse does say that Scripture is sufficient, but for the purpose of salvation not for the purpose of understanding nature.
Harmonizing God’s infallible Word with God’s infallible handiwork can be considered a dual revelation approach in order to better discover the absolute truth about God’s Word. This approach is not new. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) argued this approach nearly eight hundred years ago. Thomas Aquinas is considered by historians to be one of the most influential European theologians and philosophers of the Middle Ages. Almost single-handedly, he shifted medieval philosophy away from Plato and towards Aristotle. He believed human reason was used in theology not to prove the truths of faith, but to defend it, and one way was with dual revelation. He called the Bible special revelation and he called nature general revelation. He believed this approach helped clarify Scripture, and he also believed the early scientists (he called them natural philosophers) were revealing truth about nature. Aquinas states in Summa Theologiae (1273):
“…the philosophical doctrines [natural laws] which can be investigated by reason, there be a sacred doctrine known through revelation…Nevertheless, sacred doctrine also used human reason. It does so not to prove the faith – for that would detract from the merit of faith – but to clarify some of its implications. Therefore, since grace protects nature rather than erasing it, natural reason should serve faith just as the natural inclination of the will obeys love…. The apostle Paul speaks of “bringing every understanding into captivity in the service of Christ” (II Cor 10:5). Thus sacred doctrine appeals to the authority of philosophers [scientists] in those areas where they were able to arrive at the truth through natural reason…”
Dr. Schneider quotes Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1626), Lord Chancellor to King James I, the same man whose name appears on the King James Bible,
“Let no man…think or maintain that a man can search too far or be too studied in the book of God’s Word or in the book of God’s Works, divinity or [natural] philosophy.”
Notice how similar the paths of theologians and scientists are from a Christian perspective. Theologians study God’s infallible Word, while scientists study God’s infallible Work. Biblical verses are puzzle pieces for theologians to discover the mysteries of the Bible, just as facts in nature are puzzle pieces for scientists to discover the mysteries of nature. To not put physical evidence on equal footing with biblical verses in interpreting nature is to not fairly accept all of God’s infallible revelations. As a Christian, if we study both infallible gifts properly, it can be argued that we have a greater potential for success in discovering the truth.
Creationist Marvin Lubenow does not agree with Thomas Aquinas that God’s revelation can be clarified by His handiwork. In his book, Bones of Contention (1992), he writes:
“[Dual Revelation is] foolishness because of the nature of biblical truth in contrast to the nature of scientific truth. Whether one agrees with it or not, the Bible claims to be truth in the absolute sense, including its statements about nature. On the other hand, philosophers of science are unanimous in recognizing that science does not-in fact, cannot-traffic in absolute truth. All scientific truth is relative. What strange twist of logic would cause us to think that absolute truth and relative truth can be or should be harmonized?” (p.245/246)
Lubenow has made a fatal error. He has created an invalid argument, because it is based upon flawed logic. He has confused nature with science. Science is merely the study of nature. Because nature is God’s creation, it is an absolute truth just as the Bible is. Science is merely man attempting to discover nature’s absolute truths using a less dogmatic approach in order to avoid absolute error. Lubenow is stuck on the process of science, which is neither of the infallible revelations.
When someone attempts to explain nature with a favored biblical interpretation, like biblical proof of a global flood, he is not using all sources of absolute truth. Why not read clues in nature to understand nature, since it is also absolute truth? Reading only half of the story thanks to being bound to a specific interpretation only gets one half way there. Knowing that the process of biblical interpretation is wrought with human fallibility, it is only logical to weigh in ALL of the evidence.
There are a number of advantages God’s handiwork (nature) has over God’s Word as it relates to interpreting nature. First, the primary purpose of God’s Word is something other than interpreting nature. This increases the difficulty in deciphering the riddles of nature, which increases the potential for human error in interpretation. Second, the great thing about nature is that we can guarantee humans did not make any dictation or translations mistakes, as they have as they co-authored today’s Bibles. Human beings are directly interpreting an absolute truth. There are no translation errors in nature. Third, as Bible believing Christians, we believe in biblical inerrancy, but this is an assumption on our part. There is no way of proving it. There IS no assumption about nature’s inerrancy. Convincing an atheist or a Muslim that the Christian Bible is inerrant and infallible is a difficult task, although convincing them that nature has not been tainted by human fallibility has few roadblocks.
If we are to discover the truths about nature, and we have the two divine revelations at our disposal, which revelation should we interpret first now that we know scriptural infallibility and inerrancy requires another level of interpretation (possible chance of error) that nature does not? My contention is to let the facts of nature fall where they fall, i.e., let the truth reveal itself. Only then do we use the Bible in interpreting natural events. If we honestly believe in the infallibility and inerrancy of the Bible, then the facts of nature will automatically conform to the correct interpretation. If we use this method, then we have not introduced potential biblical interpretation errors. Jewish tradition has supported this approach. Rabbi Saadia Gaon of
“…held that scientific ideas which seem to conflict with the Torah need not necessarily be opposed, but can serve as stimuli to delve more deeply into the Torah and discover more profound meaning in it.”