J. Burke: A Personal Statement On Creation

From Reconciling understandings of Scripture and Science
Jump to navigationJump to search
an Open Letter from brother Jonathan Burke, February 2012
Linked and slightly reformatted for this wiki. Bold font is original.

Introduction

This is an open letter and may be distributed freely. If you wish to discuss my views, please contact me directly. (jb@btdf.org). I first wrote and distributed an earlier version of this letter in August 2010. I did so without any coercion or necessity to do so, and this new version has likewise been written by me simply as a means of saving time instead of repeating myself, not out of any sense of pressure to disclose my views (which I have expressed publicly for several years). This statement represents my views as of February 2012.

The Historical Background

Christadelphians have historically trusted the consensus of modern science. In 1885 brother Robert Roberts wrote a hypothetical dialogue between a Christadelphian and an ‘Interested Stranger’, appealing to the evidence of science in order to demonstrate that the universe must have had a cause, and that both the universe and the earth had passed through immense ages of time and gradual change in order to be made fit for human habitation.[1] [2] [3] Brother Roberts was confident that the science was accurate, and that it was in no way contradictory to the Biblical account, despite the fact that none of the physical facts about the universe and the earth which he cited can be found in Scripture.

I agree with brother Roberts on this matter,[4] and I cannot abandon this position in exchange for the view of the Catholic Church in its opposition to Galileo. This is a valid comparison. As late as 1913, brother C. C. Walker responded to brother T Griffiths, who claimed that to believe the earth was a sphere denied the inspiration of Scripture;[5] reader, consider if you agree with brother Walker or brother Griffiths. Addressing the views of brother Ralph Lovelock on creation and evolution in 1966,[6] brother Harry Tennant wrote the following comment:

‘At the same time, we are strongly of the opinion that the problems that undoubtedly exist should be frankly admitted by us as a community, for we do naught but dishonour to the word of God by pretending that these problems are not there. Our Brotherhood bears a responsibility to those in search of Scripture truth, and especially to those of tender years, to turn its attention to the solving of these difficulties in an atmosphere of calm, sincere, conscientious study, unhindered by the rumours, mistrust, suspicion and hasty judgments that have been all too prevalent among us in recent times.’[7]

Since then, nothing substantial has been done to follow brother Harry’s wise words. Consequently, I am one of an increasing number of brothers and sisters compelled to address this issue for themselves, without requiring anyone else to agree with me or accept my views, and without seeking to promote my views to others.

Concerning Scripture And Science

  1. I believe all true knowledge which science can gain from the natural creation is divine in origin, written into the creation by our God. There is no competition of authority between science and Scripture; both derive ultimately from God Himself, both reveal truths He communicates through His two books. The Bible describes nature as a reliable witness to God and His truth in harmony with the written word of Scripture; exemplary passages are Psalms 8 & 19, Acts 14:16-17, Romans 1:19-20. Viewing nature and Scripture as ‘two books’, [8] early Christadelphian commentators interpreted Scripture using scientific knowledge. Brother Thomas explicitly described the Advocate as a defense of the testimony of God through these ‘two books’.[9] [10] I agree with an early writer in The Christadelphian Magazine identified as ‘WDJ’, who insisted Scripture and science are in harmony, that any apparent contradictions are due to misinterpretation of the Bible or the creation,[11] [12] that science is a discovery of God’s handiwork, an ‘inspiration of God’s spirit’,[13] and that ‘theologians view science and call it false because it does not take to their turn-pike road’.[14]
  2. I affirm with Brother R Simons and brother Robert Roberts:
    • That geology teaches us that there was a time on earth ‘when animal life, if not totally, was nearly unknown, and only the lower order of vegetable life covering its face’[15]
    • That this lasted ‘many thousands of years’, during which 'the earth was undergoing wonderful and necessary changes to fit it for a creation of a higher order’[15]
    • That when this stage was over ‘it was replaced by a creation of a higher order, when animal and vegetable forms of a far more wonderful structure were brought into existence and most admirably adopted to the atmosphere, climate, and peculiarities of that creation’[15]
    • That this also lasted ‘many thousands of years’, before it was 'swept away, and a grander creation built on its ruins’, and 'so on, stage after stage’[15]
    • That ‘The Almighty, Omnipotent, Creator, who can instantly create and destroy, by the Word of His power, when necessity requires it, has seen fit, in the case of our earth, to pass it through long series of slow progression and development of cause and effect towards an ultimate end.’[16]
    • That ‘It seems only reasonable that at that early stage of our creation when Adam had only the beasts of the field as his earthly companions, that interchange of ideas in proportion to capacity was possible and probable. Language, as it now exists, was a later acquisition.’ [16]
    • That ‘We have no data to inform us how long Adam remained in this primitive state, but after he had gained his first lessons, and acquired some general knowledge of the things around him, an help-meet was provided for him, and, in due time, a greater and far more responsible lesson was in store for him.’ [16]
  3. I affirm that God's creation of the present order took place in a series of creative acts, each of them on a single 24 hour day, but cannot be dogmatic with regard to any intervening durations or action between each day of God's creative work; it is enough for me that God's actual creative work took six days.[17]
  4. I affirm with brother Roberts,[18] that God formed man from the dust of the earth, and that while this is a true principle the manner by which He did so constitutes an uncertain detail concerning which we ought not to go too far with our fellow believers.[19]
  5. I believe that Adam was a unique creation made specifically from the dust of the ground and that Eve was likewise a unique creation taken specifically from Adam's side. I affirm the law given to Adam, his transgression of that law, and the effects of that law on his descendants described in BASF Clauses 3, 4, and 5 (with the Cooper/Carter Addendum).

Concerning Evolution

  1. I believe the evidence for evolution is so overwhelming that honest interpretation of the Scriptures must reconcile it with what the Bible says. I can accept that God used it as a creative process but I do not believe the Bible teaches evolution; that would be dishonest.[20] However, I do believe evolution supports key Biblical principles.[21]
  2. I am skeptical of and prejudiced against the claims of atheist scientists (regardless of their scientific qualifications), who know neither God nor Christ, and whose interpretation of the evidence they find in creation is biased towards their philosophical position.
  3. I am skeptical of and prejudiced against the claims of Christians who know neither God nor Christ, whose scientific qualifications are inadequate, non-existent, or fraudulent, whose conduct is unbecoming of Christ, the income of whose 'ministries' are significantly dependent on their opposition to evolution, and whose interpretation of the evidence they find in creation is biased towards their theological position. Examples include Ken Ham,[22] Creation Ministries International[23], Answers in Genesis,[24] Kent Hovind,[25] and Creation Science Evangelism.[26] I believe they are even more dangerous than the most aggressive atheists, since they deliberately practice deceit in the name of Christ, bringing God, Christ, Scripture, and the gospel into disrepute. We should not use their material when addressing this subject; they are not merely ignorant, they lie.
  4. I admire Christians who (though believing in creation, and opposing evolution), warn their fellow believers in creation against using arguments which are untrue and which have been repeatedly proved untrue. [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32]
  5. I am sympathetic to the claims of scientists (either atheist or Christian), whose scientific qualifications are valid and relevant to the matters on which they comment, and who affirm there is no conflict between science and evolution on the one hand and the Bible's teachings on the other.
  6. I believe both the natural creation and the Bible were designed by God to inform us accurately, that both are reliable, that neither is intended to deceive or mislead us, and that a correct interpretation of both will always be in harmony. That science is a reliable tool for the investigation of creation is affirmed for me by the acknowledgement or expression of divine truths by many highly awarded scientists; the agreement among them confirms the harmony of science and Scripture:
    • Atheists or agnostics: Fred Hoyle,[33] [34] Steven Hawking,[35] Paul Davies,[36] [37] Robert Jastrow, [38] [39] Robert Wilson[40]
    • Devout Christians or Jews: Gerald Schroeder, Hugh Ross, Arno Penzias,[41] [42] Francis Collins, Frank Tipler,[43] John O'Keefe,[44] Nathan Aviezer, George Greenstein,[45] Henry Schaefer III, Allen Sandage,[46] Arthur Schawlow[47]

Concerning Our Community

  1. I do not call for our most commonly used Statement of Faith to be altered in order to accommodate evolution specifically. I believe this would be highly disruptive and damaging to our community.

  2. I do not believe that the subject of evolution should receive disproportionate attention in our community. I do not believe that there is a need for it to be broadly debated or discussed in our formal literature any more than it is at present. Nor do I believe that formal or informal efforts should be made, either by groups or individuals, to convince members of our community that evolution is a fact and that we should alter our Scriptural interpretation accordingly. My concern is that such activity would be destabilizing and destructive.

  3. I endorse the policy of our most prominent and representative magazines,[48] of not publishing articles supportive of evolution. I believe any comments favourable to evolution should be confined to the correspondence section of these magazines, and published only at the editor's discretion.

    I believe that any articles critical of evolution ought to be researched thoroughly and written with care to represent accurately the theory and relevant data. Of the Christadelphians I know who accept evolution, every one of them has said their change of view was influenced significantly by discovering false claims made by Christadelphians concerning evolution;[49] with that trust in our community eroded, that they turned inevitably to more reliable sources.

  4. When in a position of ecclesial teaching responsibility, I teach that God's creation of the present order took place in a series of creative acts, each of them on a single 24 hour day. This is consistent with my still developing beliefs on the subject, and is consistent with the traditional views of our community. Members of Taipei Ecclesia are baptized with the traditional understanding of our community that these days were directly consecutive, constituting a total duration of no more than one week.

  5. I have been, and continue to be, involved in discussions of evolution both on and off the Internet. In such discussions I have sought always to correct false claims made on both sides of the issue, and have aimed to help build a middle ground on which those involved can come to agreement.

    I have deliberately avoided promoting any specific view as what others should believe (though I have corrected inaccurate statements made concerning evolution), and I have never ‘taught evolution’ as has falsely been charged against me (a charge I have corrected more than once). Statements and views held by others have been misattributed to me;[50] please regard this document as an accurate expression of my views instead.
— Brother Jonathan Burke, February 2012.
  1. ↑ ‘are we not justified in saying that if we go far enough back in the record of the earth’s physical history, as written in the rocks,' we come to a time when the earth was a molten mass, incapable of sustaining life, either vegetable or animal?’, Roberts, R, ‘A Page for the Interested Stranger – No. 2’, The Christadelphian Magazine (22.255.405), 1885
  2. ↑ ‘We cannot ascertain the physical history of the earth further back than the fire period from the earth itself: but the starry heavens show us (through the telescope) bodies in various stages of development, and therefore stages through which it is probable the earth has come. The nebulous matter in the milky way is very instructive on this point.’, ibid., p. 405
  3. ↑ ‘Here is the point: if the universe has been a progressive development, there must have been a time—inconceivably remote truly—but still a time when it began to travel from its invisible state of abstract power to its present state of concrete form and glory.’, ibid., p. 405.
  4. ↑ Brother Roberts consistently used science to interpret Scripture, which is why he concluded that Noah’s flood was local.
  5. ↑ Walker, C C, ‘Is it wrong to believe that the earth is a sphere?’, The Christadelphian Magazine (50.590.346), 1913
  6. ↑ I do not hold the views of brother Lovelock.
  7. ↑ Brother Harry Tennant, ‘Statement From the Watford Ecclesia’, The Christadelphian Magazine (103.1230.543), 1966.
  8. ↑ Ephrem the Syrian (c.306-373), Gregory of Nyssa (c.335-394), John Cassian (c.360-435), Pelagius (c.354-420/440), Vincent of Beauvais (c.1190-c.1264), Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274), Thomas of Chobham (c.1255-1327), Dante Alighieri (1265-1321), Nicholas of Cusa (1401-1464), Thomas of Kempis (1380-1471), and Louis of Granada (1505-1588), are among many who held this view; the ‘book’ metaphor is useful but unimportant, the same principle can be described differently if the word ‘book’ is objectionable.
  9. ↑ ‘The Advocate: For the Testimony of God as it is Written in the Books of Nature and Revelation CONDUCTED BY JOHN THOMAS, M.D. The invisible attributes of God, even his eternal power and divinity, since the creation of the world, are very evident; being known by his works.—PAUL. All scripture given by divine inspiration, is profitable for doctrine, for conviction, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect—completely fitted for every good work.—PAUL.’, Brother Thomas, The Advocate, volume 4, title page (1837).
  10. ↑ ‘THE ADVOCATE will, therefore, exercise himself to the best of his ability and judgment, in setting forth the manifold wisdom of God as inscribed on the brilliant pages of those two interesting volumes.’, Brother John Thomas, The Advocate, volume 3, (1835-1836)
  11. ↑ ‘NATURE makes no false impressions, and just so the Bible.’, WDJ, ‘The Bible as a Law of Life and Immortality’, The Ambassador of the Coming Age, (1.1.93), 1864.
  12. ↑ ‘The inconsistency spoken of between nature and scripture, arises not from antagonism, but from the misinterpretations of both. It is man’s interpretation of the one set against man’s interpretations of the other. It is not nature versus scripture, but false science against true theology, or false theology against scientific fact.’, ibid., p. 93.
  13. ↑ ‘Every thing in art and science are but copies of the workings of God’s spirit in nature. And it is by the study of nature and by meditation, on the discoveries which have been made as communicated to him through books, that man acquires his knowledge in the science of life, and so inhales this inspiration of God’s spirit.’, ibid., pp. 93-94.
  14. ↑ ‘Some scientific men, we believe, view the Scriptures through the distorted medium of “confessions of faith” and doubt them, and theologians view science and call it false, because it does not take to their turn-pike road.’, ibid., pp. 93-94.
  15. ↑ 15.0 15.1 15.2 15.3 The Christadelphian Magazine (21:177), 1884.
  16. ↑ 16.0 16.1 16.2 The Christadelphian Magazine (21:178), 1884.
  17. ↑ Genesis 2:1-3, Exodus 20:11; 31:17; this is the current limit of my understanding.
  18. ↑ ‘It is sufficient if the brother or sister believe that “God made man of the dust of the ground”, brother Robert Roberts, ‘True Principles & Uncertain Details’, The Christadelphian Magazine (25.182-189), 1898; our community would be spared much pain if we adopted this as all that is necessary for our brothers and sisters to believe with regard to the creation of man and woman.
  19. ↑ The Christadelphian Magazine (25.183), 1898.
  20. ↑ I therefore see no point in being asked for verses which tell us of evolution; we accept gravity on the basis of science not Scripture, and no one would insist on verses supporting the theory of gravity.
  21. ↑ That light is the basis of responsibility; that humans are wholly mortal, made from the dust of the earth, and are without the enlightenment of divine revelation), as beasts; that God separates to Himself a covenant community from the mass of unenlightened humanity; that through Adam’s sin and exile, all his descendants inherited a nature prone to sin and death.
  22. ↑ http://oldearth.org
  23. ↑ http://www.calvarypo.org/HANDS/flood1.pdf
  24. ↑ Investigated for tax fraud
  25. ↑ Imprisoned for tax fraud.
  26. ↑ http://www.oldearth.org/rebuttal/cse/creation_science_evangelism.htm
  27. ↑ Arguments we think creationists should NOT use
  28. ↑ Moving Forward
  29. ↑ ‘Commended for aiming for accuracy’
  30. ↑ ‘Maintaining Creationist Integrity: A response to Kent Hovind’
  31. ↑ ‘Creation Science Rebuttals: Answers In Genesis’'
  32. ↑ Todd Wood, Young Earth Creationist, ‘The Truth About Evolution’ (emphasis mine): ‘Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well. I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.) Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution.’ The truth about evolution
  33. ↑ ‘Some super-calculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom.’; Hoyle was an atheist.
  34. ↑ 'A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.’
  35. ↑ ‘It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us.’; Hawking is an agnostic.
  36. ↑ ‘It is hard to resist that the present structure of the universe, apparently so sensitive to minor alterations in the numbers, has been rather carefully thought out. The seemingly miraculous concurrence of numerical values that nature has assigned to her fundamental constants must remain the most compelling evidence for an element of cosmic design.’; Davies is an agnostic.
  37. ↑ ‘The explosive vigour of the universe is thus matched with almost unbelievable accuracy to its gravitating power. The big bang was not evidently, any old bang, but an explosion of exquisitely arranged magnitude.'
  38. ↑ ‘Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a Biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and Biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time in a flash of light and energy.’; Jastrow was an agnostic.
  39. ↑ ‘the Hubble Law [describing the expansion of the universe] is one of the great discoveries in science: it is one of the main supports of the scientific story of Genesis.’
  40. ↑ ‘Certainly there was something that set it all off. Certainly, if you are religious, I can't think of a better theory of the origin of the universe to match with Genesis.’; Wilson is an agnostic.
  41. ↑ ‘Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say ‘supernatural’) plan.’
  42. ↑ ‘The best data we have (concerning the big bang) are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole.’
  43. ↑ ‘When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. . . .  the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics.’
  44. ↑ ‘If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in.’
  45. ↑ ‘As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency — or, rather, Agency — must be involved.’
  46. ↑ ‘The world is too complicated in all its parts and interconnections to be due to chance alone. I am convinced that the existence of life with all its order in each of its organisms is simply too well put together.’
  47. ↑ ‘We are fortunate to have the Bible and especially the New Testament which tells us so much about God in widely accessible human terms.’
  48. ↑ In my view, The Christadelphian Magazine, Testimony Magazine, the Lampstand, the Tidings, and the e-Journal of Biblical Interpretation.
  49. ↑ Presentations by brothers John M. Hellawell and John Bilello (among others), have been criticized extensively online by various non-Christadelphian reviewers (some of whom have sent letters to the brothers concerned), identifying their numerous factual errors
  50. ↑ Specifically those of brother Jonathan Pogson and brother Bruce Philps; I do not share their views on this subject.
Retrieved from "https://bibsci.sutherlandchristadelphians.org/index.php?title=J._Burke:_A_Personal_Statement_On_Creation&oldid=19646"