Talking about creation now a lot of Avenger occurs when we get to the genesis one and genesis two accounts You can kind of wonder what do we do if these accounts? Many people are older creationists and many people have a position that someone might see or how can Seems outside of bounds. That's what it's known as evolutionary creationism But it's becoming more and more popular view. I have my own sympathies with it as well For you are who are listening up here. You should probably know right now my sentiment says I hold to an old earth everything else after that is a jump bar and The conclusion wouldn't impact me seriously in any way But it is an interesting discussion and I leave it to the scientists, but there was a book that came out earlier this year called Old Earth or evolutionary creation and it was edited by Kenneth Keith Lee JB stump and Joe Aguilar and On the show we got representatives from the two organizations that were discussing the book back and forth by a log off and reasons to believe and we've got one of the Elders who wasn't probably they don't think can Keith Lee here Who's kind of think we'll be overseeing things with me here? And let's like get to our guests and let's start if you Dr. Keith Lee Europe says this is your first time on the show here You are a senior professor of theology and the Jesse Henley chair of theology at Southeastern Baptist theological seminary in Wake Forest, North Carolina Well, you've been teaching since 2006. You also direct the L. S. Bush Center for faith and culture a Snare that seeks to engage culture present defend the Christian faith and export implications for all areas of life He's a co-author of 40 questions about creation and evolution If I go in November 2014, you're a co-editor of order for evolutionary creation discussing origins with reasons to believe in bio logouts IVP July of this year and you and your wife Penny have been married since 1980 That's the year. I was born. So I really think that means that means I'm an old guy. Yeah Yeah, yeah, you got married when I was born. Yeah, you live in Wake Forest, North Carolina And our members of North Wake search in Wake Forest, North Carolina, you have a son and daughter both married and four grandchildren. Welcome to the podcast. Dr. Keith Lee Thank you, Nick. Glad to be here. If my audience doesn't know much about you Can you tell us a bit about how you got to be doing what you're doing? well, I've always been interested even during my time as a pastor in faith science issues particularly as it relates to creation and creationism Even in the early days when I was a pastor, I was very involved in the Young Earth creationist movement my my local church in which I was a pastor served as a satellite for a creationist ministry out of Australia that was sort of the precursors of of Answers and Genesis and several like that Clifford Wilson and others So so I had a lot of involvement with the early Young Earth creationist I journeyed away from Young Earth creationism for a number of reasons as I was continuing my education I Did a degree in mathematics and then during my seminary time whenever I was finishing my doctorate I moved over to Old Earth creationism. So I have been teaching on creation and creationism at Southern Baptist seminaries now for almost 20 years and This is the second book for me to be involved either in editing or writing and also directing the Bush Center for Faith and Culture To the mandate for the center is rather broad because you think there's just not hardly any area arena in which our faith Does not engage the culture So so the Bush Center will address a number of issues whether it's political Social ethical things of that nature even art and film But one area that is very significantly Where where our faith interacts with the world is in the arena of the natural sciences So the Bush Center often Sponsors some type of events in which we Engage in those kinds of questions Hey, we're very good to have you here and like what you're helping out with this discussion here as well Glad to do it. Let's move on here. Dr. Stump. This is your second time on the show You came on here originally with dr. Vapgate about your book how I changed my mind on evolution Yeah, you're a The senior editor at Biologars you oversee the development of new content and curate existing content website and print materials You have a PhD in philosophy from Boston University and you reform your philosophy professor and academic administrator You've offered science and Christianity and introduction to the issues and edited four views on creation evolution intelligent design and Co-op for the co-edited books including Christian thought historical introduction black will companion to science and Christianity How I changed my mind about evolution and when we discuss today Older for evolutionary creation discussing origins with reasons to believe in biologos So dr. Stump, welcome back to the deeper waters podcast Thanks, Nick. Good to be here again In case my audience is here mr. First time and don't remember your last appearance tell us a little bit about how you got to Be doing what you're doing Sure, I so I grew up in a Christian family and my father was trained as a science teacher And I followed in his footsteps in that regard as an undergraduate I majored in science education and just after I graduated then from college my wife and I actually moved to Sierra Leone West Africa and taught in a mission school and while I was there I started reading a lot more than I did in my science education and got really interested in philosophy and apologetics kinds of questions and when we came back then I decided to go to grad school in philosophy and with In the discipline of philosophy was particularly interested in questions having to do a science So did an MA and then a PhD focusing on history and philosophy of science and I taught then for a number of years as a philosophy professor at a Christian liberal arts college here in Indiana and when biologos Moved to Grand Rapids in 2013 when Deborah Harzma became president She was looking for a few other people to work with her And so I started working part-time for biologos in that regard I've used philosophy as as a lens on the science and religion discussion our way into it and Became more and more involved and then starting in 2015. I've been working full-time for biologos now We're good to have you back. I hope this will be an interesting discussion. Thank you And finally dr. Rana first Rana from reasons to believe You know, we've had on Hugh Ross a couple times we've had Ken samples on so guess it's about time But you came on here And first Rana is a vice-president of research and apologetics at reasons to believe he's the offer of several groundbreaking books Including who was Adam creating life in the lab the sale of design and dinosaur blood and the age of the earth He owns a PhD in chemistry of an emphasis in biochemistry from Ohio University So welcome for a first time to the Depot border's podcast Nick, thank you for having me. It's an honor to be with you Now if my audience doesn't know much about you tell us how you got to be doing what you're doing Well science played an integral role in my conversion to Christianity. I was an agnostic When I was an undergraduate student taking courses in chemistry and biology preparing myself to go to graduate school and in fact, I embrace the evolutionary paradigm and When I say paradigm I mean the grand Narrative that evolutionary mechanisms can account for the entirety of life And yet when I was a graduate student immersing myself in the study of the cells chemical systems I was deeply impressed with the the ingenuity and the sophistication of those systems and began to wonder How do we account for their origin and as I looked at original life explanations that were in play at that time? I Just simply saw them to be inadequate and it was at that point I was convinced they're ultimately how to be a mind that undergirded life and Then that opened me up to questions like who is the creator? How do I relate to the creator? And it was a pastor's challenge To read the Bible for the first time that introduced me to the Gospels and ultimately to the person of Christ And so I converted to Christianity and I've always been interested in science-faith issues But this really came to a head for me When I was working in research and development for Procter and Gamble a number of years ago now and My father who was a Muslim I grew up in a Muslim home Died as a Muslim and I just simply was never able to really reach him as a Christian And I realized that apologetics was going to be very important that I needed to equip myself So that I could give reasons to people for the hope that I had but it also convinced me that evangelism was really important in Doors just began to open for me as I reached those those convictions And that led to an opportunity to join reasons to believe now almost 19 years ago working Alongside Hugh Ross 10 samples Jeff Zwerinke and Antoinette Roberts now as science and philosophy colleagues But you know our organization is ultimately about Using science as a way to build a bridge to the gospel and so that's what we're motivated to do We're not interested in developing apologetics arguments For the sake of developing arguments We really see our mission as being evangelism And equipping the church to use science as a way to again connect people to the Christian message We're good to have you here also and I guess I should take it as a good sign Like two of your other colleagues have been on and it didn't scare you from coming on as well Yes, nobody gave me the warning not to go on that Well, let's start looking into this book and I'd like to start with a question for you Dr. Keefley and it's when I'm sure I'm gonna get from some people if I don't ask it because yes people of our perspectives are Listening to my show. So I think someone could be wondering Why isn't younger of creationism included in the proposal just order versus evolutionary creationism? Well, I think there's a number of reasons why for one thing To start I have co-authored books with young earth creationists the 40 questions on creation and evolution is co-authored with Mark Rooker Who is a wonderful colleague with me at Southeastern Seminary here in Wake Forest and and mark is a young earth creationist and we work together very well and have a very Corgiol relationship. So it isn't that I I haven't ever worked with young earth creationist and in fact There are times some of the events that we have at the bush center our discussions Let's see the one we had last spring Was with the young earth creationist Nathaniel Jensen and an an evolutionary creationist Dennis Venema at other times we've had young earth and old earth So I didn't feel that every time I have an event or Every time I am involved in a project. I have to have every party involved There are particular reasons in this book that we don't have young earth creationist involved because This book is specifically a dialogue between those who do accept the findings of science concerning the age of the earth in other words We didn't want this to have to to we didn't want to go through those questions And address those issues again We wanted to move beyond that and have a discussion of other issues besides that and so that for that reason we Decided to have it simply between old earth creationist and evolutionary creationist and your your intro kind of Highlighted the reason why the we have this book. You said I'm an old earth creationist everything beyond that is sort of a jump ball Right. Well, that's exactly the kind of issues. We wanted to address what what kind of issues then Are pertinent to those of us who do accept what science has to say in the fields of geology our astronomy So It wasn't an idea of of shedding anyone out. This was just simply this This was the nature of our conversation Yeah, I agree if you just wanted to ask for a sake of people out there listening and such it is a great book saying for me my stance on Genesis one is I pretty much go with john wartons view which I was very thrilled when I saw by he had some chapters in here And as well as science says well, I leave it to the scientists, but it's an interesting debate Anyway, and dear michelle and when you have a something you'd like to chime in with the questions or something You'd like to ask as well to our guests, but you think I might be missing Feel free to jump in and say it. I appreciate your opinion from a much more wise or older perspective All right Hannah, I think it might be worthwhile talking something about the history of the dialogue here too. Oh, yes Yeah, that's a good point. I During the course of the dialogue we did ask do we want to involve Young earth creationists and so so it wasn't just that we just forgot to involve them On the other hand, there is a historical context here. Are there in other words, uh, this this book began as a conversation between Daryl Falk and some of Biologos and Hugh Ross and some At involved with reasons to believe I believe it may have been at Hugh's house even I My memory may fail me there And also at about the time they were having their conversation Daryl Falk who at that time was the president of Biologos and I began a dialogue We had met at Pepperdine at a at a conference We ended up having some things that we did together We did a series of blog posts called Southern Baptist Voices in which a number of Southern Baptist professors Wrote some of their concerns and those of Biologos replied so There you know, there is a context historical context in which this book came about which lent itself to a conversation among Those of us who held to an old earth So so Jim, you're right to bring that up But during the time that we had our conversation We we ask do we want to broaden the conversation? And we decided that for this conversation it was better not to And I think the format of the book actually works very well for those who don't know It's someone from I believe a Southern Baptist convention I'm making a statement opening a chapter asking a question about viewpoint or such and then someone from Biologos and someone from reasons believe each writes an essay and The the person then licks them and says where here are some of points before here is a question I'd like to ask each of you and then they each write a response essay and then the Speaker finally responds at the end says here is what I think about it's usually about reaching any firm conclusions But it's an excellent way of dialogue and I think it's particularly interesting because you've got Like we've suggested start non-scientists asking for more scientific people Oftentimes what they think about it? Yeah, and and the format should The important thing to realize about the format is that this isn't a simply a point counterpoint Debate this really is a discussion It right it started as a discussion. It continued as a discussion now This doesn't mean that we just Papered over our differences But it does mean that we approached these issues in a in a very different way So there were a number of times that we met in which the discussion was very free wheeling wheeling and then as the Meetings progressed we then organized them into the format that you see in which there would be A southern Baptist professor Who would act as the moderator for that meeting and at that meeting each viewpoint would be presented in a brief essay And then there would be follow-up questions and and so I think the chapters Really do I think capture The nature of the dialogue if you'll notice the first half of the book addresses Logical biblical and philosophical questions things like What is what is the an organization's understanding of biblical authority? The problem of evil divine actions Divine action things of that nature and then the second half of the book is focus more on scientific issues whether it's Genetics or our geology Mm-hmm. Yeah, let's look into some of the material in this book here Dr. One, I'd like to start with you. It's a question that comes to my mind here Is on page 129 you have this statement in response to Daryl Falk here That's if evolutionary mechanisms possess such capabilities Then believers and non-believers like wonder what role is the creator to play? For example evolutionary biologists and atheists Richard Dawkins script Although atheism might have been logically tinnable before Darwin Darwin made it possible to be an intellectual for a fair of atheists I debate that development or biologists Paul Zachary Peezy Meyers a well-known atheist and offer a award-winning blog Ferengula and North Dakota State University on Darwin Day February 12 2015 No question of God's existence one of the key points Meyers made was In effect evolution can explain everything in biology. So why do I need to believe in God? And then later on in that same page a separate paragraph The key lesson from my interaction with Meyers and other atheists Is that to make a case for a creative and Christian faith is incumbent on us to one distinguish our models and those are materialistic and to Identify places where God has intervened in life's history if we cannot is hard convinced skeptics our creator exists Okay, so my question is as I read this And I'm someone who has studied metaphysics some as well I think I find a bit problematic because it seems like it has to be a god of a gapsmate if God doesn't Create specifically in a certain way and it looks like like God is out of a job And that that just strikes me as a problematic position. I like to know what you think about that Yeah, well, you know, I would I would stand behind that statement and of course You know, I did pick two rather extreme examples of evolutionary biologists who Are actively promoting an atheistic worldview and using Evolution as a way to do that very thing But in my experience personally when I was a An undergraduate and I was learning about the evolutionary paradigm and again, you know was kind of Assuming a position of agnosticism Learning that evolutionary mechanisms could essentially account for the origin the history and the design of life Only reinforced my position As an agnostic it didn't You know push me towards a position that may be god employed evolution as a way to create and in fact, I meet Scientists and I meet students of science all the time who take a very similar perspective that again We don't you know, if we have evolutionary mechanisms that can account for everything in life Then you know, we don't need the god hypothesis So in my experience pragmatically if you really want to engage people You have to do something to jar them away from this idea That evolution is a grand unifying theory that can account paradigmatically for everything that we see in biology. Otherwise Many times people that are entrenched in that position simply will not budge And you know, and I don't see it necessarily As a god of the gaps kind of an argument because I'm not a person who would take the position that for example with the origin of life That there are no mechanisms that exist that can explain the origin of life. I do believe That from a a chemistry and a physics standpoint that the mechanisms we need For a biogenesis to happen do in fact exist But the problem is is that those mechanisms will not operate in a productive manner under the conditions of the early earth And in fact, this is the major issue right now When you engage original life researchers is how do we translate The discovery of these mechanisms in a controlled laboratory setting to the uncontrolled conditions of the early earth and in fact these researchers recognize that as intelligent agents they are actually Influencing the outcome of their experiments and this causes them great concern and so But the point here is that There are a number of scientists that work in the original life question that work in evolutionary biology that are ready to admit That we don't have explanations for Or satisfying explanations at least for key transitions in the origin in the history of life And that there are places where you can see again failed predictions And so from my perspective These are things that are at least sufficient enough for someone to say wait a minute Maybe evolution can't account for everything and if so is it possible that somehow a creator is involved? And one could posit process one could posit intervention In a direct personal way or some combination of both which is actually the view that I hold But I can tell you get people to recognize That evolution lacks complete sufficiency In my experience pragmatically You're never going to get those people to move Move away from a skeptical orientation to one that's open to a creator Okay, well before I get a response from dr. Stump Dr. Keith Liam As a theologian such what's your thoughts on on question and view for response? Yeah The one thing I heard if I if I understood the nature of the question The the expression god of the gaps is automatically Pregiative and Without a doubt Many perhaps even most arguments from a lack of information or lack of knowledge Has turned out to be the wrong approach However, and Jim is the is the philosopher in this in this conversation. He can correct me if I'm wrong, but A properly constructed God of the gaps argument is a Is a legitimate argument in other words it isn't Automatically a bad argument because it is a god of the gaps argument Many many of them have turned out to be poorly constructed and and a mistake However, it could be in you know the words. I think that if you have Certain types of divine action and and jim has written some excellent stuff on divine action There are certain types of divine action That we will call a sign or a wonder That we cannot have a There's nothing in the prior moments or the moments leading up to it that predicted our Uh Lint any reason for us to expect The anomaly would happen in other words a miracle is is almost a disruption of the nexus of cause and effect Of what we of what we would expect so It could be Looking at a natural history Because we believe that god Is the providential god taking care of each and every moment near each and every molecule That's the typical way in the ordinary way in which god is operating god can so choose because he is sovereign to interact with creation in a way That we would discern that In a way that we'd almost we we would end up calling that a miracle. Um I think one area one one example of this in which everyone is scratching their heads is in the fine-tuning argument That's a rather serendipitous thing because there's nothing in the biblical record that would say You know a doctrine of creation a properly A robust theology of creation would require Uh a fine-tuned universe And yet that is what we find and the more we look at it The more that you either have to say this looks like some type of divine action Or else you have to pause at some really really, um some very wild wild metaphysical explanations like the multiverse so Automatically uh dismissing the the god of the gaps argument I think is a mistake because there can be those times and places in which you look at it and say As as fuzz has already alluded to the origin of life issue Um, I don't think that this is going to be a question We're going to be able to prove one way or the other as he's indicated But I think it is a reasonable thing to challenge The standard evolutionary paradigm I of course I may need to ask Jim. What is the standard evolutionary paradigm today because I don't think There are very many practicing Biologists who would call themselves neodarwinian. I may be mistaken about that But I think that that uh Just saying that the evolutionary paradigm can explain all the phenomena that we see I think that I think it's a reasonable thing to challenge that Okay Now so uh, dr. Stump here. I've been turning to you. I think we can have both what dr. Keefley asked and what Dr. Ronas said there first off. What is the classical evolutionary paradigm being discussed today? And second, what do you think about dr. Ronas answer? I mean, do you think this is a god of the gaps? Do you think he has a point when we're talking with non-believers about how we approach the question of evolution? yeah, so these are uh, fantastic questions and I think the evangelistic motivation that fuzz describes is laudable and one that biologos agrees with and we uh, wholly agree with fuzz's critique of docens and mires and and these scientists that Give science a much bigger scope than uh, in terms of explanatory power than than we think There ought to be And so even it's uh on that evangelistic theme. It's not the primary goal of biogos To persuade everybody to believe just like we do It's much more so to try to show that People who accept the science of evolution can be faithful christians too and we're happy for this to be an issue about which christians can disagree And so similar to fuzz's experience we have experience too where every week we hear from people that Feel have feel that they've been made to choose between their faith in god and what at least to their minds They think science has discovered about the world. So it's been our goal to try to show how those can be consistent So I think that shows to one of the points about the evangelism Approach here is that people become christians for lots of different reasons And I I don't know that we need just one evangelistic approach To either attract people to the faith or to keep people in the faith who might otherwise go out So in that regard, I think both reasons to believe in biologos have have valid ministries in that regard The god of the gaps question is yeah, it's one that's tricky Because science can't explain everything and so there are gaps if that's what if that's what we mean by a gap Is something that science can't explain then we all think that there are gaps, right? And it's been my approach and I don't know that I want to identify this with the biologos approach as much as my own That's consistent with biologos to say that I'm framing the question even in terms of Gaps within scientific description or interventions into the natural order thing of things. I think that kind of talk Implies or assumes that there's a self-contained system that runs on its own Just fine for most of the time according to these natural laws And that miracles or god's intervention are somehow violations of that And I don't think that's the right picture to begin with I don't see how you get away from an implication of deism of some sort or of some degree When we assume that scientific processes describe the way things can run on their own But then sometimes god has to do different things Instead I prefer to talk about the scientific description of things only tells part of the story It tells a very impressive story and one that does well in explaining some aspects of reality But I think the laws of nature are descriptive in that sense rather than prescriptive They're descriptive of what we have observed and their abstractions to ideal cases And there's nothing in that then that prevents us from thinking that god might do something different in some in some instances So that it might be our Experience that we've observed that people who die and are dead for three days don't come back to life But that's a description. It's not this must be the way Nature works for all time And so god may very well do something different and then we would say our Science doesn't have an explanation for those things that god does different in that Not to belabor this point, but if I could just offer a very quick follow-up About this idea of god of the gaps arguments You know and you know, I actually in in strong agreement with everything I heard from jim and everything I heard from ken So there's not much I think by way of dispute and and by the way Just with regard to this question of evangelism if I meet somebody and evolution is Very, you know, is the is the issue I would never ever want to put Evolution as a stumbling block in front of the cross And so I have no problem Referring people who are deeply committed to an evolutionary explanation Again for the origin and the history of life to by a logos If that is what they need in order to to evaluate the truth claims of the gospel Likewise, you know, I do meet people who when you tell them well, maybe god employed evolution to create they Roll their eyes and they're not impressed with that argument. And so The people that we're trying to reach are people that would be in that category Now with respect to the god of the gaps argument You know One of the things that we do are reasons to believe is we work very hard not to just simply say Here's an absence of understanding that we have therefore god did it But rather we we try to look very carefully at the nature of the gap And is there additional information additional data that would suggest that? Uh, not only is there an absence of understanding scientifically, but is there additional information that would suggest a creator's involvement And so when it comes to the nature of biochemistry I see biochemical systems as displaying unbelievable unbelievably elegant design and design So profound that it allows us to rejuvenate the watchmaker argument For god's existence in a in a powerful in an exciting new way And so when you couple that with the inability to explain the origin of life now you've got An instance where you could say this looks like a place where god could have indeed intervened How exactly that looks again is is open for discussion So I think that we're making god of the gaps arguments But rather we are saying that there are places where The evolutionary paradigm doesn't have explanatory power and if that and in those particular instances does it look like There is additional evidence that suggests the creator's involvement Yeah, and as I was thinking about this I thought that you know my area Is history mainly and especially with resurrection And some people say we you've got a god of the gaps if you think jesus rose again No, we've actually got some positive evidence It's not just hey there's a missing body must be resurrection that here's all this data We have to explain and what's the best explanation and that when I think is resurrection Yeah, and I think that I think what you hear nick is the three of us Basically agreeing that we we believe that That god in his providential work is just as sovereign in everyday ordinary activities as he is Whenever he in he involves himself in a way That we would consider to be a wonder to be to be something marvelous Right, if you'll notice the bible really never describes Miracles in the in the way that one typically sees it described, you know some type of violation of nature I think jim did a very good job of saying look all we're doing is describing. We're not prescribing The the way the bible Describes miracles is these are those times that god has acted in such a way That it is intended to say something to us to profoundly Move us in a sense of worship and awe and wonder Because in in the biblical worldview god is intimately involved all the time And I think all all of us would want to affirm that regardless What whatever is the ordinary none of us want to have anything that smacks of deism We do not think that the the universe is self perpetuating. We do not think that the universe is self sustaining We think that everything about the universe is sustained by by the goodness of god's sovereign power So in that sense, I don't think that there is any kind of disagreement between biologos and reasons to believe The questions they're having though that has to do with I guess I guess the the question we do have then is that okay when when is it a A reasonable thing to say well, this looks like a first order divine action And that isn't just a problem scientists have a theologian struggle with that too. Yeah As I was saying about what you were just saying that I think one example of how that you you kind of think it came out of how Just because we know how some more how god works It doesn't mean the wonder of it is gone I think the example if I go to is how the psalms say That we are our fearfully and wonderfully made well We know a whole lot more no doubt about the whole process of forming of that child in the womb Then david did back then I mean he knew the basics, of course It takes sex to make a baby, but we know a whole lot more about what goes on And I don't think that caused any one of us to say that where since we know that there is a Fully materialistic process on it. It means we're no longer fearfully and wonderfully made right Yeah, and even and even then whenever even whenever there are Natural phenomena that can be used to explain what's going on If it is so Remarkable and so amazing If you if we were being pursued by an enemy army and we were backed up against the red sea And just as we get to the red sea an east wind comes and blows against the wind against the sea So there's dry land Even though you can you could say okay that has a natural explanation. There was a that must have been an amazing east wind It's got a natural a natural explanation and yet it is so unique So timely so remarkable that we'd say this surely is the hand of god, right? Okay, and dr. Stumb, let me ask a question for you and I'm trying to ask about horror questions I can't reach your positions here. Dr. Stumb, if there is anything I think would keep people from Re-evolutionary perspective many times it's that as many of us are evangelicalers we Today we want to hold that Bible in a very very high esteem And too many times it looks like the evolutionary paradigm would seem to go against The but the biblical account and a lot of people look at biologons and say where you got so many people there who seem to be Ready to throw out biblical inerrancy But evolution is so that you know, you absolutely have to hold to it I think that could be very problematic to some people. I mean, can you really believe in evolution As is and believe in the inerrancy of scripture So Inerrancy has been an important concept and even a rallying cry for some segments of christianity. Yes And certainly not all of christianity though. I mean, I think it's At least the particular understanding of inerrancy that stems from the chicago statement and so on Is pretty well confined to american evangelicalism I There's an inch the Is it a four views book? Can you probably know the four views on inerrancy or five views? My third is in five views. Yeah, I actually just started reading it recently So as somebody from outside of the u.s. Has a particularly interesting take on our discussions on inerrancy But Here we are we are american evangelical So we'll talk about it from within that context and there are so biologos doesn't have an official position On inerrancy there are people within the biologos community who stand by it And and don't see a problem with holding to it and to the science of evolution And there are others who don't think it is particularly a helpful term And I myself don't go around calling myself an errantist But neither do I think that it does Anything particularly helpful to affirm Inerrancy while at the same time admitting that we must interpret scripture And that our interpretations are not inerrant, right? So instead I affirm that scripture is inspired and that it's authoritative for the church And I think it prevents us from having to do a lot of gerrymandering with With problematic texts while we affirm inerrancy but say well, this must not be what was intended here and so i'm happy to To speak of scripture as the word of god and and that god inspired it and that it's authoritative for the church And at the same time, I think all of us acknowledge that it bears the marks of the the human communities within which scripture originated And using their languages and their cognitive environments So the question about whether evolution sits comfortably within the biblical worldview Is not different in kind may perhaps different in degree But not different in kind from asking whether heliocentrism fits comfortably within the biblical worldview These are modern concepts that that were not part of the human cognitive environment in which scripture was given to us And so yes, there will be some tensions in that regard and it's the biologous approach to try to separate out What are those marks of The the human perspective the human worldview the cultural environments within which scripture was given As opposed to the message that god is conveying to us through scripture and that god revealed himself In certain ways to these to these communities Anyway, dr. Keefley i've been involved actually quite a dear in the inerrancy debates Uh listeners will show now my father-in-law is mike lakona And so when he became the target of inerrancy inquisition I was very very to leap to his defense and such so I've seen inerrancy being used as a weapon And I do have a problem with that approach I definitely agree with what dr. Stump said that we that I hold the inerrancy of scripture But not to the inerrancy of interpretation But what do you think about the question and response because I mean even if me of us won't perform the inerrancy inquisition Inerrancy it does seem to play a pretty big role to evangelicals doesn't it? Yes, I am an inerrantist, uh, and I I teach at an inerrantist institution The Baptist faith and message Is the guiding document confessional document that informs But it it is where we as Baptist are at at this time And I am comfortable calling myself an inerrantist. I understand Everything that jim has just said yeah, and I understand what your point Certainly, uh, there are those who have used inerrancy as a weapon But for crying out loud what what What important truth hasn't been used as a weapon at one time or another So the fact that the fact that some have been treated unfairly and unkindly That that that's something we take very seriously and be very concerned about But that is not a determinative for whether or not I hold to an inerrancy I hold to an inerrancy because I think the bible is true in all that it affirms I think that we do have to be very careful And I do think the chicago statement on inerrancy is a is a a very A very valiant attempt to do that. I mean when one I teach the chicago statement Practically every semester in my first semester at theology class Where we go through the the 19 affirmations and and denials of the chicago statement And I've had a lot of students come up to me and say afterwards Well, I didn't think I was an inerrantist But after after we've gone through those I find out I really am if that's an inerrancy that I'm an inerrantist too Because we really do pay attention to things such as The the worldview of the script in which the scripture was given We do look at things such as you know, as you just got to say yes, scripture's inerrant My interpretation of it is not So therefore there will always have to be a Certain amount of humility in our affirmations and and our claims because you know, you have certain times and examples in history where Certain claims were made that we had to backtrack about and Certainly the Galileo affair Is a good example incidentally Ted cable has a very good book in which he goes through that that whole issue about The Galileo incident with the Catholic Church And and if they had followed the hermeneutics of Galileo, they would have been much better off Because Galileo pretty well described his approach to Scripture and how it relates to science in a way that is quite congruent with someone who holds to The authority inspiration infallibility and yes inerrancy of scripture um One of the things that this does highlight Is that even though we are discussing creation and evolution The things that we are engaged in and the points that we're touching Are actually much broader And so what happens is uh to pull the the inerrancy thread. I think uh The concern will be there's a sleeve will come over It'll fall off on the other side that we weren't even thinking about Whenever we decided that thread can go And so that has happened we can see in many of the discussions that are even on the biologos side Some that I've followed with interest though because what one holds to the way that we we You know I'm thinking now of the various I don't know if I want to use the word factions But the various the various groupings or the various types of people who hold to evolutionary creation Some uh want to be an errantist john john walton calls himself an inerrantist peter ins does not and As a result there there's other areas that they end up being affected by this one's understanding of original sin One's uh understanding of the atonement. Uh one's understanding of the infallibility of the new testament There's a lot of other issues that come up and end up end up being affected by this conversation and so As somebody who is a systematic theologian and i'm always thinking trying to always think about how this is going to impact the whole That's one of the reasons why That's why that's why we have to be very careful about For the sake of being able to reconcile A scientific question to scripture. We've got to make sure that that We don't we don't we don't lose something in the process Before I go to Dr. Ronas he says i'm dr. Keith you mentioned ted cabal there is a book you're talking about controversy of the ages Yes. Yes. Thank you for bringing up that and uh Ted Ted is trying in that book is trying to argue that the age of the earth Really is not something That that an errantist should be Falling out about you know Dr. Cable teaches at southern seminary and he is a an errantist and he Demonstrates that the age of the earth issue is not one one does not have to hold to a young earth in order to be an errantist I suspect I mean that is one of the one of the things I have said to the people at biologos And you know, whether or not they want to to have a broad-tent approach is certainly You know, that's their prerogative But if they want to see uh evolutionary creationism If they want it to be attractive to conservative evangelicals Then they do need to demonstrate How it can be How one can be an evolutionary creationist and still affirm something that looks an awful lot like an errantcy For otherwise, you know, it will be a convictional thing where people just say in principle I'm just not going to be able to go there Well, I was asking because if anyone's interested we we do tend to have a lot of interviews on here If you go to july 1st of this year We entered interview Dr. Cable on that book controversy of the ages So if you're wondering what Dr. Keeflews talking about what this book is like go back to the archives and listen to that Now, Dr. Rana, what's your response to all this because if i'm correct reasons to believe is an organization that does hold to an errantcy and such I don't think there's any Bending on that. So I mean, what do you think? Do you think you could be a consistent and errant as christian anhoda? evolution And do you think that Biologos is maybe being bit too lax on the Bible here or what? Um, well, you know, as you said nick, um, you know at reasons to believe we hold a view That is probably identical to that that uh of ken keithley that we do affirm You know the chicago statement on an errantcy that is actually An organizing document in the work that we do at reasons to believe And we would agree, you know with the points that the gym makes That that we've got to be very careful as we interpret scripture In taking into account the cultural setting Uh the the the ideas that were in play as part of the culture at the time But we would argue that because Scripture is inspired by the holy spirit It is in fact possible to have ideas that would be understood Or even embedded in the culture of that time, but yet the concepts that are expressed Actually are the true concepts that through eventually scientific discoveries here You know in the 21st century that we can actually see The divine nature of scripture itself. So for example Uh if you look at genesis one two, you know, here you have this depiction of the earth in its primordial state and It's remarkable to me how Well that depiction matches what we now think the conditions of the early earth would have been like From planetary science and in the science of solar system formation And so, you know, here is an instance where again, you could easily understand that passage of scripture In the ancient Near Eastern context But yet it's remarkable to me how the concepts that are communicated about the earth in its primordial state Match in a remarkable way what we now think to be the case Again regarding the early earth conditions or if you go to isaia 45 18 Which is an allusion to genesis one two where According to the prophet isaia god says that he did not create the earth to be uninhabited, but he he formed it to be Full of people full of life And you know again You see ideas in science like the rare earth hypothesis That again is is remarkable in that it's talking about just the fact that the earth very well may be Rare if not unique in its capacity to support life And so you can see kind of a an overlap in the concepts that are found in isaia 45 18 And again what we're seeing from modern science and so you know as a general principle because we believe scripture is inspired by the holy spirit that Even though again, it may be written in In a particular historical context That there are still again ideas or concepts That will find affirmation as we learn more and more about the world around us through scientific investigation You know, and if there's anything that i've come to appreciate over the years of working at reasons to believe Even though we are day-age creationists is that interpreting genesis one is not easy I mean, I think the big picture ideas of genesis one are very clear Uh in terms of the perspicuity of scripture, but the specifics of how to understand genesis one Is is not an easy thing and you know, I find for example elements of john waltons ideas to be appealing I find elements of the framework hypothesis to be appealing I find the analogical day ideas to be appealing I think there's elements of our view that are appealing And you know and I could you know go on and on I think this idea that genesis one may be an apologetic Or against ancient near eastern ideas is appealing and so I think Probably the way to think about genesis one is You know like the elephant that the blind man are grabbing various parts of and so we Have I think facets of of insight as to what genesis one is communicating But I don't think anybody has put it all together But I think to to rob the text of Scientific content. I think really does a disservice to the notion that it is indeed inspired by By the holy spirit. I think the holy spirit would be capable of Of communicating in a particular historical context, but yet communicating in a way that is for people of all ages And we are a scientific world and and so we're going to read things through a scientific lens In which remarkable to me is that even when we read genesis one through a scientific lens, we do see concepts that match Contemporary science now, you know, could somebody be an evolutionary creationist and see You know again that that position being compatible with a A faithful reading of genesis one I think what biologos has done is shown that that indeed is the case So, you know, I don't dispute that that notion whatsoever. In fact, uh, I've I've met a few people who are very interesting jim They are basically evolutionary creationists that are concordants That would agree with our approach in a broad sense of genesis one But yet would argue for an evolutionary history of of life on earth. So, um, There are even positions that I think I don't typically see represented By biologos that are out there under the umbrella of evolutionary creationism So there's a number of ways I think to go about Again, how we would understand the relationship between evolution and the creation accounts And so I would never shut the door on one particular view But rather I would rather adopt an approach that let's put all these ideas on the table and And let's wrestle through them together and I think through that process. We're going to find You know positions that will emerge to the top of the heap That seem to be more robust than others and those represent landing points for people Who are part of the church and for people who are outside the church that are contemplating christianity And nick this nick this brings up an important point that goes back to the to the uh message of the book Um, the reason why biologos and reasons to believe Had this conversation is because both organizations Are convinced that this was a conversation between evangelical brethren Right So that that You know, in other words, we did not we we may have our disagreements But we don't consider them those with whom we're disagreeing to be outside the pale Yeah, I would say if you read the book, you know, I encourage everyone in the audience to purchase it and read it It is a very friendly discussion To get to I say one more thing about an heresy then in friendly discussion terms I was wanting to come back to you and get your final thoughts, dr Stump on everything you've heard and as well as also I like to hear what you think about what Dr. Keefley had to say about helping that if you're going to be persuasive the evangelicals That right the point about you know, you need to have something that does look like an heresy to them At least yeah, and yeah, so I just wanted to say that I'm not at all against people in affirming an heresy I'm not trying to Persuade people that they shouldn't my point was that I don't think it solves Any questions particularly because as ken said We we say that the bible is true and all that it affirms Well, what does that do it pushes the question to what does it affirm exactly? And the example fuzz just came is an interesting one in this regard about genesis one and the picture it gives of the early earth And we might ask then what is scripture affirming in this case? Is it affirming? That's the way the earth was Because then you get to genesis two and you see a very different picture of the early Earth in the day that the lord god made the heavens and earth. There's no plant No herb of the field yet. There hadn't been any rain And we have this dusty place that god then forms of human out of the dust of the earth And so we might just as well ask What is genesis two affirming about the state of the early earth? and so that Immediately makes us say well my commitment to an heresy isn't going to solve this question because now I have to Do this other hard work of trying to understand the cultural environment trying to understand our current scientific knowledge And applying these things in ways that it that it doesn't just read right off the page of what i'm supposed to affirm Or what are what scripture affirms in in these particular cases? Yeah, I agree a few entirely. I I think if We're presented with biblical problems or contradictions or whatever if we just say in heresy over and over We are not answering the questions at all. It reminds me of when Mormons have visited us before and I've presented problems of a book of Mormon and all I hear is I have a personal testimony from the Holy Spirit about Joseph Smith as a prophet and a book of Mormon from god every single time and i'm serving You're not answering my question and I think this illustrates a problem here So I guess my point in this is just to try to say that in heresy is a little more flexible of a doctrine that I think it's sometimes been Assumed to be and within that flexibility as as was affirmed of us But within the flexibility of that I think evolutionary creation can be seen as a consistent doctrine with affirming that high view of scripture in that way Yeah, I I agree a few entirely I'd like to mind when you're listening to the people waters podcast. We've got on the show Dr. Fazerona, dr. Jim Stump and dr. Kenneth Keefer here But if you're listening here next week, you know, I'll see I'm not sure I've had a mix up in our days We were going to have Brian God about on talk about his book of eminent or micro hyzer Talk about some arguments for Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses. I'm going to be checking those. I just like doing this So my oh my gosh, there might this doesn't seem to jive of my memory here But we're going to have one of those next week at least But let's get back to the discussion here. I'm dr. Stump Is there any question you'd like to ask dr. Rona about his beliefs or reasons to believe or anything like that? Well fuzz let me ask We've had To follow up I will do that but to follow up on what something ken just said too about the nature of our dialogue and how this has happened It's just been I think a tremendous blessing for all of us to be engaged in these discussions in the way that we have been I said I came to biologos in 2013 and this conversation with reasons to believe was already going on I think do you remember fuzz or ken was at 2014 when we were in new orleans together at new orleans baptist seminary That sounds if it's not right. It's close Somewhere in there was the first time that I think I met the two of these guys as well and just remember Particularly at that setting because nick for the sake of your audience We met, you know, these were not public events We were meeting trying to get to know each other trying to understand each other positions better And from that event in particular, I remember when we went out to dinner somewhere down in the french quarter in that upper room where We each got to share our own testimonies and and talk about us As persons that have these spiritual experiences and so on And it just changes the register of the conversation about science and faith when you get to know people like that I I say quite often About this particular conversation We've had with the the southern baptist guys and with reasons to believe that it's a lot harder to be snippy at each other Over the internet when these are people that you've eaten with and worshipped with and prayed together with and so on So any of the discussion any of the disagreements that we have I think need to be understood in that context Of people that have become friends right and being friends doesn't at all mean that we entirely agree with each other, right? So and that's why we're here. That's why we're talking about these things, right? Yeah Yeah, I can first of I'm wondering was that at the defend the faith conference by any chance or no It wasn't this was a completely private event that we just met together at new Orleans baptist seminary for a couple of days And then it was another one at at ken school at southeastern baptist where we started more seriously putting this this book idea together and just as That we really wanted to see this book as the fruit of this long-term conversation that we've had And that makes it something very different. I don't Mean to do some shameless self-promotion here But another book that I just edited that came out with is in that counterpoint series on four views of creation evolution intelligent design and it has a very different feel to it than this one does because Those interactions were not in person. They didn't come out of You know a long conversation with each other where you got to know each other and understand each other better Yeah So that's why I think this book in particular has a really nice angle on these conversations given the The history that we've had with each other. Yeah, I think it's very good to stress that you can Like you can be in good Christian fellowship someone without agreeing with him on everything. I mean some Yeah, yeah while while we were having our discussions and having times in which we Disagreed agreeably then we would then go out. I'm thinking Fuzz help me to remember we also met in in the Atlanta area And if I remember correctly RTB and Biologos held a sort of a joint apologetics public meeting at that time Yeah, and so we met in New Orleans, Atlanta several times in At southeastern some of times we would have times of public dialogue one one year at The evangelical theological society. We had a panel discussion The one of the times we met at southeastern. We had a public meeting After after our private meetings. We then had a public meeting for the general audience So Yeah, I think I hope that that is something that your your listeners pick up on is that this wasn't simply we met to debate We really met to do what c.s. Lewis called arguing toward the truth In that it wasn't simply meeting for the purpose of one convincing the other That he or she is an error, but actually trying to understand the other While firmly holding to to what we consider to be core convictions Learning from the other and let's face it. None of us come away from this unchanged and and We we were all impacted by the others and I'd like to think in a positive way Yeah, I'm just add one thing real quick, you know along these lines You know, I think if there's anything that I feel the most proud About in terms of these dialogue the dialogue that took place between rtb and biologa us And I hope a dialogue that continues into the future is that um That we really were hoping to model For the church and I think we were largely successful in modeling for the church how Christians can disagree on issues relating to creation and evolution specifically Without creating division in the church, but rather Creating a sense of unity in the church, you know, because when you look at the younger of older debate that has impacted evangelicalism, I think it's a it's an absolute catastrophe because the net effect is pastors at local churches don't want to address issues dealing with creation or science-faith issues because they're concerned That those discussions are going to create division within their congregations And therefore they sidestep them or avoid them altogether And the net effect is that you have young people in the church that aren't exposed to The richness of these kind of discussions They're not exposed to the strengths and the weaknesses of different positions And given the toolkit for how they can think through these issues themselves In preparation for going off to college particularly for young people that are Going to go into the sciences or some STEM career and you know survey data indicates that 55 60 of young people in a typical Church youth group are interested in some kind of career in one of the STEM disciplines And so we're doing a huge disservice to the church if we don't Learn how to talk about these very important issues In a civil way that promotes unity not division and and I feel like for the most part we accomplish that with the in our dialogue in the dialogue between reasons to believe in biologos So I I see that as being maybe the most significant thing that comes out of this That's right. I agree. Yeah, I'd say from my own perspective I mean I'm in order of creationists who has no problem with evolution, but I just don't sign on my dotted line exactly yet And I'm married to a Younger of creationist who's not dogmatic about it and and happens to enjoy listening to Hugh Ross, which is very interesting Um, my ministry partner and I have some different views on some areas My father-in-law is a New Testament scholar and he and I don't even agree on everything on the New Testament And yet it doesn't change our fellowship and I think that's the way it should be Now doctor, what question would you ask dr. Warner? Yeah, so Fuzz is a scientist. So maybe we should Talk, uh, let him talk about some science issues at some point Particularly, uh, you know, it's no secret that the dominant paradigm and understanding of Of biological science is through the lens of evolution and fuzz acknowledges that he's in the minority in that And so I guess the the the question is fuzz When you look at the scientific evidence You do so I think from the perspective of a particular interpretation of scripture, right and And uh saying I'm I really understand scripture in this way And so I need to be able to show that the science is consistent with that is that a fair assessment or Or do you think that you can from the science itself make the case against evolution in that regard? Yeah, yeah, well, I think from the science itself you can make a case that The evolutionary paradigm at this point may not be sufficient to completely account for the origin and the history and the design of life I don't know that I would take the position that You can you can falsify the evolutionary framework You know, because I do think that there is evidence that people could reasonably be point to that indicates A universal common descent and and an evolutionary origin for humanity But I would also argue that that same data Could also be understood from a design framework and you know, I um, you know I look for example with much interest on the the work of sir Richard Owen who predated Darwin Who was one of the the scientists who played a key role in In essentially codifying the concept of homology And what he called analogies which we now understand as convergence in evolutionary terms Uh, but he basically argued that these that shared features that you see among organisms that naturally group together reflect an archetypical design that exists in the mind of the first cause and he marveled at the fact that you could have this Organization of life around a arc an archetype and at the same time vary that archetype to produce Structures that could carry out a wide range of different functions And he saw that as design at at the highest possible order And so, you know, I given that Again in in granted what I'm arguing here is a minority view Given that there are places where the evolutionary paradigm Simply can't explain key transitions in the history of life Uh, where there are instances where There does look like there are failed predictions that are that I see as being problematic in terms of this Grand claim that evolution can account for everything And the fact that we can explain these same features from a design framework to me is very intriguing Just simply from a scientific standpoint alone But you are correct that I do have a particular reading of scripture That does shape the way that I look at the science-faith interaction and so You know, I do think that scripture teaches not just genesis one and genesis two, but I think Both the old and the new testament that there was a historical Adam and Eve That's that were the That were the sole progenitors of all humanity And that human beings uniquely possess this quality called the image of God and so A big portion of the project that we undertake at reasons to believe is Can we take the scientific data at hand and see if that data indeed Harmonizes with that particular reading or understanding of scripture Which by the way is not a peculiar reading or understanding. It's it's a historic I think of Human origins and it's a view that many Christians would affirm And so yes, there is a particular reading of scripture that Does influence how I think about the science but not completely I mean even if I uh because I came to faith in christ again Where the science was clearly pointing me towards the reality of a creator and The deficiency of the evolutionary paradigm Which was shocking to me as a graduate student that was immersed in that framework To see that there was really what I saw to be a glaring deficiency And and again, this is an idea that almost every original life researcher would affirm that we don't have An explanation for the origin of life So it's not as simple as scripture is forcing me into a scientific Viewpoint, but rather it is Kind of a dynamic interplay between what the science seems to be teaching and what what scripture teaches So it's not a an either or but it's kind of a dynamic both and Hey, dr. deeply I'm here as I'm hearing this response from questions that I think the Thinking is again an issue that everyone in this side has to struggle with No matter where you come from and that's the thing. How are we supposed to assess relationship between Scripture and science does one come first now interpretation? What does it mean? I don't know many of us who would hold to a geocentrous position and say Where we do this because of what the scripture says the science just has to be wrong or anything like that But sometimes it seems that it could people do think that If they're going to hold to a position on evolution, they have to go with what the scripture says first and such and it's really Complex, I'm probably not explaining the best way. What do you think about everything you've been hearing? Well, when it comes to the science, I'm certainly going to defer to the scientist I am not a scientist. And so I do listen to to fuzz and those in which Like during the conversations Whenever as you can read about them in the book I I listen to them with fascination in fact during those scientific conversations That we had on our campus here at the bush center Even though it was a closed door meeting a lot of our faculty members would come in and sit in the back of the room just so that they could hear and listen and Because we realized this is outside our area of expertise Once one gets outside of his expertise You know you are a layman and and I am a scientific layman and I I want to admit that Whenever we talk about the relationship between science and faith This may be something that you you know jim may be the one To to talk about this more than me because he's actually published about it There's a number of approaches. Some are more fruitful than others Some take the idea that the scientific realm And the theological realm are two two entirely different worlds that that that have no overlap whatsoever So therefore there Not only is there no conflict between faith and science there can't be because they they are they are dealing with two entirely different things I don't I don't know very many evangelicals that would want to go that route I think we believe That the god of the bible is is the god of history and that god has Spoken to us in history particularly through his son the lord jesus christ That's what makes christianity such a unique religion is is how historical it is So we do believe That there is going to have to be some type of integration or interaction between the the findings our understanding of scripture and the the Current understanding of science There are those That will try to shoehorn, you know, whatever whatever my current understanding of the bible is I'm going to have to shoehorn the bible The findings of science into that That's that's less than profitable and and of course I think that I think jim would say as an evolutionary creationist He does not want the bible to be in submission to the latest findings of science No, I don't know. I don't know any evangelical that holds to that either What we would argue is is that the bible is to be the final authority in matters of faith and practice And the bible is to sit in judgment in all of my understanding however The findings that we see in science Can also say to me It could be that you've misunderstood scripture. You need to go back and take a look at it again Especially whenever the evidence piles up and so We we as evangelicals will hold and you heard even jim say I said even jim. That's that's a terrible way of putting Even someone like me That sounded jim firms very strongly the authority of the bible and the bible is Authoritative in our lives and our thinking and so it has authority over us and sits in judgment over our thoughts so therefore anytime that I I am interacting with with the findings of science and it really pushes back against my current understanding of scripture Then that would say to me. I at least need to go back and make sure For example somebody who was a geocentrist or perhaps somebody who didn't believe that the earth rotated Because you know the foundations of the earth is secure and they should never be moved The way the psalmist said it. Okay. Do I need to go back and take a look at that? And you know, is that really what the psalmist was talking about? Those are the kinds of things that we We should do and let me just say we can do with confidence because we really do believe the bible is the work of god So therefore we have nothing to fear from from a bold examination of the relationship between faith and science So I would say as a christian We hold to biblical authority, but we believe that there is there's to be a a vigorous engagement I would call myself some type of soft concordant in the sense that I am not as quite as sure as fuzz and hue are that One can find certain scientific things that they have I i'm more than happy to have that conversation with them But I do agree with them very strongly that Where that that sense the bible is inspired by god There are places where we should expect there to be a congruence Between the findings of science and a proper understanding of scripture. And so I think we should find We shouldn't be surprised when science catches up to the principles taught in scripture Now I like what you said also about how some people are approaching me say it has to fit into a text Somehow I know mike lacuna when he has written about his advice. He's referred to that as hermeneutical waterboarding of a text Yeah, uh, are You know, well, I use the word shoehorning, you know, it's it's treating one's interpretation as a procrustian bed And and that is a dangerous way to approach both scripture and science Now dr. Stump, do you have any response to everything you've heard from your question? Yeah, sure um So in talking about design in particular I want to go on record here as fully affirming design And in the same way that we fully affirm creation. That's why we call ourselves evolutionary creationists We believe god is the creator. We believe that god Designed us. I believe that god intentionally created human beings in his own image And I think those are theological claims that I'm making there And when we look the science one of the approaches of biologos is to try to limit science and not give science This expanding role of explaining everything. We don't think it can explain everything And so when you apply design though to that scientific discourse It seems to not explain things as well as I mean, that's our position We don't think it explains things as well as as fuzz and rtb would think that it does It seems strange to me to use a mammalian skeleton to uh You to design creatures that run on four legs and design creatures that fly and design creatures that swim As well as our own upright one if we're going to design something that flies Why not use the same design plan as all the other things that flies instead of having bats Be uh have that mammalian skeleton the same thing with whales and swimming mammals in the ocean Drilling down even further it seems as though the design Hypothesis as opposed to the common descent hypothesis starts to break down at the molecular level and we look at dna and Seeing the particular codons that are used to form specific amino acids that very easily could have been Different if god had been wanting to put some clues in that things were not related through common ancestry That would have been a fantastic place that you would have kept the exact same macro level design and capabilities of an animal but to uh to change those Those specific sequences that that could different sequences that could code for the same amino acids We're next week then um on the biologous blog going to have a new article that discusses this to some extent as well That the design the common design hypothesis seems to look at just the similarities between organisms animals But that when you look at the differences between them the specific mutations within the genetic code It's remarkable that you see this particular pattern of mutation That seems to suggest the differences that we find between individual human beings which all of us Agree are due to genetic mutations that exact same signature of mutation is found Between human beings in chimpanzees and other animals that we think we share common ancestry with so we think that uh is Is a forced explanation at the scientific level As opposed to it being a theological commitment about the person of god and the macro structure of what of his creation So we affirm this two books model, right? I think all of us say that but these kind of conversations drive me to wonder when we talk about the bible is an errant And yet we have to interpret it and our interpretations aren't always themselves in errant Can we say the same thing about the created order that god made this other book the book of god's works? That we have to interpret to be sure But are we going to claim that the in that the created order is errant that god made mistakes in there? Ken has a has a fantastic article about that created with the appearance of age Um arguments that are used sometimes and I wonder if that can't be extended even further to us wondering whether god would create with the appearance of common descent And what that would say about a creator god. I think the same sorts of things might apply there I'd like to mind one of this point you're listening to the people where I was podcast and Everything we do here. It's done. People support listeners like you guys I don't pay my guests anything unfortunately. I wish I could but I don't Everyone comes on here their own free time and such we we arrange these kind of things weeks months in advance and such And if you want to help us out Go to my website at deeper waters of projects calm And you'll find a link on my side helps support the work of deeper waters christian ministries If you click for the link in the text underneath that You'll get taken to a ministry of risen jesus. You've gone the right place as I've said before that's my in-laws Mike and debbie lakona And you make your donation to them being in touch with mike or debbie or me or my wife Ali and say hey, I made a donation. I want to go to nick peter's. I want to go to deeper waters And make sure we get your donation and it will be tax deductible entirely and especially if end of a year giving coming up We really would appreciate that You can also purchase some e-books. I'll be for a written or co-written on amazon Written a creed for the ages for your parsers creed in today's christian Co-written We have one that's certainly relevant today would be defining inerrancy a response to defending inerrancy Groundless god in natural disasters and the christian answers or risk generations questions and Finally another way you can support us And if you got three guys on here, I'm sure you probably know this now is through a buying Jewelry because guys i'm i'm sure you've noticed by now that the women in your life they tend to like jewelry And some of you might be playing on doing what I did on christmas eve or so back in 2009 That's popping the question Well, you're going to need a ring to do that So why not buy some jewelry through us through our store at premier My friend lana cluster runs that if you want some information on how to do that just get in touch with me And I'll help you out But whatever you purchase 25 percent of that goes to deeper waters whatever it is So guys, uh, you can purchase something to make up that big screw up that you recently did with the lady in your life Or you can purchase something as insurance that big screw up that I know you're going to make with that lady in your life Speaking of experience, I think we've been there now I'd also encourage you if you can't own any financial tell friends about the show encourage others to listen and Go on iTunes and leave a positive review of a deeper wireless podcast. I love to see it Now dr. Keefe, do you have an organization or charity you'd like to see people donate to? Well, uh, let me just mention the bush center for faith and culture is a center at southeastern baptist theological seminary and We certainly would encourage people's involvement with this And so uh, you can go to our southeastern website We also have the intersect project is the Blog site for the bush center and you you can find out more about us and opportunities for you to be involved with us there Can you give us that website? Intersect project org. Okay Dr. Stump, do you have an organization you'd like to see people donate to? Well, I suppose it's self-serving, but I would pick my own organization of biologos Biologos.org has a give button there. I think there are some people who think we have Big piles of money sitting around from the john templeton foundation, but that's just not quite the way it works And I think of the organizations that are involved in this origins conversation in the us We have the smallest staff and the smallest budget of all of them. So we would very much appreciate Donations here at the end of the year as well And dr. Rana to you Yeah, again, well, I would say if people are interested in supporting the work of reasons to believe If they go to our website reasons dot org There's a donate button that they can click on and support Again, our work with our financial gifts. Also, I would encourage people to sign up for our email list We have emails that go out on a regular basis that provide people links to articles and podcasts and and uh audio recordings and videos That we have produced that people can access for no cost that point people to how the latest discoveries in science Affirm the christian faith it with the hope that people will make use of this insight to Engage their friends and family members who are non-believers Now dr. Rana is very any question you would ask dr. Stump Yeah, um, I've been sitting here thinking about that Jim got to ask the first question. No fair. You had more time to come up with a good one then I guess the question I would have is um Would there ever be a scientific discovery that you think could take place? that You would resist because you see it as being entirely counter to the christian worldview or To your understanding what scripture teaches Yeah, I think free will is one of those in in my understanding of things that If we have no such thing as libertarian free will and I know there's lots of discussions about how to define terms in this regard but But it seems to me that if we if it can be shown that we're nothing but machines that uh Deterministically follow or even random at the quantum level that randomly follows without Agent cause the ability as agents to act for reasons and such that would be deeply troubling to me And so it's probably fair to put that into the same kind of category as you have with your understanding of adam and eve And a de novo creation of human beings that I would have to resist science in that regard I would have to say there must be some mistake here. We can't be We can't be just automatons in this regard and still fulfill the the calling of god as his image bearers And the ability to to be morally responsible and so on Well, dr. Keith me. I'm Sure that this is going to be a very simple one because we know there was no real discussions going on theology about the relationship of free wearer and God and such so I mean this should be a simple one for you to comment on right Well, I think jim and I are I think even jim fuzz and I are in agreement that there needs to be some type of significant free will In order for creatures to be morally responsible To be responsible means to be able to respond At the very same time we affirm that god is sovereign and is in control And he has a plan that front that he's had from the beginning and it will be accomplished There is a purpose That will be fulfilled All orthodox christians regardless, you know where we're at on the spectrum would hold to that I would agree with jim that to take away free will is to take away our humanity and I I I really want you know One can find plenty of non christians and even non theists that are very disturbed by that By by the idea of of uh of us being merely machines. I guess I should say it that way Yeah, and I think something else we can being out of this as wearer is You know, I didn't very mean times that We all would like to say that where we just go along with what the science There was a very many times I have something some discovery came up And even if it seemed the evidence was convinced about we probably all resisted to some extent Um, I would I would ask since I've got jim stump here on the line Jim what what does uh What what where does biologos? Where are they going with the conversation? concerning neurobiology and neuroscience and the issues uh of Not just a free will but of the self some of the challenges that we see among um In the field of neurobiology. What how does how does biologos navigate through that? Yeah, so Again and then consistent with our big tent approach. We don't have a certain statement That addresses that uh, particularly I think in our belief statements where it affirms that we're created in the image of god um, and we make a statement about humans being in biological Continuity with all life on earth, but then we say but also as spiritual beings And that god established a unique relationship with humanity in this regard so, um If you're asking particularly about things like mind body dualism There's not a biologos approved answer on on that regard. There would be there would be people on different sides of of that position um We're very interested and concerned in this topic of human identity and what does it mean to be human particularly as it relates to potential advances in In science and the transhumanism movement whether that's through augmentation in You know implanting chips in our brains or whatever or through manipulation of the genetic the genetic code and what that What that does to what it means to be human so though that gets into Into pretty deep bioethical issues that I think the church has to have a voice in as we move forward and and try to sort out Some of those issues about what kinds of things it's permissible to do to to human beings And I mean, yeah, some days I wish I had a chip in my brain that would help me remember where I put my keys or Whatever else is going on and we wear eyeglasses to correct things about as we get vaccines and so on So we're on this path already of trying to do things to improve our lives in various ways But it gets pretty tricky when you talk about doing permanent things that alter Alter what it means to be a human being I was just uh, go ahead. No, you go ahead and finish I was gonna say I was just at a at a talk in dc a couple of weeks ago where william newson from from uh, stanford was there talking about neurobiology neuro and some of the ethics that comes into that And the sorts of the sorts of decisions that are just on the horizon for us are frightening of being able to uh, you know, decide What kinds of operations on the human are acceptable and not so Yeah, yeah, nick what this does this this illustrates where The conversation that we're having about The the relationship between faith and science and creation evolution in particular It really does have a ripple effect And the area of bioethics And anthropology is one very clear area in that's going to be impacted by this This is why we really we really are trying to to navigate our way through this carefully As jim just pointed out it is one thing to to try to use science technology and medicine To alleviate the human condition It's another thing to try to augment what it means to be a human And those are those are very big issues and we are facing them And unfortunately in the area of neurobiology and neuroscience Many of the loudest voices Not only deny What we traditionally understood what a human is And and they seem to be very free to want to uh many of them to want to to abandon all notions of free will They they seem to be willing to abandon what we even understand to be the self And these these are real problems We really we're really going to have the church really does I want to agree with with jim on this We really need to get out in front on this conversation Because this is this is a conversation moving very quickly Yeah, I would like to before we lose firings to much go back to dr. Marana here. I mean you asked your question. You've heard a lot of dialogue ever since then. What's your thoughts about what you've heard? Yeah, well, um, just as on this whole issue of transhumanism I'm currently working on a book with my friend ken samples On the issue of transhumanism So this is uh going to be kind of a wide-ranging book looking at scientific philosophical theological and biblical issues relating to This whole idea of the transhumanism movement and human enhancement technology And I I see this Probably in the same way that jim sees this as being One something that the church has to be on top of Uh, we can't react. We've got to be proactive when it comes to this but um But I see this as being an issue to build off of what ken's deeply said Is deeply intertwined with this whole concept of what does it mean for human beings to be made in god's image? you know because When you look at anthropology over the last 150 years There really has been an assault on that idea that you know, we only differ in degree not in kind according to many physical anthropologists and and so you know, if we're going to establish I think a a christian world view Impact on this whole issue of human enhancement technology It's got to be from a standpoint where scientifically we can show there is something distinct about human beings Compared to other creatures and the the good news is there is a minority view among anthropologists of human exceptionalism Which I think is a Very exciting advance in anthropology that I think allows us to To argue that there is something special about human beings that we can show scientifically that at least Lines up with some understanding that people have of what the image of god is So, I mean, you know to ken Keith Lee's point. This is this conversation About the question of human origins Really is a very important conversation that has wide-ranging impact not only in terms of again, how we We understand the credibility of the christian faith, but the kind of voice that the christian faith is going to have Going into the future I think it's very good that it looks like that Despite our differences we can have amongst us on origins all of us are going to put aside those differences and say right now This would be ultimately a more important battle to fight and we can come back to our secondary differences later Well, you know one of the the dreams that I have is that rtb reasons to believe in biologos could actually do more university events That are more collaborative than Then necessarily events where we focus on What of our what our differences are and discuss those differences? Because I think it would be intriguing to be in front of an audience of non-believers and To show how there can be these deep robust interactions about science faith issues Where there's not necessarily a christian perspective, but a number of possible viable christian perspectives And I think that could be really winsome and really attractive So I think nick to your point that it's great that we can put aside places where we disagree and work together Where we agree, but I would even think that in the midst of our disagreements We could actually work in the midst of those disagreements to actually Advance the gospel and so that would be my dream that we could figure out How to do something like that. I think that would be I think that would be revolutionary I agree in tally and you know Say we're getting close to the time of everything's up in I mean, I'm sure we are shocked that here at the end of The discussion nearly two hours. We didn't fully resolve all the theological issues there. So I'm sure everyone's going to go home disappointed knowing that there are still disagreements there, but Dr. Keeferty, where do we go from here? I mean we the book I think is just really opening the dialogue up in such Where do you see this going? well, I think uh fuzz has indicated where we should go with this and that is We do understand. I think pretty well as a result of these conversations Where we agree and where we disagree and I think we understand why we disagree and there are some issues That I think that we're going to say we're never going to agree about this And that's okay you know something that jim had said a little earlier about Inerrancy and and how we relate to our understanding of science and that you don't have to look at science for us to see how Inerrantists can disagree among themselves In terms of interpretation there are plenty of Wesleyans and Presbyterians and Baptist who are all inerrantist dispensationalists and covenant theologians We're all inerrantists, but we still disagree very very strongly Cessationists and charismatic's we could go on down the line Inerrancy doesn't guarantee we're all going to agree on interpretation It does give us the authority holding to the authority of the bible and holding to the bible as our guide In our faith and practice allows us to be able to work together Despite our disagreements because we we find that we agree about much more than what we disagree So where we'd go from here? I would argue That fuzz just got just just said it that I think that We have a good understanding of where we agree and disagree Now what can we do to advance? the witness For the gospel in all of the arenas Apologetics in edifying the church I really am praying that There will be a a wonderful generation of young people who will go into the stem fields And will advance the kingdom of god in every arena including The areas of of science Those are the kinds of things that I think we could work together and and really really have some fruitful endeavors Dr. Stump any thoughts on all that? just that I fully affirm what has been said and Uh We see ourselves as as a rowing in the same direction as these other organizations in terms of Hoping to advance the gospel and the kingdom of god and that the uh things that unite us are much more important and significant than the things in which we disagree Well, the book is certainly a great example that you can come together on issues that you disagree on and disagree wholeheartedly extensively and still walk away on good terms. Um I think thing is if we put all of us in a room together and talk about areas of christianity And ask what our opinions are there would be a whole lot more of heads nodding Yes in agreement when heads nodding and heads going no In disagreement that we'd be united more than we would be divided on many topics the books are good start hopefully this It's a dialogue here is another example of it going on and hopefully like dr. Rona said there'll be many more of these dialogues Now if that being said, I think it is about time that we do start Wrapping things up you got about 10 minutes to go and normally we do it's at five minutes Sorry, but since we got three people here, then we're going to do things a bit differently Dr. Keith Lee, do you have a blog website an email where people can get in touch with you? They want to find out more Yes, I mentioned our blog site a little while ago. Let me just say it again The intersect project is the website for the bush center for faith and culture It's called its its address is intersect project org And when you can find out what is going on at the bush center and the activities That we are involved in also we have Regular articles that speak to the issues of the day And you can get in contact with me and the other Other faculty at southeastern there Do you have any final thoughts you'd like to leave today for deeper waters audience? Well, I just want to say that how happy I am to to work in this book project with my dear brothers fuzz and and jim and Like I said before this started I didn't really know in fact I didn't know jim at all and I barely knew fuzz when this started and I I am really glad to know that these men are doing the kind of work they're doing I think they're doing a great service for the cause of christ Okay, yeah, dr. Stump. Do you have a blog website email where I can get in touch with you if I want to find out more So the biologos blog can be found at biologos.org And we've recently redone some of the way that search engines work on our site and so on so you can click on resources and find all kinds of Articles from the blog and other kinds of things that we do there Biologos is also Has a facebook channel that's pretty active so you can find us on facebook at biologos foundation And I think there's a twitter as well, but I don't tweet myself So I don't know too much how to how to make that one work, but I'm sure you can find us there too And do you have any final thoughts you'd like to leave a deeper worders audience today? Just uh to echo what ken had said about this project as a whole and that it's uh been just enormously rewarding personally as well as professionally to be involved in a project like this and uh Perhaps your audience should know that I think this book would make great stocking stuffer, so I can agree with that Dr. Rana, do you have You know the blog website waiting to get in touch with you if they want to find out more Well, again, I would tell people to go to reasons.org Uh, and I have a blog that's hosted on that website called the cells design Also, I'm very active on facebook and twitter. So if people just want to search for my name Uh, they can follow me on twitter and they can like me on facebook and uh Also, I do a a facebook live broadcast ideally once a week called question of the week where I let people through my facebook page submit questions On science faith issues and then we'll take those on those questions During that broadcast so people get a chance to have a way to interact with me through facebook And then also one other thing at reasons to believe we just have launched a new vodcast called 28 19 That can be found on youtube and it's a 30 minute magazine type program dealing with science faith issues But also encouraging people to do evangelism So the name of the program comes from math in 28 19 Yeah, I was also thinking that whenever you and dr. Samper's published that book on The transhumanism thing and such we would be glad to have it on the deep waters podcast Well, thank you Now do you have any final thoughts you'd like to leave behind for deeper waters podcast? You know nothing really much different than what uh, jim and ken have said You know, it's really been an incredible experience to get to know The the folks at biologos to get to know a number of southern baptist theologians Who I would account all now my friends and You know, it's uh, just been an amazing experience and If there's anything that exemplifies what it means to be part of the body of christ I think it would have been the dialogues that we've Been able to undertake over those last several years and You know, my prayer is that There these these interactions can continue on into the future And that really we can serve as an example to the church on how In the midst of differences there can be unity And in that out of that unity we can be very effective as a church in engaging our world Well, dr. Stemper certainly right also about this book would be a great talking stuff for those interested At the time of recording the paperback is 1944 of a kinder is 2039 if you know someone who's interested in Apologetics science evolution issues creation issues and such Yeah, get this book for them. It's a great read. There are several wonderful dialogues in it and I'd like to also Congratulate and thank all of you because I think this dialogue has gone. Excellent. He's been very agreeable despite all the differences Thanks. It's a pleasure to be part of it. Yes. I agree. Yes Well, I'd like to thank you all for coming on you today And I hope to see all of you back here again in some format away And I'd like to thank you all out there for this thing deeper wars podcast next week We are going to have on either Micro hyzer or brian goddwell like dr. Stump Maybe I could probably use that ship and plant sometime here every now and then for the show But for now, I am nick leaders and I am signing off