Themed Bibles are generally a bad idea.  For one thing, every part of God's Word is meant to speak to every Christian.  Themed Bibles tend to emphasize only the parts of the Bible that speak about the particular theme, leaving other potentially important aspects of Scripture under-emphasized or ignored (and here I'm thinking primarily within the context of "daily devotions"). 

Secondly, Scripture purposefully makes use of many different genres (and different themes!) to convey the Gospel message in the most comprehensive way possible.  A Bible that goes out of its way to draw attention to only a single theme can have the unfortunate side effect of obscuring the Gospel message itself. 

Now, none of this is to say that themed Bibles are inherently sinful or that the dangers I've mentioned will necessarily result from using them (I actually own a Couples' Devotional Bible).  So naturally I didn't think much of the new Green Bible.  I assumed it was just another gimmick.  And on one level, it is that.  The paper used in The Green Bible is 100% recycled, the ink is soy-based, and the cover is made of cotton-linen.  At the beginning is a collection of essays about being a "green" Christian by such international figures as Desmund Tutu, N. T. Wright, and even Pope John Paul II.  But it's most prominent feature is that it is the first ever "green letter edition" of the Bible.  No, the words of Christ are not in green.  Rather, every verse that supposedly speaks to the subject of "Creation Care" is printed in green.  Like I said, it's gimmicky.  And if that's all it was, I wouldn't have a problem with it.   Heck, I'm a sucker for this kind of thing myself.  I want to be a good Steward of God's creation as much as the next Christian.  But then I started poking around the book's website.  As it turns out, the green bible may actually be teaching something dangerously close to idolatry.

Here are some sample questions from The Green Bible Quiz:

"2) Which verse praising creation is from the Psalms?"

The answer is Psalm 19:1, "The heavens are telling the glory of God; and the firmament proclaims his handiwork."  What's the problem?  This verse is NOT "praising creation."  It's doing the exact opposite, expressing how creation praises God.  To my mind, this is kind of a big deal (is anyone else thinking of Romans 1:25?).

"4) Where did Jesus go to commune with nature?"

(It's been said before, but it bears repeating here:  Jesus was not a hippy).  The answer to this question is apparently found in Matthew 14:23 (the quiz has the answer as Matthew 4:23, but I assume this is simply a typo), "And after he had dismissed the crowds, he went up the mountain by himself to pray."  Seriously, are the people responsible for the green "bible" actually reading it?  Jesus didn't go up the mountain to commune with nature!  He went up to pray (literally, to commune with God!).  Stretching the meaning of a verse to make a point is one thing.  Butchering a verse and literally replacing God with nature...that's a whole new ballgame. 

Now, maybe this quiz is just a poorly conceived promotional tool that doesn't refelct the actual content of the green bible.  That's certainly possible.  But if the excerpt they provide from one of the opening essays is any indication, the content is no better than what we've seen so far.  In her essay, "The Dominion of Love", Barbara Brown Taylor says of the sixth day of creation:

The "new information" she is referring to is that land animals were also created on day six.  Apparently Ms. Taylor was under the impression that the only thing that made human beings special was that we had a whole day all to ourselves.  She also mentions our being given dominion over the earth, and the fact that God pronounces all of His creation to be good, not just man, but all of this is merely peripheral to the real issue.  If she had consulted even the most elementary level Bible scholarship, instead of simply assuming what I can only imagine are her culturally-inherited misconceptions about traditional Christian teaching, she would have seen very quickly that mankind's special place in creation is founded upon our unique status as image bearers of God.  As it stands, the main point of her essay ends up missing the point entirely. 

I would like to invite comments and feedback from anyone who might be willing to defend the green bible.  It's still possible that I've made egregious leaps and  assumed things based on these short previews that aren't really true of the bible itself.  So if anyone owns a copy and would like to defend it, I'm open to hearing your arguments. 

Like I said, I have no problem becoming "green."  I will probably never buy an SUV (as if that's all it means to be green!).  I really do want to be a good steward of God's creation.  But if the only way to join the "green team" is to accept poor theology and pseudo biblical scholarship that effectively butchers the Word of God...we evangelicals will have to work on starting our own team.  I have no doubt that "God is green" (in a sense, at least), but if He is, He ought to have said so.  We shouldn't have to twist His words to make them say something they're not really saying. 

Last night, Ben Stein came to Biola Univeristy to promote his new film, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.  In the film, Ben Stein invenstigates the employment termination of several University science professors due to their doubts about Darwinism and support of Intelligent Design.  Find out more about the film here. 

Recently, Dr. R. C. Sproul interviewed Ben Stein about the new film on his radio show, Renewing Your Mind. 

Listen to Part One.

Listen to Part Two. 

Yes, Roger and I are still alive.  Life took a busy turn for both of us at once, but I should be back to posting regularly now, so be sure to stick around!

 

I'm back today because I just read a brilliant observation by Steve Wagner over on the STR Blog, and I want to direct you all to it.  He's responding to this section of the statement given by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in response to the Supreme Court's decision to uphold the partial birth abortion ban:

 

We have seen a steady erosion of women's reproductive rights in this country. The Supreme Court's action today, though stunning, in many ways isn't surprising given the current culture in which scientific knowledge frequently takes a back seat to subjective opinion....

 

My first response to that statement when I read it last week was to object that we'd better have ethics (what they refer to as "subjective opinion") at the center of our decisions rather than "scientific knowledge," or we'll end up with more atrocities like this one.  But Steve's deeper observation gets right to the core of the ACOG's hidden assumptions and reveals the hypocrisy inherent in their accusation:

 

My simple request: be consistent.  Either put science first or don't.  If you want science to trump subjective opinion…let's let science tell us when the unborn is a human being, okay?  Science's answer is uncontroversial: it's a living, whole organism, of the human species.  You might question the definitions of these terms, but if we know that you are a biological human being, we know the unborn is one too, from the moment she comes into being.

 

That's science.  The ACOG might respond, as many scientists do, "Sure, the unborn is a biological human being, but it's too dependent and undeveloped to be a real human being."  Done with science so soon?  How does any scientist know a certain level of development or independence determine our rights and value?  Philosophical reflection.  They are doing philosophy, which I assume is a synonym in the ACOG lexicon for "subjective opinion."

 

Read the rest of Steve's post here.

Some excerpts from the article describing this amazing feat (HT: The Pearcey Report):

A man paralysed from the neck down has shown he can open email, control a TV and move objects with a robotic arm by thought alone.

 

The 25-year-old American patient, Matthew Nagle, had a computer-linked implant placed in his brain that enabled him to operate devices just by thinking about it....by imagining a particular task being carried out....

Known as the BrainGate Neural Interface System, it consists of an array of electrodes that record neural activity from the motor cortex of the brain.

 

Signals from the implant are decoded and processed by a computer, allowing them to be translated into movement commands.

 

First, Mr. Nagle learned to move a computer cursor by focusing his thoughts on the task....

 

He was able to open simulated e-mail, draw circular shapes on the computer screen, play a simple video game called "neural Pong", and change the channel and adjust the volume on a television.

 

Ultimately, he could open and close the fingers of an artificial hand and use a robotic arm to grasp and move objects.

Initiated by his will to move (the initiation is not in itself a physical process, nor is it determined by a physical process, but the action is initiated by the will of the man), Nagle's thoughts are then translated into something physical (the electrical impulses in his brain) which are then translated by man-made equipment into information used to move physical objects in the world.

The real mystery, known to God alone, is how the desires of our minds are translated into the physical impulses of our brains--how something non-physical interacts with the physical.  Scientists can only build machines that measure the physical impulses, but they could never have access to the thoughts themselves.  The truth is, the will to move parts of our body is not determined by physical impulses, it causes them. 

The title of this post may have surprised you, but it shouldn't.  You move a physical object every day with your mind--your own body!

Is it any surprise, then, that the God who created a way for your mind to interact with the physical machine of your body can Himself affect the physical world, though He is non-physical?

Can we have any true knowledge in a world where we developed by chance?

 

The concept of creation or design is the crucial assumption that believers of the nineteenth century overlooked when they thought the sciences could proceed without any distinctively Christian presuppositions.  Apart from the doctrine of creation or design, there is no basis for trusting that the ideas in my mind have any correlation to the world outside.  If the human mind is a product of chance events, preserved by natural selection, then there is no basis for trusting any of our ideas.  Recall Darwin's "horrid doubt" that the human mind could be trusted at all, if it is a product of evolution.  The non-Christian pursuing his research has no choice but to rely on his senses, just as everyone else does; but he has no philosophical basis for doing so.  He is being inconsistent with his own worldview.  (Nancy Pearcey, Total Truth, p. 315)

 

Though scientists may have a hard time accepting this (since their work and authority depend on their being able to perceive reality), many others who recognize the implications of Darwinism (and don't have their livelihood threatened by the outcome) have already proceeded willingly down this path from naturalistic Darwinism, accepting the postmodern view that we do not have access to reality.  Therefore, the most important consideration for these people when choosing their beliefs is not truth itself (since "truth" is in the eye of the beholder), but rather, they are concerned primarily with how the beliefs in question may affect others--insult, empower, alienate, etc. 

 

Many Christians also accept this perspective (or a form of this that goes beyond an appropriate acknowledgment of human fallibility), not realizing that the view is a direct result of naturalistic thinking.  But our grounds, as Christians, for believing that we have the ability to perceive reality and can have reasonably confident ideas about the truth (even if that confidence can never be absolute) are these:  Our senses did not develop by random chance such that we can never know if they perceive reality; God designed us to interact successfully with the world.  Pearcey describes this using a phrase from Udo Middelmann:  "Because God created us in His image, to function in His world, there is a 'continuity of categories' between God's mind, our minds, and the structure of the world."

 

This kind of confidence in the possibility of knowledge can only be grounded in a theistic framework.

"[Fellow seminary student] Joseph heard me out, and after a moment's silence, said:  'You know, they are fooling us, there is no God....'

"I was astonished at these words.  I had never heard anything like it before.

"'How can you say such things, Soso?' I exclaimed.

"'I'll lend you a book to read; it will show you that the world and all living things are quite different from what you imagine, and all this talk about God is sheer nonsense,' Joseph said.

"'What book is that?' I enquired.

"'Darwin.  You must read it,' Joseph impressed on me."

 

--E. Yaroslavsky, Landmarks in the Life of Stalin (quoted in Total Truth)

 

I thought it would be helpful to define the main idea behind ID theory.  Nancy Pearcey explains it simply and clearly:

 

Critics say the concept of design does not belong in science.  They argue that it is a "science-stopper" that puts an end to scientific investigation.  The head of an evolution advocacy group recently told CNN that design theory is "not a very good science, because it's basically giving up and saying:  We can't explain this; therefore, God did it."

 

But that accusation is based on a misunderstanding.  The process of detecting design is thoroughly empirical.  In fact, it is already an important element in several areas of science….

 

Today astronomers involved in the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) have worked out extensive criteria for recognizing when a radio signal is an encoded message and when it is just a natural phenomenon, like a pulsar.  In other words, they have developed criteria for distinguishing between products of design and products of natural causes.

 

The same distinction is made in several other fields:  Detectives are trained to distinguish murder (design) from death by natural causes.  Archeologists have criteria for distinguishing when a stone has the distinctive chip marks of a primitive tool (design), and when its shape is simply the result of weathering and erosion.  Insurance companies….Cryptologists….[etc.]

 

It should be possible to formalize the thinking process used in all these examples, which is exactly what design theory does.  Its central tenet is that the characteristic marks of design can be empirically detected.  As the title of one book puts it, in nature we can uncover Signs of Intelligence.  [Total Truth, pp. 181-182, highlighted emphasis mine]

 

In other words, ID scientists aren't just postulating a God to explain what they can't understand; it's not merely an ad hoc explanation.  Intelligent design is the best explanation for the scientific facts based on our knowledge of the natural world and intelligent agents. 

 

Scientists who believe in naturalism understandably don't want to "give up" on finding an explanation that fits their philosophy.  However, we ought to recognize that when they say ID means "giving up" on finding answers, they're really just asserting that the true answer will be found within a naturalistic framework--but that is the very thing in question and cannot merely be asserted.  Isn't it possible that their commitment to not "give up"--which they consider noble--is actually foolish, and that their dogmatic refusal to consider ID only means they'll be searching forever for a naturalistic answer that doesn't exist?

Ought we to dismiss the work of apologists simply because they're defending their particular worldviews?  In an interesting discussion that ensued in the comments for my recent post on apologists, a reader made this charge:

 

Whereas the rationally-minded individual arrives at a tentative conclusion through argument and logic, the apologist already knows the conclusion, and his task is to fashion argument in support of it. As you can probably discern, the apologist is not held in very high regard outside the theology or belief he defends, and his work is regarded warily. 

 

The problem with this statement about apologists is that it applies to everybody--especially scientists.  How does any scientist--naturalist or theist--decide how to direct his research?  He looks where he thinks discoveries are most likely to be found based on his view of the nature of the universe.  He knows the ultimate conclusion (naturalism or theism), and in his effort to reveal truth, he looks for facts that fit in with the overall truth he believes actually exists.  Does this automatically invalidate his findings?  What if his findings are true?  Shouldn't the results be judged on their own merit rather than on the philosophical motivations of their finder?

 

I'm currently reading Nancy Pearcey's book, Total Truth, and tonight I came across a passage that perfectly illustrates the idea that scientist apologists for naturalism work in the same way as any apologist:

 

The famous duo who discovered the double-helix structure of DNA, Francis Crick and James Watson, freely admit that anti-religious motivations drove their scientific work.  "I went into science because of these religious reasons, there's no doubt about that," Crick said in a recent interview.  "I asked myself what were the two things that appear inexplicable and are used to support religious beliefs."  He decided the two things that support religion were "the difference between living and nonliving things, and the phenomenon of consciousness."  He then aimed his own research specifically at demonstrating a naturalistic view of both.  [The original quote by Crick can be found here.]

 

But isn't an adherence to naturalistic evolution different from an adherence to a religion?  Not according to philosopher of science (and evolutionist) Michael Ruse who, when confronted with the charge that evolution functions as a religion, finally admitted [from Total Truth] "that evolution really is 'more than mere science....Evolution came into being as a kind of secular ideology, a secular religion--a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality.'"  [See more on this here.]  As such, its followers seek to support it through their work.

 

So if it's the case that naturalistic scientists are defending their view and theistic scientists are defending their view, what good would it do us to dismiss all of their work?  Instead, we ought to recognize that no human being is neutral--we are all driven by philosophical presuppositions, and it's likely that claims on all sides will be exaggerated at times.  Our job is to examine and evaluate the evidence itself, following where it leads (even if away from our current worldview) regardless of who brought it to light.

 

This approach, rather than the other, will keep us on the path of truth.

 

One year ago today, Garrett posted some excerpts from an interview Gary Habermas did with former atheist Antony Flew. This evening, to celebrate the one-year anniversary of the A-Team post, Biola University will be awarding Dr. Flew with The Phillip E. Johnson Award for Liberty and Truth for 2006. Timbo and I are here to cover the festivities live.

 

We arrived 50 minutes before the ceremony (7:10 pm) to assure we got good seats. Being the only attendees here for some 15 minutes, we had no trouble finding a seat by a plug. We’re in the third row back, and we’ll be sitting behind such personalities as Jonathan Wells, Guillermo Gonzales, and other well-known scientists/philosophers /theologians.

 

Since there’s not much going on at the moment here’s some info from Biola on the award:

 

The Phillip E. Johnson Award for Liberty and Truth was given to Flew for his lifelong commitment to free and open inquiry and to standing fast against intolerant assaults on freedom of thought and expression. Flew drew scorn from skeptics following his shift in views. When informed that he was this year’s award winner, he remarked, “In light of my work and publications in this area and the criticism I’ve received for changing my position, I appreciate receiving this award.”

Biola University established the Phillip E. Johnson Award for Liberty and Truth in 2004 to honor legal scholar and Berkeley law professor Phillip E. Johnson, who was the award’s first recipient. The award recognizes Johnson’s pivotal role in advancing our understanding of design in the universe by opening up informed dissent to Darwinian and materialistic theories of evolution. Flew is the second recipient of this award, which will be presented on May 11 at Biola University through the university’s Masters of Arts in Science and Religion (MASR) program.

7:40 pm: Timbo finished his Dr. Pepper.

Almost 8:00: About 100 people are here. They are mostly students, though we've spotted a few profs.

8:05pm: Philip E. Johnson has entered, whose name is on the award. Other notables are Michael Behe, John Mark Reynolds, Charles Thraxton, Craig Hazen, Doug Geivett, and John Bloom.

8:07pm The guest of honor, Dr. Antony Flew has entered the building.

8:10pm: The ceremony has begun. Dr. John Bloom is making opening remarks. On stage seated from left to right is Philip E. Johnson, Stephen Meyer, Gary Deddo, Bloom's seat, Gary Miller, and Dr. Flew.

8:12pm: Stephen Meyer is interviewing Dr. Johnson in "Oprah style" about how he got into the Naturalism debate.

8:15pm: Dr. Johnson is discussing the importance of definitions in legal briefs and the application of that in science. How Naturalists define science determines their research results.

8:20pm: Dr. Johnson- The laws of logic apply to every field, including law and science.

8:25pm: Dr. Johnson- Naturalists don't follow the evidence where it leads. Dr. Flew did, which is why we are awarding him tonight.

8:27pm: Dr. Johnson- Who more appropriate to comment on dishonest methodology than a professor of law!

8:33pm: Gary Deddo, Dr. Johnson’s IVP editor, is talking about the publications and the new feschrift in honor of Dr. Johnson.

8:35pm: Gary Miller, provost of Biola University, is giving the award.

8:37pm: Miller notes the problem of questioning status quo, it helps to have tenure. He is giving a bio of Flew, noting his work promoting atheism.

8:39pm: The audience recognized Flew with standing applause. Dr. Bloom is reading a statement by Gary Habermas since he could not attend this evening.

8:42pm: Dr. Habermas- Antony Flew showed courage by announcing his change of mind.

8:45pm: Dr. Flew is offering remarks on academic freedom on what influenced his conversion to deism. Quoting Plato- "We must follow the argument wherever it leads." He has become like Jefferson, being a deist. His god is not interested in or concerned about human behavior.

8:50pm: Dr. Flew- The truly interesting question is how life began. He depends on David Berlinski's article on the origins of life. It is impossible to produce a chemical account of how Darwinian evolution began.

8:55pm: Dr .Stephen Meyer is recounting his encounters with Dr. Flew.

9:01pm- The ceremony is over- time for the punch and cookie reception!

(from my lame camera phone, left to right: Stephen Meyer, Antony Flew, and Philip Johnson)