Science and the Bible

[Adrift]

I definitely see where you're going. In fact I think you've hit the nail on the head in terms of what drives the intuition that inerrancy must be vital for non-arbitrary Christian belief. The issue is, if we know (or think we know) that the Bible contains errors, then how can we believe anything in the Bible just because the Bible says so?

Well that's assuming we know that the Bible contains errors. What if the errors we think we've found have a perfectly non-erroneous explanation?

With the truth claims of most books it isn't enough that the book simply makes the claim for it to be believed. For instance with a science textbook, its claims are believed (in an ideal world) to the extent that they represent the outworking of good scientific methodology. Likewise, an ordinary history book is believed to the extent that its claims meet certain criteria for historical reliability. These ordinary books don't carry any special status that makes their claims automatically worthy of belief. But the claims of the Bible, so most Christians think, can be trusted by virtue of its special status – it has a certain authority or reliability because of its divine origin. But if the Bible has erred (even in a minor way) then it seems that the Bible's making a claim isn't actually enough to guarantee the truth of that claim. So how then can we rely on this sort of special status to ground any of our Christian beliefs?

Well, I think some would argue that you can't if its found that the Bible has erred. I wouldn't go that far though.

What's important to note is that we're dealing with an epistemological issue, not one of the truth of Christianity as such. It is a de jure objection that's being put towards Christian Biblical errantists, not a de facto objection (to put it in a Plantingian register).

And I think there is actually a Plantinga-esque response to be had to this objection. Consider that there are some minimal conditions for Christianity's truth. There are certain claims, the truth of which, are necessary and sufficient conditions for the truth of the Christian religion. These claims are the sort we find in the historic creeds. That God is triune, that God the Son became flesh, atoned for our sins on the cross, was resurrected etc. It is clear that, if the Bible is wrong about, say, the age that Ahaziah came to power, but right about the existence of God, the fallen nature of humanity, the revelation of God in Jesus Christ, his atoning work on the cross, and his vindication and restoration of creation via his resurrection, then clearly something deserving of the name Christianity is true, despite the Bible's error.

Who decides what is minimally important in scripture and what isn't? Seems we leave room for some pretty slippery slopes with a sliding scale. How do we know that by deciding some fact in scripture untrue doesn't undermine those facts we've decided must be true?

But if Christianity is true, then probably God has produced Scripture (by whatever means) in such a way that at least the minimal message of Christianity can be reliably taken from it. In other words, if Christianity is true, then at the very least there's probably a special authoritative status that accompanies its telling of the central, minimal message of Christianity. One can at least have confidence that the Bible is reliable on that central stuff, if nothing else.

This... just... doesn't feel right. If Christianity is true, wouldn't it make more sense for God to produce scripture in a way that's completely reliable, and not just minimally so?

Now I don't pretend that a person who adopted this minimal approach would have an easy time with their day-to-day Scriptural exegesis/hermeneutics, but I'm only arguing that taking this position doesn't throw one into an utterly arbitrary picking and choosing.

I think there's a danger though.

Note also that denying inerrancy doesn't automatically throw one down to this bare miminum of Scriptural reliability. One could think, for instance, that Scripture only errs in certain categories of judgments, like those about natural science, while remaining totally authoritative on all other things. There's space here for several options. But even the most reduced, most minimally satisfying errantist position need not throw one into total theological scepticism.

But it certainly has for many people (Bart Erhman for instance). In fact, it seems quite reasonable that it would do so. And its not just inerrantists who think this, but its an argument that many skeptics use as well.

So far as I can I wasn't trying to set you up in any way!

Fair nuff.

Anyway, what are we talking about here? Exegesis, or something else? I mean it's possible for a liberal to correctly discern that Paul believed and considered of utmost importance the physical resurrection of Christ, but for him/her to deny that this actually happened. More than that, they could even think that, contrary to Paul, what was really significant or spiritually insightful about the events at the birth of Christianity was the profound sense of God's forgiveness that the apostles felt - that this warm glow in our hearts is what humanity really requires.

So... You don't think one's view of scripture (whether liberal or conservative) likely has any bearing on their exegesis? I mean, even generally speaking? Or am I missing what you're saying?

So there are three separate issues: exegesis, truth, and significance. Which one do you want to talk about?

It seems to me that all three are affected, and they're all very tied together. It could be argued that lacking truth, significance is arbitrary (though I don't think I'd personally go that far), and dismissing truth or significance is certain to affect one's exegesis (or at least, it seems so to me).

What do you mean by who decides? Who decides between an orthodox Christian inerrantist and a JW inerrantist which doctrine of God's nature is correct?

Well since they both agree that the Bible doesn't contain any fallacious bits, they're both agreed on its overall truthfulness, then it seems to me its a matter of technical skill and spiritual receptivity. It seems to me an errantist is allowed far more freedom to dismiss passages that don't quite sit right with him. This does not necessarily lead to a slippery slope of sorts, but it don't help.

No-one can decide for the other person. I can't just decide for the JW that the Trinity is correct. Surely you mean to ask, "how can a person non-arbitrarily discern what the essential message of Christianity is?" Well, look at Scripture and discern what it really seems to focus on. I mean, as much ambiguity as there could be here, it isn't totally a groping in the dark. Some things are pretty clearly a major focus, like the existence of God, and some other things are clearly not, like the reign of Ahaziah.

I find that scripture is so interwoven and so layered that dismissing what may seem insignificant may have unforeseen consequences later down the road. Could someone, for instance, dismiss the story of Jonah and the fish without it having some sort of effect on the doctrine of the resurrection? There may not be a fatal consequence there, but it seems to me that it will have some effect on how one interprets or understands some events.

Assuming that the discrepancy about Ahaziah's reign cannot be attributed to a copyist error, then what can that tell us about the reliability of the Chronicler? If we're okay with saying the Chronicler got this fact wrong (insignificant as it may be), what else might he have gotten wrong? The errantist is far freer than the inerrantist is to analyze the book in a far more skeptical light. Right or wrong, its easier for him to, well... come to very different conclusions about the truthfulness of other passages, and for that matter, whole books.

To repeat though, the burden of proof to make an argument is on the shoulders of the person who claims that, if inerrancy is false, then one cannot believe anything by the Bible's authority without being arbitrary.

Couldn't one prove it simply by showing that it has happened? Again, Bart Erhman... He came to believe that parts of the Bible appeared errant, and eventually reasoned that if some of it is errant then maybe a lot of it is errant, and if a lot of it is errant then the Bible's authority is severally curtailed. Also, I don't think anyone wants to say that an errantist necessarily will be arbitrary in passages they choose to believe are authoritative and what are not, at least... not arbitrary to themselves, there just seems to be a danger of it.

Anything I'm offering in the realms of constructing a positive model of how an errant view of the Bible could "work" is dialectical generosity at the end of the day

You use a lot of big words. Stop it. It makes my brain hurt.

[rogue06]

In applauding 06’s post I was applauding the concept revealed in his Tertulian quote, “ ‘Neque deus neque natura mentitur,’ (‘neither God nor nature lie’) meaning that since both nature and scripture came from God, the truths that each reveal when properly read and interpreted can't contradict one another. IOW, one truth can not contradict another.”

This is of course the Two Books concept (sometimes called Dual Revelation) first articulated by Tertullian which, as I stated in post #15, means that both nature and scripture precede alike from the creating Word of God, hence, the truths that each reveal when properly. read and interpreted cannot contradict one another.

Truth can not contradict truth. As stated in Article 20 of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics, God is “the author of all truth” (or as more popularly stated, “All truth is God’s truth”).

Now aside from the line in his De testimonio animae ("Concerning the Evidences of the Soul") that “neither God nor nature lie,” Terullian also stated in Adversus Marcionem ("Against Marcion") that,

"We conclude that God is known first through Nature, and then again, more particularly, by doctrine; by Nature in His works, and by doctrine in His revealed word."

And again from De testimonio animae ("Concerning the Evidences of the Soul") we can read that,

"Nature is schoolmistress, the soul the pupil; and whatever one has taught or the other has learned has come from God—the Teacher of the teacher."

But Tertullian, whom Galileo would quote some 14 centuries later in his dissertation on the use of biblical quotations in matters of science, is far from the only one who taught this. I already mentioned the great medieval Jewish theologian Moses Maimonides (Rambam) along with Princeton’s champion of Biblical Inerrancy Charles Hodge so let's look at some others.

In Book 16 of his De Civitate Dei (“City of God”) Augustine instructed:

"Some people, in order to discover God, read books. But there is a great book: the very appearance of created things. Look above you! Look below you! Read it. God, whom you want to discover, never wrote that book with ink. Instead, He set before your eyes the things that He had made. Can you ask for a louder voice than that?"

In his Hexameron, Basil of Caesarea, also called Basil the Great wrote:

“You will find that the world was not devised at random or to no purpose, but to contribute to some useful end and to the great advantage of all beings. The cosmos is truly a training place for each rational soul, and a school for attaining the knowledge of God, because through visible and perceptible objects it provides guidance to the mind for the contemplation of the invisible.”

In the same work Basil stated that "I want creation to penetrate you with so much admiration that wherever you go, the least plant may bring you the clear remembrance of the Creator."

John Chrysostom, recognized by both the East and West as a Church Father and the Eastern Orthodox also regard him as one of the Three Holy Hierarchs, wrote extensively on the topic. The influential Puritan minister Cotton Mather wrote in his "The Christian Philosopher" that,

“Chrysostom, I remember, mentions a twofold book of God: the book of the creatures, and the book of the scriptures. God, having taught us first of all by his works, did it afterwards, by his Words. We will now for a while read the former of these books; ‘twill help us in reading the latter. They will admirably assist one another.”

But let's allow the "golden mouthed" one (what Chrysostom means in Greek) speak for himself:

“For if God had given instruction by means of books, and of letters, he who knew letters would have learnt what was written; but the illiterate man would have gone away without receiving any benefit from this source, unless some one else had introduced him to it; and the wealthy man would have purchased the Bible, but the poor man would not have been able to obtain it. Again, he who knew the language that was expressed by the letters, might have known what was therein contained; but the Scythian, and the Barbarian, and the Indian, and the Egyptian, and all those who were excluded from that language, would have gone away without receiving any instruction. This however cannot be said with respect to the heavens; but the Scythian, and Barbarian, and Indian, and Egyptian, and every man that walks upon the earth, shall hear this voice; for not by means of the ears, but through the sight, it reaches our understanding. And of the things that are seen, there is one uniform perception; and there is no difference, as is the case with respect to languages. Upon this volume the unlearned, as well as the wise man, shall be alike able to look; the poor man as well as the rich man; and wherever any one may chance to come, there looking upwards towards the heavens, he will receive a sufficient lesson from the view of them: and the prophet himself intimated and indicated this fact, that the creation utters this voice so as to be intelligible to barbarians, and to Greeks, and to all mankind without exception, when he spoke on this wise; 'There is no speech, nor language, where there voice is not heard.'"

That was from his "Homilies on the Statutes" and seems to me a great explanation for what Paul meant that "they are without excuse" when he wrote about people looking at creation and rejecting God in Romans 1 (though Chrysostom is citing Psalm 19:3 at the end).

Chrysostom expressed this general idea in a much more concise manner in his "Homilies on Romans":

“How did God reveal himself? By a voice from heaven? Not at all! God made a panoply which was able to draw them by more than a voice. He put before them the immense creation, so that both the wise and the unlearned, the Scythian and the barbarian, might ascend to God, having learned through sight the beauty of the things which they had seen.”

And speaking of keeping it pithy, John of Damascus does just that in his "Apologetic Treatises against those Decrying the Holy Images":

"The whole earth is a living icon of the face of God."

Another is Athanasius of Alexandria, the Church Father who fought against Arianism, who said in his “Against the Heathen”:

“By the greatness and the beauty of the creatures, proportionately the Maker of them is seen”

This would be echoed by Article 2 of the Calvinistic Belgic Confession from 1561 where it says that we know God:

“First, by the creation, preservation, and government of the universe, since that universe is before our eyes like a beautiful book in which all creatures, great and small, are as letters to make us ponder the invisible things of God.”

Calvin himself referred to the Duplex cognito Domini (“two-fold knowledge of God”) and in his “Institutes of the Christian Religion” explains that,

“The creation is quite like a spacious and splendid house, provided and filled with the most exquisite and the most abundant furnishings. Everything in it tells us of God.”

There are many other church leaders and emminent theologians that have also expressed this view though I'm not sure exactly where they said it. For instance, I keep running across people citing Thomas Aquinas as saying that,

"Revelation comes in two volumes - the Bible and nature"

But I haven't been able to track it to any of his works. But since it is quoted in a Pastoral Letter from the Episcopal Bishops of New England I assume it is legitimate.

Similarly, is one attributed to Martin Luther:

“God writes the Gospel, not in the Bible alone, but also in trees, and in the flowers and clouds and stars.”

Yet another is one is attributed to the 9th century Irish theologian, philosopher and poet John Scotus Eriugena about how,

“Christ wears ‘two shoes’ in the world: Scripture and nature. Both are necessary to understand the Lord, and at no stage can creation be seen as a separation of things from God.”

Bernard of Clairvaux, another Doctor of the Church, said:

“Believe an expert: you will find something far greater in the woods that in books. Trees and stones will teach you that which you cannot learn from the masters.”

And one from Eckhart von Hochheim, more commonly known as Meister Eckhart,

“Apprehend God in all things, for God is in all things. Every single creature is full of God and is a book about God. If I spent enough time with the tiniest creature - even a caterpillar - I would never have to prepare a sermon. So full of God is every creature.”

In the 16th century John of the Cross notes how the animals themselves provide testimony:

All the creatures – not the higher creatures alone, but also the lower, according to that which each of them has received in itself from God – each one raises its voice in testimony to that which God is, …each one after its manner exalts God since it has God in itself.

And returning to the earliest Church Fathers, Irenaeus noted that,

“The initial step for a soul to come to knowledge of God is contemplation of nature."

These last seven examples may be apocryphal quotes, assigned to them later, or since many are translated they may exist worded slightly differently and I haven’t been able to pin them down for that reason. If anyone is aware of the works some of these quotes came from please let me know.

I'll close with a couple more quotes not from Christian theologians and a final comment. The first from the pioneer of the scientific method, Sir Francis Bacon, who referred to the two books concept when he wrote in his "The Advancement of Learning,"

“There are two books laid before us to study, to prevent our falling into error; first, the volume of the Scriptures, which reveal the will of God; then the volume of the Creatures, which express His power.”

Bacon also agreed with the idea that if the truth of something is established by sure empirical and logical processes and if it appears to be in conflict with a biblical passage, then the problem is not with what the biblical text says but with the interpretation placed upon its words.

And then there is Abraham ibn Ezra, who like Maimonides was one of the most distinguished rabbis of the Middle Ages and is sometimes called "The Wise" and "The Great":

I see You in the field of stars
I see You in the yield of the land
In every breath and sound, a blade of grass, a simple flower,
An echo of Your holy Name.

The point being that the doctrine of Two Books, or Dual Revelation, is an orthodox view with the revelation supplied by nature (called General or Natural Revelation) being, as some have called it, "God's signature on the universe."

If this world is God’s world we do not need to be afraid of anything it actually reveals.

[seanD]

It's question begging to assume our interpretation and theories of nature and the physical world is "truth," when it's not falsifiable. Also, the fathers didn't live in a vacuum that was secular and hostile to the supernatural; to the contrary, they lived in a time when it was the complete reverse -- theism was the predominant view -- so they were obviously speaking from a totally different perspective. And chances were were pretty remote that anyone in their day evaluating nature was an atheist.

[rogue06]

It's question begging to assume our interpretation and theories of nature and the physical world is "truth," when it's not falsifiable

Who says it isn't falsifiable? Take evolution for instance. While there are numerous ways to falsify it probably the most famous is the one allegedly put forth by the geneticist and evolutionary biologist J.B.S. Haldane, namely finding the fossilized remains of a rabbit in Precambrian rocks. As Richard Dawkins stated, the discovery of fossil mammals in Precambrian rocks would "completely blow evolution out of the water."

[seanD]

Who says it isn't falsifiable? Take evolution for instance. While there are numerous ways to falsify it probably the most famous is the one allegedly put forth by the geneticist and evolutionary biologist J.B.S. Haldane, namely finding the fossilized remains of a rabbit in Precambrian rocks. As Richard Dawkins stated, the discovery of fossil mammals in Precambrian rocks would "completely blow evolution out of the water."

Much like PE accommodated the ugly reality of the dominance of stasis in the fossil record; abandoning the theory could never happen because they would merely modify the theory to accommodate any such issues to the contrary.

[lilpixieofterror]

I wouldn't go that far to assume victory. What I meant was, I can't give you 10 scientists specifically by name.

You could have searched Google, to find it.

But that doesn't mean the alarmist rhetoric wasn't coming from the scientific community itself. Jim Hansen and Peter Gleick were two such alarmist that worked closely with Al Gore.

Al Gore has made quite a bit of money off from it and I really doubt that these two men didn't benefit from it either. That is two though, does that prove that all of them ere?

Then there were the NASA scientists that claimed we would be attacked by aliens if we didn't solve global warming.

A few did, again, no different then Camping ranting on the radio that the world was going to end.

There was physicist Ivar Giaever who quit his position at the American Physical Society because his colleagues were treating global warming like a "new religion."

Again, one person quitting isn't proof that every scientist out there is a whacko. You might as well say that dooms day Christians is proof that Christianity is insane.

Once again, the reason the alarmist reverberations have dramatically cooled down is because the scientific community that exclusively deals with the subject was fudging and misrepresenting the data that fueled much of the fanaticism and alarmism outside the scientific community.

And the same can be said within the Christianity community, my friend. Perhaps we should you know... actually look at the data instead of doom day ranters?

[rogue06]

Much like PE accommodated the ugly reality of the dominance of stasis in the fossil record; abandoning the theory could never happen because they would merely modify the theory to accommodate any such issues to the contrary.

An ugly reality which Darwin had predicted when he stated that we can expect to see organisms evolve at various rates. Some slow. Some quicker.

Moreover I think the fossil record is insufficient at showing things like speciation and gives a false impression of stasis when there is none. Fossils tend to preserve the hard parts like bones, shells, teeth... but only extremely rarely any of the soft tissues which is where the majority of evolutionary change takes place in most organisms.

For example, experts are hard pressed to distinguish between a skull from a modern tiger and a skull from a modern lion. While they are both big cats, I think we both can agree that they are very different. And that difference is far more than just appearance. Tigers are solitary hunters preferring to strike from ambush. Lions prefer to belong to a pride which usually go out together and run down prey. The male lion rarely backs away from a conflict, whereas a tiger usually will. Yet, looking at the skulls it takes an expert to tell them apart.

IIRC, it is even a bit difficult to distinguish the rest of the body from skeletal remains as well even though tiger are usually stronger in the hind legs and lions usually stronger in the front legs.

And I imagine it would be even more of a challenge with animals you've never seen alive and the bones of which are often damaged and incomplete.

So just looking at the bones it takes a real expert to distinguish between a lion and a tiger. It makes you wonder how often fossils designated as being from the same species based upon morphology were actually as different as lions and tigers are and actually representing different species arising.

I kept this extremely short (for me ) because I don't want to turn this into a debate specifically about evolution and/or Punctuated Equilibrium (PE).

[37818]

. . . organisms evolve at various rates. Some slow. Some quicker.

Any such changes must be according to the "laws" which govern, physics and chemistry,, meeting the rules of DNA code or thy will not even happen, even badly let alone successfully.

[seanD]

You could have searched Google, to find it.



Al Gore has made quite a bit of money off from it and I really doubt that these two men didn't benefit from it either. That is two though, does that prove that all of them ere?



A few did, again, no different then Camping ranting on the radio that the world was going to end.




Again, one person quitting isn't proof that every scientist out there is a whacko. You might as well say that dooms day Christians is proof that Christianity is insane.



And the same can be said within the Christianity community, my friend. Perhaps we should you know... actually look at the data instead of doom day ranters?

It seems we've lost track here. You're more focused on the alarmism factor when i was using that to explain it as an effect of a cause. The cause was fudging the data, which is what we've lost focused of. The dissenters of man-made global warming were clearly the minority. Thanks to the series of inadvertent scandals (and, of course, the internet) that exposed the unscrupulous activity, this gave the minority dissenting voices more weight, but only because of the scandals. So going back to your initial post; how does that correlate with "Science is a quest for truth" much like how we Christians search for truth, as you stated?

[rogue06]

Any such changes must be according to the "laws" which govern, physics and chemistry,, meeting the rules of DNA code or thy will not even happen, even badly let alone successfully.

Correct.

Evolution happens because the chemistry of DNA makes evolution unavoidable due to the fact that DNA doesn't replicate perfectly. It's built right into the molecules.

Any time you have imperfect self-replicators in an environment of limited resources, the result is a tendency of those best suited to acquire and use the resources to produce more offspring. The result is that each generation is a little different from the one before it.

[oxmixmudd]

Much like PE accommodated the ugly reality of the dominance of stasis in the fossil record; abandoning the theory could never happen because they would merely modify the theory to accommodate any such issues to the contrary.

So many mistakes seanD. 'dominance of stasis'? So you think dinosaurs and elephants look alike? Or that a TikTaalik and an alligator look the same? Or that a Sabor Tooth and a modern Tiger are stuck in 'stasis'.

This is one of those 'talk in generailities only' misconceptions and misinformation that FILLS these discussions. In the broad picture that is the creationists beaf with evolution, there is no stasis. We have a very definite progression of species across vast amount of time. However, at a certain GRANULARITY of time, we see what looks in many cases to be stair step jumps - 'micro' stasis - to coin a term. That is in part because of what rogue06 mentions, the very nature of fossilization limits the resolution it can give into the process. Just as a low resolution photo looks pretty broken up at high magnifications. PE was developed to help explain some elements of this granularity. But it is NOT an issue at a higher lever, over longer periods of time. And so as a creationist you'd still need God making thousands or millions of small modifications creating a series of versions of animals over time in a direct progression from, say the dinosaur dominated life 150 million years ago, to the mammal dominated life 30 million years ago.

I'm not sure what that exactly buys you, in that you still have a large number of relatively small changes progressing over time from one species to another. Does it make it better if each little stair step jump happens due to a miraculous intervention as opposed to the outworking of the natural laws God has in place?


JIm

[seanD]

So many mistakes seanD. 'dominance of stasis'? So you think dinosaurs and elephants look alike? Or that a TikTaalik and an alligator look the same? Or that a Sabor Tooth and a modern Tiger are stuck in 'stasis'.

This is one of those 'talk in generailities only' misconceptions and misinformation that FILLS these discussions. In the broad picture that is the creationists beaf with evolution, there is no stasis. We have a very definite progression of species across vast amount of time. However, at a certain GRANULARITY of time, we see what looks in many cases to be stair step jumps - 'micro' stasis - to coin a term. That is in part because of what rogue06 mentions, the very nature of fossilization limits the resolution it can give into the process. Just as a low resolution photo looks pretty broken up at high magnifications. PE was developed to help explain some elements of this granularity. But it is NOT an issue at a higher lever, over longer periods of time. And so as a creationist you'd still need God making thousands or millions of small modifications creating a series of versions of animals over time in a direct progression from, say the dinosaur dominated life 150 million years ago, to the mammal dominated life 30 million years ago.

I'm not sure what that exactly buys you, in that you still have a large number of relatively small changes progressing over time from one species to another. Does it make it better if each little stair step jump happens due to a miraculous intervention as opposed to the outworking of the natural laws God has in place?


JIm

The funny thing is that you're totally contradicting what both Eldridge and Gould were saying about stasis and gradualism. Not surprising, since their views were pretty radical and got lots of attacks, which is why you hardly ever hear them cited by any of their colleagues even today. But I"m not going to get into a brawl with you here about it. Who do I believe? Some dude on the internet who is like a rabid evangelical apologist for the theory, or two dudes who made it their academic careers?

[lilpixieofterror]

It seems we've lost track here. You're more focused on the alarmism factor when i was using that to explain it as an effect of a cause. The cause was fudging the data, which is what we've lost focused of. The dissenters of man-made global warming were clearly the minority. Thanks to the series of inadvertent scandals (and, of course, the internet) that exposed the unscrupulous activity, this gave the minority dissenting voices more weight, but only because of the scandals. So going back to your initial post; how does that correlate with "Science is a quest for truth" much like how we Christians search for truth, as you stated?

Does the existence of dooms day Christians and other religious people prove that Christians do not seek truth out? I'm sorry, but what does the existence of whacko's prove? That there is always going to be an element of insanity out there?

[seanD]

Does the existence of dooms day Christians and other religious people prove that Christians do not seek truth out? I'm sorry, but what does the existence of whacko's prove? That there is always going to be an element of insanity out there?

I think that the "wackos" of science is much more significant than the wackos of Christianity, being that the former touts itself as being more objective and fact-base, thus is supposed to have more disciplined criteria to prevent this from happening. And your initial post was in response to RB who questioned truth being associated with science because science is always changing and modifying its views. This is not the case with the fundamental truths of Christianity. So since science doesn't really have fundamental truths that never change, the only thing really assuring us that evolution is true is the criteria they use. So it not only dilutes your comparison, but kind of dilutes your claim. Science may be on a search for truth... but since its always changing and since we now know it sometimes uses flawed criteria... how do we know when it's on the search for truth?

[rogue06]

The funny thing is that you're totally contradicting what both Eldridge and Gould were saying about stasis and gradualism. Not surprising, since their views were pretty radical and got lots of attacks, which is why you hardly ever hear them cited by any of their colleagues even today. But I"m not going to get into a brawl with you here about it. Who do I believe? Some dude on the internet who is like a rabid evangelical apologist for the theory, or two dudes who made it their academic careers?

PE is not mutually exclusive of gradualism but is rather an expansive theory not an exclusive one, as Eldredge and Gould took care to note. In fact, Eldredge and Gould (E&G) went out of their way to repeatedly point out that Punctuated Equilibrium in no way supplanted the gradualism of Neo-Darwinism but worked alongside of it:

Stephen Gould, "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory" p152 (2002 edition)

"For this reason, Eldredge and I have never viewed punctuated equilibrium, which does not refute Darwinian gradualism in this third sense, as an attack on natural selection itself ...”

© source where applicable

IOW, it isn’t an either-or situation with PE or gradualism but rather a complementary one. It is an addition to evolutionary theory, not a replacement for gradualism. Both patterns are seen in the fossil record, and both make perfect sense when you realize that species respond to changing selection pressures which themselves are variable and intermittent.

While it is true that E&G initially thought PE might be a radical refutation of gradualism they later came to realize otherwise. This was primarily due to an error on their part.

While Darwin thought change occurred slowly he never claimed it was slow and even -- which was what E&G disagreed with and why they proposed PE. They opposed the idea that evolution was constant or steady-rate gradualism -- that evolution was uniform.

But this wasn't what the ToE proposed even in Darwin's time. In fact Darwin seems to have anticipated what E&G were saying:

On the Origin of Species

"It is a more important consideration ... that the period during which each species underwent modification, though long as measured by years, was probably short in comparison with that during which it remained without undergoing any change."

© source where applicable

And PE is anything but ignored.