The Great Ordovician Biodiversification Event Another Problem for Naturalists

The Cambrian Explosion refers to a geologically short period of time in which every type of basic body plan (phylum) of all animals alive today - and quite a few others which are now extinct- show up in the fossil record. Many scientists say that this happened within a 30 million year time period- a long time to us but shockingly fast if we are counting on naturalistic evolutionary forces to produce dozens of new body plans. But it gets worse because other research suggests that the real innovation occurred in only 20 million years.

Even that number probably over-estimates the time it took for all these new phyla to show up. This is because it is only a calculation based on the fossils we have found in the fossil record. What if the new phylum which shows twenty million years after the Cambrian begins is really of a creature who was around much earlier, we just haven't found an earlier fossil of it yet? So the short length of time is liable to get shorter as we learn more.

Of course naturalists don't like what this implies, so they have been hard at work producing speculation about how the life forms of the previous era were not so different after all and basically dreaming up everything they can to make the case that the Cambrian Explosion wasn't such a big deal after all.

But it turns out they have another problem almost as big as the Cambrian Explosion and this one might be even harder to explain away. While all these new phyla show up in the Cambrian, they don't diversify for 40 million years. Each body plan has very few species with that plan. Then, all phyla start dramatically diversifying at once into new families. Its called "The Great Ordovician Biodiversification Event" and it happened in an even shorter period of time than the Cambrian Explosion.

Now it turns out that this event too happened in a much narrower window of time than one might expect with known naturalistic evolutionary mechanisms. Here is how the link described it....

The early evolution of animal life on Earth is a complex and fascinating subject. The Cambrian Explosion (between about 540 to 510 million years ago) produced a stunning array of body plans, but very few separate species of each, notes Stigall. But nearly 40 million years later, during the Ordovician Period, this situation changed, with a rapid radiation of species and genera during the Great Ordovician Biodiversification Event.

I think what they are trying not to say is that naturalists have two problems, not one, when it comes to explaining the diversification of life in the seas. The earth can bring forth living things after their kinds- there is a background sort of "evolution" going on, but the record also shows changes too big and too fast to reasonably explained by any known evolutionary method. It looks like at certain points, nature had help. Help to do things greater and faster than she can do on her own without it- we don't see that magnitude of rapid change now.

You Tube Channel

Please "like" and "share".

I really did not know who "Joshua Harris" was but it appears that Christianity has had another celebrity professional Christian walk away from the faith. If this keeps up all God is going to have left are those who love Him for who He really is. Mere amateurs who don't get paid a nickel for their love nor one minute in the spotlight for their adoration will comprise the bulk of the church. The payment Christ made for their sins was enough for them. I think God can handle it.

It seems that Mr. Harris achieved fame young for a book he wrote about "giving up dating" (I Kissed Dating Goodbye) in favor of courtship. There is a lot wrong with modern dating, don't get me wrong. But whatever alternative Mr. Harris pursued wasn't foolproof either. Last year he separated from his wife. This year he loudly left the Christian faith, condemning the church for the usual laundry-list of misdeeds such as not accepting homosexual relationships as "marriages".

Since I don't know the fellow, apparently he didn't even know himself very well, I cannot say with any certainty what his motives are, except to say that even the best of them will be tainted with sin like mine and everyone else's. I do see a pattern though. He wanted praise from people. He wanted to one-up the works of others. When he was a Christian, his way of finding a spouse was more spiritual than yours. But when he couldn't live up to the expectations he set for himself he didn't find humility. The law isn't supposed to make us proud, it is supposed to make us humble and point to our need for grace through Christ. Those who hold up some law, even law based in scripture, and then make their boast in how well they follow that law are setting themselves up for failure. 

We were meant to fail in our own strength. That was the real point of the law. He had to fulfill it for us. What I think Joshua Harris has done is that in pride he has refused to take that last vital step. I wonder if he ever grasped the true essence of the Christian faith- that it is not about how good we are but about how good Christ is.

If you will think about it you will see that Joshua Harris has not changed a thing about himself. He simply changed value systems. He is still trying to be justified by works. He is still telling people that his set of good works are better than theirs. He is still seeking the approval of the masses, just different masses. Once he couldn't cut it under the Christian framework, he decided it was false. In truth, it was just no more use to him. Nor is it of use to anyone who approaches from an attitude of pride.

The Hermeneutic of Godlessness: Shoe-Horning Naturalism into the Interpretation of Scripture

Hermeneutics concerns itself with the frameworks or methods that one uses to interpret texts, in particular Divine texts. So for example a theologian might look at the Christ-centered model for Early Genesis and ask, "What Hermeneutic did you use to come to those conclusions?"  They are asking about the methods and premises and parameters that were used to draw a particular meaning from the text.  A similar term "Exegesis", is a subset of hermeneutics, and focuses on just the rules you used to interpret the text and not the overall narrative.

Hermeneutics are not a bad thing, but it's a subject for theologians, not teachers. Neither Moses, nor the Prophets, nor Christ, nor the Apostles, spent much if any time describing what their "hermeneutic" was. They just taught from the text as the Holy Spirit gave them utterance and left it for the theologians who came after to talk about how such meaning was derived and discover what rules the teachers used in expounding from scripture. I consider the teacher to be like Galileo or Copernicus. They describe the truth of the universe as they see it. The theologians are more like Newton. They come along afterward and say "Here are the rules concerning what they were talking about". It isn't that one is good and the other is bad, but it is not everyone's job to be both.

The truth is that often the apostles didn't follow what mainstream theologians would consider sound hermeneutics. In the second half of Galatians chapter four Paul writes about how the two sons of Abraham really represent two covenants. What rules did he use to get that connection? None that would be approved by most of today's theologians, but he is still right. After all, he was an apostle and his ministry was validated by extraordinary miracles. Those folks are getting their message directly from the Holy Spirit, so man-made rules (which are really what hermenutics are) are no obstacle.

I will say that even though I don't have a developed "hermenutic" and don't care to expend any effort forming one, I do realize that just because an apostle can make those types of leaps doesn't mean that you or I can. We can apply the connections they made because it is reasonable to suppose that their making a connection itself validates that connection. But we can't pull our own from the ether. We are not them. We have to make the case that a connection is valid by, for example, showing where it is pointed to in the rest of the body of scripture.

That's just a decent start on a principle of exegesis, it is a long way from a hermenutic. And while I don't say hermenutics are bad, they can be bad. Even when they are good, they can be a distraction which changes the subject from "what do you think the Holy Spirit showed you from God's word?" to the question of "what contexts, semiotics, presuppositions, and parameters did you use in coming up with that meaning?" Hey, I am just telling you what I think God told me. My focus in on the message, not devising a set of rules or contexts which determine how the message was derived. It's not my job.

Again, that doesn't mean they are bad, just not my thing and nothing I care to be distracted by. But they can be bad. Innately bad. You can have bad rules or methods for interpreting divine texts and one in that category would be a flawed or bad hermenutic. I've run into a perfect example of one recently. Here is the background for it....

The assumption of naturalism is that all causes and phenomena have natural causes. The use of methodological naturalism is a perfectly valid, and perhaps essential, tool to scientifically study the natural universe. This is the premise that for research purposes we will assume that all actions have natural causes- no supernatural causes can be considered. This is the standard operating procedure for "natural science", that is, the study of the natural universe. Because we are within nature we often used "science" and "natural science" interchangeably. But "science" is a method of study, not a subject matter. If one is not studying the natural universe, there is no reason in principle one must limit causes and meanings to natural ones. I speak about this in my call for theology to operate more like a science, as it once did.

While the natural sciences may use the methodology of naturalism to study nature, there is no reason this tool must be extended into a philosophy. It is one thing to say "we are only going to consider natural causes in this experiment because that is all we can test for" and quite another to say "there is no such thing as a supernatural cause." This is elevating a tool or method into a philosophy which makes claims about every area of existence.

What I have discovered is that there is a surprising number of theologians and "theologian-adjacent" people who insist on attempting to impose what is in effect philosophical naturalism as a requirement for any valid (in their view) interpretive method (hermenutic). They do this by saying that the meaning we derive from scripture must be limited to 1) the scope of understanding of the human author and 2) accessible to the audience of the day. Such arbitrary rules are in effect asserting that there is no detectable supernatural action involved in the scriptures. God can't have put a hidden meaning into the text to be revealed in later generations because such a message would be beyond the understanding of the human author and undetectable to an audience of his day. The text meaning is limited to human understanding at that time.

Some insist that these are the only valid ways to interpret religious texts even though the logic of their two requirements is almost self-refuting. The human author and the audience of the day considered much of the text to be prophetic utterances from God. They would have been completely comfortable with the idea that God would also be laying groundwork for some progressive revelation of His nature with these words. These rules would invalidate much of the exegesis of the apostles who often tied events in the Old Testament to events surrounding Christ. It was even expected that God could speak through someone who was not even aware that they were speaking by inspiration (John 11:50-51). So in effect these artificially imposed man-made rules claim that the text of scripture can only have a meaning that the audience of the day would understand, but that they were in fact dead wrong about what they understood!

I almost feel embarrassed writing about it, so absurd is the assertion that what claims to be a Divine text only be evaluated for meaning under such man-made rules. The Holy Spirit is the real author, and He is not limited to the understanding of the human author through whom the texts were penned. Just the opposite. 1 Peter 1:20-21 says that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of private interpretation- it is not a question of what the author meant. Rather it says "holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." The naturalist hermenutics deny what the scripture claims that it is. It presupposes rules which forbid consideration of any detectable Divine action - based on no evidence and in denial of the testimony and evidence which exists. You may have heard of "presuppositional apologetics"? This type of hermenutic is also presuppositional- just with premises which conform to naturalism rather than theism.

I view it as most often an attempt to rig the terms of debate in advance so that one side can't possibly win. Atheists do this when they, for example, demand "scientific" proof for the existence of God when by definition science cannot test for the supernatural. I can hear them protest, "but you are violating all the principles of sound hermenutics when you say it means this". No, I just feel no obligation to be bound by rules made up by people whose world-view I consider ridiculous. I don't care about the rules you made up, even if you put a fancy name to them and surround them with a bunch of $64 words. You don't get to make the rules for me, in particular if your rules assume the prophets and the apostles had it all wrong.

In conclusion, I see attempts to change the subject from what I am teaching to explaining, applying, or devising a methodology to describe how such a meaning was obtained into two categories: Attempts I am uninterested in and see as a distraction and attempts I am fundamentally opposed to.

The latter usually try to insist on premises which amount to philosophical naturalism, and this is an arbitrary restriction which I summarily reject. The former is more of a diversion from better things even if it is not bad in itself. Given the terrible theology and misunderstandings out there on early Genesis, it is enough of a challenge to get folks to see the material with new eyes and understand what I am saying. I have no time or inclination to hash out how such a meaning was derived. The message is too important to shift the conversation to its method of composition. Never mind that just now, I want people to know what it is saying. I am not opposed to such conversations, I just can't spare the time to be a part of them.

You Tube Channel

Please "like" and "share".