In 2 Samuel 11, we are
told that spring is the time that the kings go off to war. After all, winter is
a hard time to battle so to spare their own losses, most waited until spring.
Naturally, Geisler's
main interest is Inerrancy, but not just Inerrancy. It's "Does Walton
agree with my interpretation?" Geisler once again equates Inerrancy of
interpretation with the Inerrancy of Scripture. If someone goes against what he
understands ICBI to be, then they are denying Inerrancy because obviously,
there's no other way to affirm Inerrancy other than ICBI.
Geisler's review is
hardly a review. He leaps to the end of the book and gives Walton's summary of
the matter after 200+ pages of looking at all the data that he gives for his
position. Instead, he gives the positions that will make his readers
immediately raise up those red flags. Walton says humans were created en masse?
He says there were other human beings around at the time? He says science might
offer contrary information?
You would get the idea
that these positions were just thrown out there with no reason behind them.
Instead, it's just a jump to the practical reasons for holding the position.
Now if all Walton had done was say "Adam and Eve might not be the first
humans and science could say otherwise, so let's just get in line and accept it
and here's the benefits for just accepting it", it would be right to be
suspicious, but Walton has been defending numerous propositions in his book
that Geisler does not even touch.
Hmmmm. Something in this
water tastes funny. It's like poison....
Geisler sums up his view
of Walton in the following:
1. The Bible does not teach that a
literal historical Adam and Eve are Progenitors of the Human Race2. The scientific evidence supports the belief in macro
evolution.3. Holding both 1 and 2 is not contrary to the
doctrine of inerrancy.4. An acceptance of 1-3 is crucial to fulfilling
the mission and proper growth of the Church.
I can't say I agree with this. For
instance, in my interview with Walton, he has said his interpretation of the
text would not require macroevolution to be true. After all, you could be a YEC
and hold to his view. This is just a way of interpreting the text. Walton used
to be YEC. Why? He thought the text demanded it. He no longer holds that view
and the reason he holds the view is that he once again says he thinks that is
what the text is teaching.
Geisler looking at point 1 says:
First,
he confessed, “I do affirm the historicity of Adam. But I do not consider
interpreters who are trying to be faithful to Scripture to be denying inerrancy
if they arrive at a different conclusion” (202). Apparently, then, any sincere
exegete could deny the historicity of Adam and still be consistent with
inerrancy? How about those who deny the historicity of Christ’s resurrection?
But this again confuses
Inerrancy of Scripture with Inerrancy of interpretation. If someone says
Inerrancy simply means that all that the Scripture teaches is true, then if
they really believe the text does not teach the historicity of the resurrection
of Jesus, they could indeed hold to such a position. I think it would be
difficult to defend such a position, but they could hold to it. Inerrancy tells
you about the nature of the content of revelation. It does not tell you the
message of that revelation. It just says that whatever the message is, it is
true.
If Geisler wants to
argue against someone with this position on Adam, then he's free to consider
someone like Denis O. Lamoureux, who holds to the Inerrancy of Scripture and
does not hold to a historical Adam as shown in Four Views on the Historical Adam. In fact, John Walton was one of the scholars who argued against
his position. Unfortunately for Geisler, he will have to argue textually and
scientifically against Lamoureux and while I am not persuaded by Lamoureux’s
position, Geisler will have to do more than shout, "Inerrancy!" He
will have to address Lamoureux’s textual and scientific arguments.
Second,
“…perhaps what Genesis is telling us is that God chose one pair from the
rest of early hominids for a special, strange, demanding vocation. This
pair (call them Adam and Eve if you like) were to be the representatives of the
whole human race, the ones in whom God’s purposes to make the whole world a
place of delight and joy and order…” (177- 178). So, to establish this first
point we must show that (a) the Bible teaches us that there was a literal
couple, commonly called Adam and Eve, (b) who were the progenitors of the
entire human race. Let’s take them in order:
Keep in mind, all of
this is without looking at Walton's arguments at all. There is no interaction
with Walton’s view that the Bible is not talking about material processes.
There is no dialogue with the concept of sacred space. There is no dealing with
the idea of creation being good instead of perfect. All we see are Walton's
conclusions without looking at why he comes to those conclusions, as if Walton
just wants to see a position considered to be Biblical and just undermine it.
The arguments Walton gives for his positions are never once addressed.
So how does Geisler
refute the claim that Adam and Eve were not the first humans? Let's see what he
says.
The first argument is
that Adam and Eve were historical persons. It is odd that Geisler goes into all
of this when he says Walton acknowledges this as evidence of Adam's historicity
and Walton does hold to a historical Adam and Eve.
Yet things get
interesting when we move to Eve.
(1) Eve was
also a literal person who, with Adam, were physical progenitors of the human
race. For “Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the
mother of all living” (Gen. 3:20 NIV). Even translated in the present as “She
is the mother of all living” (ESV), her name (hawwa, living or
life-giver) “signifies that the woman became a pledge in the continuation of
the race, in spite of the curse.” Allen Ross (Creation and Blessing,
148). Her name also reflects the earlier prediction that the “seed of the
woman” (Gen. 3:15) would bring life and salvation into the world through her
“seed” (offspring). Contrary to Walton (187), whatever else it may imply it
does not exclude being the genetic progenitor. Likewise, a similar phrase
“father of all” used of Jubal (Gen 4:21) implies a genetic progenitor since he
was the genetic father of all “those [humans] who played” the harp; he was not
the father of the organ.
This is quite odd for
Geisler to bring up Jubal as a refutation of the point hoping his readers will
see it immediately because the very point is made by Walton using Jubal as his
example. Where does Jubal imply a genetic relationship between him and all harp
players? Does that mean that all harp players must be genetically descended
from Jubal? Not at all. This would make as much sense as saying all historians
must be descended from Herodotus, the father of history. This will work if
Geisler’s followers don’t read Walton themselves and never see the arguments he
makes. Unfortunately, too many of them will indeed never read Walton
themselves.
President
Philip Ryken of Wheaton College presented six significant arguments for a
historical Adam: 1. It explains humanity’s sinfulness; 2. It accounts for the
presence of evil in the world; 3. It clarifies the biblical position on sexual
identity and family relationships; 4. It assures us that we are justified
before God; 5. It advances the missionary work of the church; 6. It secures our
hope in the resurrection of the body and life everlasting (203). He added, “We
cannot understand the world of our faith without a real, historical Adam.” But
Wheaton Professor Walton summarily dismisses his arguments, claiming that “some
of these are a matter of interpretation” and “even if we accept without
question all these points, we could still maintain that no theology is built on
the scientific implications commonly associated with Adam and Eve: that they must
(theologically speaking!) be created de novo, as the only people at the
beginning of humanity and those from whom we are all descended” (203-204).
Why Geisler is investing
so much in a historical Adam when Walton holds to one would seem odd, unless he
wants his readers to get the impression that Walton is skeptical of this, which
he is not. Again, it would be helpful for them to read Walton. The views of
Ryken come from the above counterpoints book that was mentioned earlier. Walton
does not dismiss these. In fact, he says all of them are worthy of book length
discussion. It's just that since he's not arguing against a historical Adam,
they're not really relevant. (I would in fact argue that Ryken needs to focus
more on Jesus than on Adam) What he does say is none of this is changed even if
we accept these points by having Adam and Eve not be the first human beings.
In
response, the literal historical-grammatical interpretation endorsed by ICBI
(CSBI, Article 18) demands a de novo creation of God because: (1) Adam was
created from “dust” [not from lower animals], and he will return to dust (Gen.
2:7; 3:19; Job 34:15; Eccl. 3:20); (2) Eve was made from Adam’s “rib” (Gen.
2:21); (3) God “created” (not developed through evolution) every living things
(Gen. 1:21); (4) All acts of “creation” (bara) in Genesis 1
(1:1; 1:21; 1:27) resulted from God “speaking” and it occurred. Paul describes
the creation of light as ex nihilo (out of nothing), “Let light shine out of
darkness” (2 Cor. 4:6). Darkness does not evolve into light; rather, lightning
strikes it from the outside; (5) Every form of life “produced its own kind” (it
did not evolve into another kind); (6) Humans were made in God’s image, “male
and female” which involves bodies (Gen. 1:27); (7) Humans could speak and name
things from the beginning (Gen. 2:19-20; 3:3, 10); (8) Humans had moral
capacity and responsibility from the beginning (Gen. 2:16-17); (9) Humans had
God-consciousness from the start (Gen. 3:1-13). (9) Jesus affirmed this was all
“from the beginning” (Matt. 19:4) from the “beginning of world” (Matt. 24:21).
The only normal, literal interpretation of these verses is that the creation of
Adam was de novo.
And as expected, we now
turn to the Scripture of ICBI and since they have spoken, well the case is
closed. We know what the text means because ICBI said so. It's because of
positions like this that Geisler has earned the nickname, and rightfully so, of
the Evangelical Pope. Some of these positions were dealt with in The
Lost World of Genesis One. Still, let's point out some problems.
Adam was created from
dust? For starters, Walton never says Adam was created by a macroevolutionary
process, but ignoring that, Geisler wants his readers to think a key point is
made by the text saying Adam is made from the dust and Eve from his rib as if
Walton was unaware of this. In fact, Walton has an entire chapter on that
section alone and what it means. Does Geisler really consider it good form to
raise up a point that he would surely know Walton has addressed in the book
without really giving the positions that Walton holds in the book and why? This
is just dishonest on Geisler's part. Even if Walton's reasons for holding the
view he holds are poor reasons, they should not be ignored.
For creation with bara,
Walton deals with all of this in the first book. One could of course deny
macroevolution and hold to Walton's view so 5 is not a problem. 6 isn't a
problem either based on the first book. 7 only says something about Adam and
Eve and not all humanity. This would be begging the question. Same for 8 and 9
would not be a problem either. After all, if the beginning means the immediate
instant beginning, well humanity wasn't even there then. If it just means from
the start of the human story, then Walton would agree.
Geisler's conclusion
about the only normal, literal, interpretation I'm sure would be interesting to
his YEC critics who also question his commitment to Inerrancy and see him
compromising with a modern scientific consensus on the age of the Earth. After
all, they would say "the only normal, literal interpretation is that the
Earth is young.
Ultimately, it comes
back to a fundamentalist understanding of the text. The normal way to
understand the text is in the way modern 20th and 21st century Westerners take
the text. Could it be that Walton has a point that maybe we need to see what
the viewpoint was of people back then and interpret the text in light of that?
Keep in mind the word literal really means "according to the intent of the
author."
Geisler starts off his
next part saying, “In order to justify his claim that certain biblical
references to Adam have no authority (181, 183),” but if anyone read these pages, they would see nothing like this.
Instead, they would find Walton wanting to take the text seriously, as he does.
Geisler is just trying to get his readers to think that Walton is wanting to
dismiss the Bible for his positions. Again, this is a whole lot easier to do
than actually do the work of dealing with his arguments. Now Walton does make a
point about what the Bible teaches authoritatively and incidentally.
There are many such
references in the Bible to views the Israelites held that we do not hold to.
This should not be seen as a problem for us. One big example Walton would
likely give is the firmament. This is one reason he does not hold to a
Concordist position on Genesis 1.
Walton's view is
described as evolutionary when in fact, it is not. All the position is saying
is that the question of evolution does not matter to the text. Believe it or
not, we do not have to choose which side we want to come down on. The Bible
doesn't address the question.
Does Geisler think such
a position denies Inerrancy?
Then he needs to talk with J.I. Packer. Packer has given an endorsement of
Denis Alexander's Creation or Evolution: Do We Have To Choose? Just look at the cover. In fact, Albert
Mohler said about this that:
Denis
Alexander in his new book Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose? suggests
that “God in his grace chose a couple of neolithic farmers to whom he chose to
reveal himself in a special way, calling them into fellowship with himself so
that they might know him as a personal God.” A couple of Neolithic farmers? Is
that in any way a possible, legitimate exegetical reading of Genesis? More
disturbing is not the contents of the book, but the endorsement from J. I.
Packer on the front cover, who says, “Surely the best informed, clearest, and
most judicious treatment of the question and title that you can find anywhere
today.”
Or
consider his endorsement also of Melvin Tinker's Reclaiming
Genesis with even writing the foreword and giving a hearty
recommendation of it. The book has been described as pro-evolution and
anti-intelligent design.
Is Packer
denying Inerrancy?
Walton does not believe
the reference in Acts 17:26 to making all nations from one man refers to Adam,
but to Noah. This is based on the reference to nations coming right after the
Noah account. Geisler has none of this and gives his reasons.
However,
there is multiple evidence that Paul is including all individuals (of which
nations are made). First, the word “made” (epoiasen) is
used in this same context (Acts 17:24) of God making the world (cosmos). Second, it is used elsewhere in Acts 4:24 of
“the Sovereign Lord, who made heaven and earth and the sea and everything in
them” (cf. Acts 7:49-50). Third, it urges all men to seek Him (v. 27) and
claims that all humans exist only “in Him we live and move and have our being”
(v. 28) and, therefore should seek Him (v. 29). All this implies a genetic view
of human beings who are connected to each other and to this one God by
creation. Fourth, Paul elsewhere speaks of “the condemnation of all men” in
Adam (Rom. 5:12, 13, 17), showing their unity and origin in him. In view of the
context, to reduce this text to God forming or organizing nations is to reveal
more of a Platonic influence (where the Demiurgos orders the eternal chaos into
a cosmos but does not bring it into being). As St. Augustine put it, we are
born “with a propensity to sin and a necessity to die” (City of God 14.1).
To begin with, Walton
would have no problem with the first point. He would disagree on what is meant
by made, which Geisler has not interacted with. The same applies to point two.
For the third point, how does this imply a genetic relationship? It implies a
common origin in being from God. It is not about our relationship to Adam but
to each other. For the fourth, yes, all men are condemned in Adam. One could
hold to Walton's view of Acts 17:26 and still hold to the condemnation of all
men in Adam.
In the next part, Walton
deals with the idea that some readers will be hesitant to accept a new reading
of the text. Unfortunately, a reading of Geisler will give the reader the
impression that Walton is trying to explain an idea that would deny the
historicity of Adam and Eve. It's as if Geisler didn't read the book itself and
simply had someone else read it and say "Okay. Tell me everything you can
that's wrong with it."
Keep in mind, I have
read the book. I have it right here and have been looking up Geisler's claims
in it.
1. “The church fathers
often disagree deeply with one another” (205).Response: So do many
scientists disagree about the origin of life, but we do not discard scientific
evidence because of it. Nor do we disregard good cumulative evidence because of
such disagreement.
And yet Geisler should
surely accept that the church fathers have often disagreed strongly and what
about where they haven't. Does Geisler accept baptismal regeneration? Many of
the church fathers also accepted allegorical interpretation. Would Geisler
accept that? What would ICBI say about those who interpret the text allegorically?
All Walton is saying is that the church fathers are not the final authority.
This should not be a problem.
And again, Walton has
not endorsed a macroevolutionary view. It's just not a problem.
2.
The early Fathers regularly held positions that no one holds today.Response: So did early scientists
hold views that virtually no one accepts today. For example, current
evolutionists disown early evolutionary views of inheritance of acquired
characteristics.
Again,
Geisler misses the point. This is a book on what the text says and not what
science says.
3.
Their writings were driven by the needs [heresies] of their time, not by what
the Bible intended to say.
Response: Heresies are often
the occasion for the Fathers clarifying and defending
the truth, but they were not the cause of it.
The basis for truth was the inspired Scripture.
And in turn, the basis for Walton's view is
inspired Scripture much the same way.
4.
They were primarily driven by Christology, not by a text in its ancient
context.Response: The great creeds
were occasioned by heresy, nonetheless were usually based on sound biblical teaching. There is not
necessary disconnection between Christology and their view of Scripture.
Walton's point is that the writers were not
often looking to understand Genesis as Genesis but Genesis in light of Christ.
There is nothing wrong with this, but a fuller understanding can be found just
understanding Genesis on its own first.
5.
Most of the time they were not familiar with Hebrew and Greek.Response: As helpful as studying
the original languages is in understanding the nuances and technicalities of
exegesis and theology, their value is sometimes overestimated, especially by
the teachers of the languages. All the major doctrines in Scripture can be discerned
by the common languages. In fact, some of the great theologians of the church
past and present were not proficient in Hebrew and Greek—St. Augustine and
Thomas Aquinas among them.
This is quite flummoxing. Why would Geisler
not want to go back to the original languages? Geisler makes the same kind of
statement in Defending Inerrancy. Why do we need to try to
find what Jesus said in Aramaic? Isn't what we have in Greek enough? Why not
try to get a fuller understanding? We might as well say "Why do we even
need to read Geisler's books on the Bible? Isn't what we have
enough?"
6.
They had no access to the ancient world as we do through archaeology.Response: As helpful and
insightful as archaeology can be (see Joseph Holden, A Popular Handbook on Archaeology and the Bible, Harvest
House, 2013), no essential of the faith is impossible to discover from
Scripture itself. Further, unfortunately some scholars who are most trained in
the surrounding culture are the most tempted to misuse it in misinterpreting the
Bible. Even Walton himself warns that “We should note, however, that the
Israelites often show marked dissimilarities from the surrounding world. Proper
interpretation will recognize both” (199).
Walton here is simply saying that
archaeology has increased our understanding, such as the tablets we've found
that show us more on how ancient people thought. (You know, that material
Geisler never interacts with at all during his review.) Once again, it looks
like a dismissal on Geisler's part.
7.
Walton claimed that the early Fathers did know and expressed some of the ideas
he had in his book (205).Response: Contrary to Walton,
this would indicate that all of our new ideas are not dependent on studying
these new cultures. However, many of these new studies are the source of
unorthodox teachings entering the bloodstream of evangelicalism.
And there is the keyword of
"unorthodox" again. This is a possible threat, so we must stop it
now. Geisler's anti-scholarship position is the real threat to the church today.
How about this unique idea of, oh, I don't know, looking at Walton's arguments
as arguments and critiquing them? For instance, while I do not agree with what
Lydia McGrew says on her review of the book (incomplete
at this point), at least she is not playing the Inerrancy card repeatedly and
making accusations of unorthodoxy.
Next we move on to macroevolution.
While
Walton disavows expertize in science, nonetheless, he claims a high degree of
certainty about certain scientific issues. For example, he is firmly convinced
of macro-evolution, including the genetic evolution of the first human beings.
Consider the following (emphasis added): “The current scientific consensus is that humans share a common
ancestor with other species based on the evidence of material (phylogenetic)
continuity” (206). “The modern scientific consensus affirms
that there is material continuity between all species of life (technically
designated phylogenetic continuity).” “All species have a common ancestor.…
[This] idea is almost universally affirmed among scientists” (190).
He adds, “It [‘evolution’] is not inherently atheistic or deist. It has plenty
of room for the providence of God as well as the intimate involvement of God”
(191). He adds, the evidence for macroevolution “is compelling.” (182).
Yet in
all of this, Walton has not said he is a macroevolutionist. In fact, I could
agree with what Walton
says here and still say I'm not ready to sign on the dotted line yet. In fact,
aside from the last two viewpoints that Geisler might not accept, surely he
would accept the first three. Does he want to deny that the current consensus
in science is what Walton says it is? You don't have to be a scientist to know
this.
And again, if this is a
problem for Walton, why does J.I. Packer get a free pass?
Now I will not deal with
the arguments Geisler gives for evolution because again, I see them as
pointless to Walton's thesis, and second, because I am not a scientist. Yet
Geisler says the framers have denounced theistic evolution as not compatible
with Inerrancy.
A lot of this however
hangs on the idea that Walton does not treat Genesis 1-11 as historical. The
problem is that he simply does treat them as historical. He just doesn't accept
the idea of the claim of what the history is being said. He is not saying these
accounts are untrue. He is persuaded fully of the truth of the accounts. In
fact, he would say he could hold to a literal interpretation of these passages
based on his engagement with the text.
Sorry, but throwing
around ICBI does not refute his arguments. It just says that the magisterium
has spoken and the case is closed.
And as said earlier, how
can we think the framers thought this when Packer's endorsements and actions
say otherwise?
So let's move on to the
practical realities. Why does Geisler not find them convincing?
First,
one fails to see how denying the direct (de novo) creation of Adam helps
motivate one to care more for God’s creation” (207). In fact, one could make a
strong argument to the contrary. For knowing “this is my Father’s world” should
motivate me to care for it with great concern.
One struggles to see what the
connection is. Adam and Eve are not the first human beings, therefore this is
not our Father's world? What is going on here? Walton's view is that Adam's
vocation was to be the caretaker of the world that he was put in and to serve
as the maintainer of sacred space. (You know, that position Geisler NEVER
interacts with.) This in fact does depend on this being our Father's world.
Second,
it is difficult to see how denying Inerrancy and the biblical teaching about a
first literal Adam is a path of “convergence and compatibility” (208). Compromise
on crucial beliefs does not lead to real compatibility. It leads to chaos. Try
compromising on the quality of steel in a sky scrapper.
Yet this is just more of
the question begging that Walton is denying Inerrancy and Biblical teaching.
Yeah. Walton made an argument from the text, but I guess the Pope has just
spoken....
Third,
one fails to see how unless a person accepts theistic evolution and denies
inerrancy, they must “abandon their brains”
(208-209). The intelligent design movement has attracted some very smart
scientists like Charles Thaxton, Philip Johnson, Hugh Ross, Fuz Rana, and
Stephen Meyer, to mention only a few.
Walton never once
says that not accepting theistic evolution means a person is abandoning their
brains. His position here is that many people curious of Christianity are being
told essentially that to hold to Christianity, they must abandon their brains.
Literally? Probably not, but by saying they have to go against what they see
scientifically, then yes. Does Geisler think this is not happening? I assure
him it is. I have heard too many times of cases where people present objections
and are told "That's why it's called faith." and the story of a boy
coming to a pastor with his doubts and the pastor just shows a Bible and says
"This is what we believe. Do you believe it or not?" The boy said he
didn't, left, and never came back. Too many atheists today think that if you
believe in science, you cannot believe in anything religious. What about those
who are not anti-theists but do hold to positions that they think are shown to
be scientifically true. What will they do if those outside say "Well, we
know you think the science shows this, but you must believe otherwise because
this book you question that we base everything on says otherwise?"
Yes. People are
abandoning Christianity because of this.
Fourth,
Walton contents that “They [our young people] have heard their revered pastors
tell them that people who believe in evolution cannot be Christians” (209),
thus leading them to leave the church. However, this is largely a “Straw Man”
argument since few actually say “they cannot be a Christian,” if they accept
evolution. The most conservative usually only say that evolution is contrary to
Christian teaching—which is something else. Further, the real question is not
whether some may leave the church if the doctrine is taught (whatever it is)
but whether or not it is an important truth of
the Christian Faith. And, as for the doctrine of creation, it is certainly an
important truth of the Christian Faith since both the apostles and Jesus
connected it with many significant Christian teachings. For instance, the Bible
offers the doctrine of creation as the basis of (or connected to) the doctrines
of: (1) human dignity (Jas. 3:9-10); ( 2) governmental authority (Gen. 9:6 cf.
Rom. 13:1, 4); (3) marital fidelity (Matt. 19:4-6); (4) Ecological
responsibility (Psa. 14:1; Psa. 8:4); ( 5) ecclesiastical authority (1 Tim. 2:13-14
cf. Heb. 13:17); (6) family identity (1 Cor. 11:3-8); (7) human mortality (Rom.
5:12); (8) redemptive activity (1Cor. 15:45-49); (9) resurrection reality (1
Cor. 15:22), and (10) human mortality (2 Pet. 3:3-4).
I hate to say it, but
this does indeed happen. This is why for so many people, evolution is the
breaking point. You either accept evolution, or you accept the Bible. Again,
let's remember that Packer endorsed a book that argued that we do not have to
choose and is there any reason to think that he is denying Inerrancy?
Geisler concludes with
his usual alarmist statement.
However,
a new generation has arisen that knows not Kantzer, Culver, and Kaiser. They
have convinced themselves from extra-biblical sources, in whose light they
reinterpret the Bible, that Adam was not the first man; that his body is
genetically the same as other early hominids, that all humans are not Adam’s
descendants; that human death is not the result of Adam’s sin, and that Darwin
was basically right about common ancestry! All I can say is that this is not
the Wheaton I knew, nor is it the one to which I can recommend my
grandchildren.
Yes. We're quite sure
Walton is just so unfamiliar with the OT scholarship. This is more of Geisler's
"A great man has spoken. The case is closed." When a new position
rises up, it must be examined on its own merits. It must not be rejected
because it disagrees with the prior traditional interpretation. One would think
a Protestant like Geisler would accept that, but it looks like he does not and
prefers to point to the magisterium of ICBI instead.
In the end, Walton's
book remains untouched. None of the arguments for his position were mentioned
let alone dealt with and this is simply pushing a panic button, but then again,
this is what we are used to.
In Christ,
Nick Peters
