click here to tweet this post
click here to share with your friends
subscribe to this feed
John MacArthur on the "Lie of Evolution"
by C Michael PattonOctober 22nd, 2009
668 Comments
John MacArthur on the “lie” of Evolution:
“The evolutionary lie is so pointedly antithetical to Christian truth that it would seem unthinkable for evangelical Christians to compromise with evolutionary science in any degree. But during the past century and a half of evolutionary propaganda, evolutionists have had remarkable success in getting evangelicals to meet them halfway. Remarkably, many modern evangelicals . . . have already been convinced that the Genesis account of creation is not a true historical record. Thus they have not only capitulated to evolutionary doctrine at its starting point, but they have also embraced a view that undermines the authority of Scripture at its starting point.” (from “The Battle for the Beginning“).
There was a time, ten or twenty years ago, when I would have taken the bait and swallowed this hook, line, and sinker. Today I won’t. Not because I am now convinced about a God-guided theory of evolution, but because I just don’t know. I am not confused or disturbed about the issue, nor does it put any of my faith in jeopardy in any way. I just don’t know whether or not God used evolution as a means to create humanity. Neither do I know how long it took to create the earth. I don’t know if Genesis 1 is meant to be taken literally, metaphorically, symbolically, ideologically, mythologically, or accommodatingly. I simply believe that when it is interpreted rightly, it is true.
But I don’t think that it is here we find the central battle for our faith. I believe that there are more important issues. Much more important issues.
What I do find is that if Christians get sidetracked on these type of things, believing that if this city goes undefended then the Christian empire crumbles, we are in trouble. The “Battle for the Beginning” is not the battle, at least in my book.
But John MacArthur is a man I respect very much. While he is not a scientist, he does seem to be a very wise leader in many respects and he knows the Bible well. This is why I have to pause at what would otherwise seem to me to be an over-the-top statement. He is right that the last two decades have seen many (if not most) evangelical leaders concede to the real possibility of a God-guided use of evolution. It would seem that there is quite a bit of pressure out there to do so. Evolution is quickly becoming the if-you-don’t-accept-it-then-you-are-committing-the-same-mistake-that-the-church-did-in-the-Galileo-incident type of issue. You remember: back when we insisted that the Bible said the earth was the center of the universe and then ended up with egg on our face.
I don’t really see evolution in the same light. There is quite a bit of observable data that shows us the earth is not the center; it is not quite as cut-and-dry with evolution (I think).
Either way, the gauntlet is going to continue to fall and Christians who believe in evolution are going to continually be accused of compromise. Maybe they have compromised; I don’t know. But to me, it only makes a difference when people push for it to make a difference.
What do you think? Has Christianity been compromised?
Similar Posts:
- Questions for Evolutionists: Is the Turkey Buzzard More Evolved than Me?
- Expelled: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design – A Review
- Inerrancy and the Problem of Matthew 4:8
- God is Great, God is Good: Why Believing in God Is Reasonable and Responsible
- Jesusanity vs. Christianity
668 Comments
Like or Dislike:
1
Michael,
Thanks for your honesty here.
I, for one, never felt “under pressure” to (as you put it) “compromise” my beliefs. I was, however, intellectually torn between a YEC interpretation of Genesis 1 and the overwhelming scientific evidence for an old earth. I felt somewhat cognitively dissonant. And that’s where the works of John Walton, Conrad Hyers, and Denis Lamoureux released that pressure. Now, I feel that I understand Genesis 1 “more authentically” and in a way that I believe does justice to the text. I really want to encourage you to seek out the works of Walton and Hyers. Mind-blowing stuff.
As I continued studying Genesis 1-11 in its ANE context, it wasn’t too long beore I completed the journey toward theistic evolution. It certainly required “reconsidering” the level of historicity of those chapters, but it never required me to reject the theological truths that those chapters taught. (Keep in mind, of course, that there are many theistic evolutionists who hold to the historicity of Genesis 2-11, such as Dick Fischer.)
Thus, I no longer feel the same “intellectual schizophrenia” that I’d experienced all those years. It’s quite freeing and I’m enjoying science once again. It’s no longer (nor can it be) a threat to my faith. As well, it’s made the Bible a much richer document than I ever thought possible. In fact, because of my “evolutionary creationist” perspective, I now perceive God as much more awesome and creative than I ever did during my YEC days.
Like or Dislike:
0
I once would have gone along with Mac on this one as well, especially well I was in High School, but no longer. When in Undergrad (I went to Bethel University btw) I met a number of committed Christians who were also scientists. From everything I was able to gather from them and other research the methods for determining the age of the Earth are quite accurate though not always precise (For instance if someone tells you a rock is 200 million years old they are not being fully truthful. Scientifically speaking there would be a 95% probability that the rock was between 180 million and 220 million years old with 200 million being the midpoint.).
Suffice to say in my mind the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of an Old Earth and most of the complaints repeated over and over again by New Earth advocates have been addressed long ago (I always like the one about the newly killed animal being measured as being 2000 years old using a method which has a error margin of 10000 years and would never be used for measuring newly killed creatures.). At this point the question is does God lie?? Would he create a universe with the appearance of great age to trick us or for some other purpose?? I must admit the possibility, but I find it highly unlikely. I find the probability that we have misinterpreted the purposes of Genesis far more likely. Now of course Old Earth doesn’t get us quite to theistic evolution, but I think it gets us close enough that the leap required is a very small one because once you get to Old Earth your already not interpreting Genesis literally. Honestly I think Mac is way off on this one.
Like or Dislike:
0
Most definitions of evolution usually say something like a random or undirected process. That leaves no room for God or any intelligent design. So we can’t compromise on that point. How He did it isn’t as important as that He did it and thus we have a creator to whom we are to answer to.
Like or Dislike:
0
MacArthur is as dangerous as he is helpful. The overstatements and rhetoric in his quote are a case in point. For that reason, I’m not sure “wise” is the best way to describe him. I received basically the same line of reasoning from a YEC ringer: “unless you buy our interpretation, you’re losing a spiritual battle or succumbing to peer pressure.” Come on! There are many, many scientists who feel that a YE is on par with a flat earth, therefore, the church, at the very least, needs to read Genesis 1-11, Rom 5, etc. as though this is a real option. That being said, scientists and theologians need to be humble enough to admit the provisional nature our understandings of these issues. Trouble is, I don’t see much humility in MacArthur’s statement on this (or other matters.) If Jesus wants to say it’s “my way or the highway,” I’m down with that. But Jesus is the Master, not MacArthur. I agree, Hyers et al are must reads!
Like or Dislike:
0
Right after I posted my last comment a thought came to me about how we read the Bible and how that might affect this.
A lot of individuals constantly shout that we can’t use outside knowledge to interpret the Bible. They basically argue that the Bible should be read in a vacuum as if we had no other knowledge other than what we were reading. This is ridiculous, it is humanly impossible to read the Bible as if all of our other knowledge about the universe doesn’t exist. Furthermore the Bible often assumes requisite levels of knowledge for its readers. For instance if we didn’t understand that virgins can’t have babies the story of the virgin birth of Christ wouldn’t make sense. We’d also still believe in a Earth centered universe. In both cases we have outside knowledge that makes these things make sense and we know that a virgin birth would have to be a miracle, and now read statements such as “the sun stood still” as hyperbole because we know that the universe doesn’t work this way .
I would propose that discoveries in science and other areas of knowledge should, to a degree, affect how we interpret the Bible. When there is overwhelming evidence for something that seems to contradict the Bible we should go back to the Bible and look very closely at whether or not there is a way of interpreting or understanding the Bible passage in question differently such that it does not conflict. If there is indeed a unresolvable conflict then fine, go with the Bible, but I think too often we have become so attached to certain interpretations of the Bible that when someone or some discovery questions those interpretations we see them as attacking the Bible and the Christian Faith, rather than trying to use all the knowledge available to them to gain a better and more accurate understanding of the Bible.
I also thing some of this has to do with theology too. Often it seems we construct these elaborate theologies that are like a house of cards and if even one card is pulled out the house falls down and is ruined. This leads to statements like those of MacArthur because they feel the need to (almost) violently defend every aspect of what they believe lest their house of cards fall apart. Instead I think we should build a strong center around the essentials such that if we’re wrong about a peripheral issue like evolution it doesn’t cause major damage to our faith.
Like or Dislike:
2
I agree with MacArthur. I don’t see how you can square science’s evolution of man with the Genesis creation of man. Were Adam and Eve real people? The breath of life that God breathed into Adam, yes ? No? maybe?. I’m not talking about an old earth or a young earth and I doubt MacArthur is either. I think this is refering primarily to the evolution of man. I agree with him, it is undermining the scriptures from the beginning.
It is one thing to say science contributes to our understanding of scripture and another to say science dictates our understanding of scripture. Again I don’t think this is YE vs OE that is being addressed here.
Like or Dislike:
0
It is disturbing to me that an issue such as this should become such a litmus test for being counted among “the faithful.”
Considering evolutionary theory has very little, if anything at all, to do with someone’s faith. Science looks at the evidence and makes conclusions. It is true that history provides numerous examples of where science got it wrong, but it’s also an amazingly self-correcting system. Make a scientific pronouncement and other scientists will test it. When new evidence comes to light, they will test it again. And again. Rigor is built into the system; so is skepticism. Try to fudge the data and you will be found out…maybe not now, but eventually.
It is true that some see evolution as an opportunity to discount the involvement of God in creation, and therefore as ammunition for the argument that God doesn’t exist. But those are secondary conclusions that go beyond the science involved.
Is it so hard for us to accept the science as science, without making it be something it’s not? Evolution is no more heretical in it’s substance than any other conclusion in science. We don’t get all red in the face when meteorologists describe the formation of hurricanes. Or when botanists describe the process by which insects participate in the fertilization of flowers. Both are amazing acts of God’s creation, yet it’s pretty rare to hear God’s part in them discussed. Does that discount His work? Absolutely not.
Science, by itself, doesn’t make a theological statement. It merely tries to figure out how the observable processes work.
Like or Dislike:
0
Cadis,
I suspect your #2 chromosome suggests otherwise. Within the human DNA is irrefutable proof of our common descent from earlier non-Homo sapiens life forms.
Here’s a link to a video, featuring Kenneth R. Miller, who is a Christian, that touches on our #2 chromosome.
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael, I think you make an excellent point in comment #5. We absolutely need to be open to using outside data to interpret Scripture. Scripture came to us across a swath of times and cultures, all of which are not our own. We need to seek to understand them within their original cultural and intellectual framework.
I am curious to read the wider context of MacArthur’s quote. Why is it so dangerous? If John Walton is right (in the Lost World of Genesis One) then the Bible doesn’t have an account of material creation, thus it’s left open to us. The biggest issue I see is related to whether or not we must believe in a historical Adam. If that’s MacArthur’s contention, I get where he’s coming from (even though I still wouldn’t agree with him – I covered this issue recently on my own blog (I hope I’m not violating blog rule #1 here) – http://zetountes.blogspot.com/2009/09/as-follow-up-to-my-previous-post-i.html).
The Bible doesn’t stand outside culture (neither do we!). As Protestants we’re committed to sola scriptura not nuda scriptura.
Like or Dislike:
0
Special creation of Homo sapiens sapiens would not leave evidence of a fusion of two previously separate chromosomes, the act of which left us with 23 pairs of chromosomes instead of the 24 pairs possessed by the great apes. Special creation of humans would also fail to explain why, on a number of occasions, humans are born with tails, which we do possess for a brief time as an embryo (WHY?). Of course, the genes which control tail development (yes, we all have the genes to create tails!) switch off almost as quickly as they turned on. Special creation of humans also fail to explain why we, along with the rest of the great apes, have the genes to synthesize vitamin C but can’t. That’s because the same gene of the three necessary for the body to synthesize vitamin C is switched off due to mutation—strong evidence of common descent, as the mutation likely occurred in an environment in which there were plenty of vitamin C-rich food sources, making the mutation “neutral” for the environment in which our common ancestor lived and allowing for the mutation to become nearly universal (which it eventually did). If God meant for humans not to synthesize vitamin C within our own bodies, why on earth would he have given us the genes to do so?
Like or Dislike:
0
No, I don’t think there is compromise to say that evolution could be compatible with the Bible.
Like or Dislike:
0
Very good approach, Michael. This is very much in line with my “Dangers of Misplaced Dogmatism” you posted a while back. This is simply not a salvation issue. It is not a slippery slope. It is not a compromise.
Like or Dislike:
0
Re Beidler’s comments
MacArthur’s comments are naive, over the top, dangerous and unbiblical.
However, evolution is by no means a slam dunk, but is rather the more unlikely of the possible explanations (well, it is better than “turtles all the way down”).
Chromosome #2 does not, logically, prove anything of the sort. The fusion could have happened solely in a human past. That is, fully modern humans could have had the unfused gene, a mutation occurred and spread, and now all living modern humans have the fused gene. No need for a monkey explanation.
Next, one can raise the problem that the same gene in different organisms can do different things, depending on the proteins, etc. that are present to interpret the instructions and carry them out.
Very problematic is the fact that the use of different aspects of the cell produces very different “trees” — depending on whether RNA is used, mitochondrial DNA, nuclear DNA, etc. The problem is so bad that the concept was declared dead earlier this year. For example, Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, told New Scientist magazine that, “We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality.”
Finally, even evolutionist scientists can sometimes be honest about the shortfalls of their theory. Günter Theißen of the Department of Genetics at Friedrich Schiller University in Jena, Germany wrote:
“It is dangerous to raise attention to the fact that there is no satisfying explanation for macroevolution. One easily becomes a target of orthodox evolutionary biology and a false friend of proponents of non-scientific concepts.”
(Günter Theißen, “The proper place of hopeful monsters in evolutionary biology,” Theory in Biosciences, Vol. 124:349–369 (2006).)
The likelihood that evolution is wrong does not, however, justify MacArthur’s overreaching and incorrect claim. In fact, that sort of all or nothing approach is what leads many people to give up their Christianity in the face of what they believe to be entirely sensible science (though from a Calvinist view, that is no loss to the number of the redeemed since a person who appears to give up the faith was never elect in the first place). Still, in so far as God has ordained humans as a means of spreading the gospel, it is not good for men such as MacArthur to lay out unnecessary stumbling blocks.
regards,
#John
Like or Dislike:
0
One should also note that Beidler uses two fallacies to ground his support for evolution, the false dilemma and identity or psychological fallacy.
He talks about the genes for tails example as if there are only two possible explanations for it (false dilemma), when he has not proved that there are only two explanations (and there potentially more than two).
Even more problematic is that he assumes that the designer, if there were one, would design things the way he (Beidler) would. Thus he makes an unwarranted assumption that there is identity between how he would do things and how the designer would, and the unwarranted assumption that he can know the mind or psychology of the designer.
The designer could be doing things for entirely different reasons than Beidler assumes, and, moreover, Beidler has no grounds for assuming that he knows anything about the designers motivations or mind in creating and using genes.
But I really think we should spend more time attacking MacArthur’s use of reductionist fallacy and false dilemma, and the fact that he does not appear to know what he is talking about.
regards,
#John
Like or Dislike:
0
I just watched the program on Ardi, the latest in evolutionary discoveries on the Discovery Channel. Scientist are now convinced that we did not evolve from monkeys, but from bipedal humanoids.
I don’t let my faith be shaken up by scientific discoveries, what I learn from Genesis is that God is our creator. But there are no exact details on this process.
Like or Dislike:
1
We have absolutely no reason to read into the creation account. MacArthur’s point highlights the problem of people trying to stuff “science” into history. Neither the scientists nor the historians have an eyewitness account as to what took place and neither is Genesis an eyewitness account. So what are we left with? A God-breathed account from the One who actually was there. We don’t need any more than that from a faith perspective. Nor do we need to excuse/deny/obfuscate to anyone. It’s the truth and it doesn’t need to be molded to fit the world’s pattern.
Like or Dislike:
0
As a theistic evolutionist, I’ve never run into an issue where my faith was threatened enough for me to be overly concerned. Ironically, like MacArthur, when I was a YEC my faith was constantly under threat from the evil evolutionists ad nauseum. So I understand his paranoia.
My faith has never been stronger. I may not have all the answers, and don’t know if I ever will, but at least I don’t have to wake up every morning and convince myself that God’s creation lies.
I don’t have to base my opposition to current science off of a surface level understanding of a book that wasn’t even written in a language I can understand millennia before my birth.
I’ve got a deeper understanding of scripture, a deeper understanding of scripture’s view on creation, a deeper understanding of creation itself, and a deeper understanding of scripture’s inspiration and inerrancy.
All in all i think I made out pretty well.
Like or Dislike:
0
Greg, I agree with you 100%!
I have been around this debate a very long time (as some here can attest). I have seen MANY young earth creationists say things like “well, if you don’t believe Genesis 1 is true, you might as well throw out the entire Bible!” and other nonsense. And I have seen more than one Christian LOSE their faith because they accepted this either/or dogma and then came to realize that the evidence for evolution was overwhelming which meant, to them, that the Bible must be false.
There are only two groups insisting that if the Bible is right, evolution is wrong, and vice-versa: atheists and young earth creationists.
Without this false dichotomy, there is no challenge to faith, to Scripture, to any important doctrine of Christian belief. I have never met a theistic evolutionist that slid into non-belief, but I have met a number of folks who were so convinced of this rigid dichotomy that they were forced to choose between the scientific evidence and the interpretation of Scripture that they were convinced was inviolable.
Like or Dislike:
0
The main things are the plain things and the plain things are the main things.
I think we (man) tends to complicate the simple (?).
We are created in the image of God (how can that possibly fit into the evolutionary view of man?)
Why would a day not be a day, when the bible says, “2nd day, 3rd day, etc.” (Admittedly, I don’t know the Hebrew on this one, I know in the Scopes Monkey Trial the Hebrew translation was used to defend the possibility of evolution).
In college I did believe in the possibility of evolution (I became a Christian in college). I took an evolution class and spend hours discussing with the professor. It didn’t add up to me, but I still stayed on the fence. Now, not so much. I don’t get all bothered about it, but I absolutely do not believe that man has evolved from apes (*that* would contradict scripture).
Like or Dislike:
0
The Bible seems to indicate that Adam was created as a Man and not a child, hence Adam was created with the apearence of age. With evolution you would have to have Adam being born as a baby and his parents must not of been human since Adam was the first human. Humans would not have really been created in the image of God but in the image of some type of hominoid.
Why could God of not created the universe as a mature one as He did Adam?
Assuming that Adam was really created as a Man from the dust of the ground and if a doctor were to examine him the day after he was created would that doctor come the the conclusion that Adam was only a day old?
Like or Dislike:
1
Michael, I think there are some great dangers here in taking a theistic evolutionary position. The Bible is not a scientific book. That does not suggest that it is unreliable, just that it did not intend to give us some answers. In my view the best way to approach this is to accept what it says and recognize that the rest is, by definition, going to be little more than speculation. So why go there? Not knowing all the answers does not necessitate accepting whatever pet theories are tossed around by those who seem to believe that there absolutely must be a scientific explanation for everything. Science cannot explain everything; it never will. That does not mean that we should refrain from scientific efforts, rather it means that we should avoid accepting as scientific those things that are not. There are some clear truths in the Genesis account that should not be open for debate among Christians. First we are created in a deliberate act by a holy God who set us apart for a purpose as creatures who are intrinsically different from all of the rest of creation. We are the only ones who were given the breath of life, and I think the point of the Genesis account to say just that. Man was given the task of subduing the earth and participating with God in the business of caring for a wonderful creation. It was all deliberate, personal and rational, not random. Second, the Genesis account makes it clear that we were created from nothing by the force of the divine word. That tells me that we also were spoken into existence from nothing. Any explanation about how that occurred physiologically is pure speculation and frankly is not worth the effort to try to figure it out. We’ll know soon enough.
I am really a bit weary of all the pontifications about evolution, as if it were some prized axiom of life worthy of the intellectual effort necessary to prop it up. It is a theory and a religion, not a science and it contradicts a good deal of what is actually good science, that is what is experimentally or computationally verifiable. Evolution presumes that order evolved as the result of random occurrences. Order doesn’t develop that way; order devolves to chaos not the other way around and that can be proven both experimentally and computationally. No experiment and no mathematical model has ever replicated the kind of backward universe that would be necessary for evolution to work the way Darwin predicted and others have since inflated it. Second, there is not one particle of evidence of one species transforming into another as the result of natural selection. Species may have disappeared, but they didn’t become something else. Evolving toward order and adaptation to form new species are absolute requirements for Darwin’s theory to work. Neither occurs in nature and neither can be modeled.
Like or Dislike:
1
But never mind, this theory has been trumpeted as science for so long it has become a global religion that is now beyond the need for proof. It is a ready-made solution for the inherent problem the world has with the idea of a transcendent God who has the right to tell us how to order our lives because he created us. At its very core, evolutionary theory is nothing more than a mechanism to avoid the authority of a sovereign God. Instead, in our culture, everything must now be submitted to the faith of evolution as a first principle that exercises authority, rather than God, in virtually every other area of intellectual endeavor. It is now the basis of social theory, moral development theory, psychology, economic development, education, public policy and the list goes not. So, “no” I do not accept the idea of theistic evolution because it contradicts the nature, character, and purpose of God as revealed in Scripture.
Like or Dislike:
1
I think all Christians believe the physical evidence shown by the evolutionists. Beyond the physical evidence, when their worldview begins to connect the dots, that is where we tend to back away. This is the problem in a philosophical nutshell. Evolutionists have been very successful in shifting the debate to the physical evidence and the physical implications from same. For example, evolutionists have tried to present the transitional fossils as being a point against the Christian’s creation model, and a point for their side. Then, the debate shifted almost entirely over to the physical evidence, which will generally give points to the evolutionists. First century mindset did not have this physical evidence as part of the debate, since nobody knew how God chose to bring the earth to its current, fallen condition. If the debate can be brought back to the philosophical underpinnings, then the theory of evolution remains just that. Perhaps I would go so far as to say that the physical evidence is unrelated to the Christian model. This needs to be re-introduced into the discussion. Without a creator, there are no physical substances to show changes in form (evolve). Even with Gorgias, Epicurus (especially his later years), perhaps Pyrrho but definitely Euclid, their philosophical starting points precluded today’s evolutionary strong holds. How a form changes in shape and function should not be introduced into the discussion; it has no relationship to the philosophical (metaphysical) pre-necessities. Until the issue of a transcendent creator is resolved, the evolutionists are sitting rather pretty. If a position could not answer the fundamental questions of life (known in the BC eras as “religious issues”), they certainly were not allowed to enter into ‘subsequent’ rational discourse. And what I find unbearably boring is the fact that the issues have NOT changed even the slightest bit in the last 3 thousand years! Name one!
How have Evolutionists tried to show “scientific” progress? Simply by introducing some ‘physical’ evolutionary evidence! But what has that to do with the philosophical starting points of the position itself! Physical evidence can be brought forward to support any physical model of evolution, but what can be brought forward for public consumption to resolve the philosophical issues that evolution has not overcome in 3,000+ years. Evolution, by focusing on the physical evidence, has “admitted” that there are no avenues to take with the more serious philosophical issues that are periodically and uncomfortably raised by an informed Christian Apologist. In my guess – and I have no advanced degrees in this area, which means I will have to remain content on the outside, looking in – until Christians collectively stop debating the scientists and begin debating the Philosophers, we will make insignificant gains in this aimless discussion.
Like or Dislike:
0
Cornell I have no idea what you just said. Now I have a headache. lol.
Like or Dislike:
0
Charles Williams in your posts # 21 & 22..exactly!
Like or Dislike:
0
Typical MacArthur. I’m so glad we got him to let us know what’s really important and what isn’t. Whew!
Like or Dislike:
0
You know, even if one could somehow become convinced that the whole Genesis account of the creation of Adam and Eve was simply a symbol for God’s act of bringing man into being through evolution, it seems to me that there would still be a huge problem in trying to make that coincide with what the New Testament teaches. There we are given a lineage of man all the way back to Adam, are told that in the first Adam all men died, that Adam was created first and then Eve, etc. It seems to me that the New Testament writers very definitely spoke of Adman and Eve as literal people and the start of the human race. How do we get around all of that if we are to accept any form of evolution?
Like or Dislike:
0
The poll indicates that most people don’t believe in theistic evolution, even if Evangelical scholarship may be headed in such a direction.
Like or Dislike:
0
And the reason why the guntlet will continue to fall is that it is so easy and natural to read the book of Genesis at face value. That is not going to change.
People, whatever position you take, you had better have thought it through wisely.
Like or Dislike:
0
Two questions are in play:
Does the Bible contradiction evolution beyond reasonable doubt?
Does science show evolution to be true beyond reasonable doubt?
Obviously, yes/yes implies Christianity is false. So to be a Christian, you must consider yes/yes to be a false pair of answers: so why is it false?
Creationists (usually) say yes/no, while theistic evolutionists say no/yes. The third position is no/no. This is not more ecumenical, or being more focused on core doctrine, this is a third position, which must be held as tightly as the others.
To be a creationist who is open minded about what the evidence says, you must hold that the Bible does not contradict evolution. To be open minded about the possibility that the Bible contradicts evolution, you must hold the position that the scientific evidence is unclear.
All doctrines rest on this claim: Christianity is true. Disagreeing with all lines of reasoning that lead to the conclusion Christianity is false is therefore a core doctrine. So your creation/evolution stance is a core doctrine.
The answer no/no resolves nothing. If no/no tries to be accepting of both no/yes and yes/no, this leaves Christianity’s cognitive gene pool as a cauldron producing apostasy whenever the wrong two ideas meet in the same person. I guess you could just have faith that God wouldn’t let this happen, except that he so obviously doesn’t stop this from happening.
Like or Dislike:
0
There are enormous problems in a Christian world view for evolution. How could we interpret being born with Adam’s sin, if Adam evolved from an amoeba? How would Adam have betrayed his being created good by sinning, if his entire existence is owed to survival of the fittest? To Mike who claims to escaped from scientific “intellectual schizophrenia” by embracing it, I don’t know how he hasn’t embraced theological intellectual schizophrenia. What can be left of the Christian religion without the concept of sin in Adam?
Like or Dislike:
0
CMP,
Given the result of the current poll and a similar poll you did awhile back which showed drastically different results I think it is highly likely someone is messing with the results. While I can’t speak for other age groups, of the 100′s of college students I have come into contact with from the Evangelical schools in my area (Bethel University, Northwestern College, and Crown College) VERY VERY few are Young Earth types. The vast majority are old earth creation and more hold to gap theory or theistic evolution then YEC. Crown and Northwestern are quite conservative institutions btw with Bethel being more accepting of divergent views.
Like or Dislike:
0
To Mike who claims to escaped from scientific “intellectual schizophrenia” by embracing it, I don’t know how he hasn’t embraced theological intellectual schizophrenia. What can be left of the Christian religion without the concept of sin in Adam?
I don’t have theological intellectual schizophrenia because I’ve learned to separate the theological truths that the Bible intends to proclaim (e.g., all possess a sinful nature) from the incidental vessels in which those truths were originally proclaimed (e.g., the etiological story of Adam and Eve). I’ve learned not to conflate inerrant, theological truth with incidental, ancient science. Nothing is lost theologically, especially when you learn to respect the text for what it is, not what you think it is.
Here’s a link to a discussion about scientific concordism vs. accommodationism that should benefit the discussion. As well, here’s a fine paper from Denis Lamoureux that discusses the point I made above.
Like or Dislike:
0
That actually was the old poll Michael. I just set everything back to 0 to go again.
If it does not work for you, you need to clear your cookies, I think.
Like or Dislike:
0
“And the reason why the guntlet will continue to fall is that it is so easy and natural to read the book of Genesis at face value. That is not going to change.”
I agree. This is one of the main reasons why it will be slow. But, I’m happy to see Evangelical scholarship moving in the direction that it is. Hopefully things will begin to trickle down as time goes on. It may take a while for the laity to get on board, but hopefully it’ll happen and the church will stop making another Galilean Gaff.
And to be frankly honest, I’d rather be on the side of men like Bruce Waltke, John Walton, Victor Hamilton, and Tremper Longman than John MacArthur, ICR, AIG, and the average reader of Genesis.
I respect the former because of their knowledge of the world of the Old Testament, Genesis, and the Ancient Near East and how it’s unparalleled by those in the YEC camp. Their careful scholarly attitude and manner as opposed to the shrill “for us or against us” battle cry of young earth creationists.
The foundations of YEC are corrupt. It just isn’t a sturdy set of beliefs that can face honest criticism head on. It likely doesn’t read Genesis 1 correctly, and this is problematic when that interpretation is the basis for all the claims YEC makes. It ignores or overlooks too many game-changing details when it interprets Genesis, and that’s not a good strategy to take when your building a vast infrastructure on your conclusions.
I’m of the opinion that the sooner the better. The last thing we need is more useless stumbling blocks and ridicule.
And with that all said, if anyone wants to they can read up on the discussion that took place here over the summer on this same topic: http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2009/05/six-views-on-the-creationevolution-debate/
P.S. – Mike Beidler said “I’ve learned not to conflate inerrant, theological truth with incidental, ancient science. Nothing is lost theologically, especially when you learn to respect the text for what it is, not what you think it is.”
I’d just like to give a big two thumbs up to that!
Like or Dislike:
0
It amazes me how much ink (real and virtual) this issue continues to attract. WHO created life on earth is a question of faith not science. The MOST science will ever be able to say on the subject is that they see no observable proof of divine intervention — period. Does that mean there is no God? Of course not, deciding if there is a diety is a theological question not a scientific one.
Most of the more rabid Darwinists cling to evolutionary theory because it eliminates the problem of how life got here — if it can’t be explained in some “rational” (rational in quotes because I’m not entirely sure modern evolutionary theory is all that rational), then they have to struggle with the “where did we come from” issue. I
Too many evangelicals choose accomodation because they want to distance themselves from the “young-earth-creationists”. The real problem with accomodation is where you draw the line — remember that the mechanistic view of the universe gave rise to the “god is dead” conclusion — a god that makes no difference is really not much of a god at all.
So, I have a breakthrough thought — let’s have the scientists get back to doing science and the theologians get back to doing theology AND quit trying to stake out positions in the other group’s domain of discourse.
I heartily agree with you that it makes not one iota of difference whether God chose to use what we think we understand as “evolution” to produce life or whether he used another process — he did it. Similarly, whether those are literal days or figurative epochs is also pretty irrelevant (he did it in his own good time). For those people who get hung up on things like that, shouldn’t you really be worrying about having a parapet around your roof and tassels on the hem of your robes?
– Ishmael
Like or Dislike:
0
I love this article Micheal. My only point of contention is the characterization of MacArthur as “wise”. MacArthur on most issues = over the top, inflammatory, and arrogant. I know, not a lot of love for a brother in Christ, but the man drives me nuts! His constant “scolding” of those Christians who don’t agree with his view on everything is wearisome.
Damian
Like or Dislike:
0
Re: #31 – John,
“What can be left of the Christian religion without the concept of sin in Adam?”
That’s an excellent point. If man evolved from apes, then Adam was a descendant of those animals and thus death came before sin. If death comes before sin, then death cannot be a consequence of sin. More than that, the reason behind the whole sacrificial system as a covering for sins becomes little more than feeble man striking out at less intelligent creatures in order to placate his own guilt. It also nullifies Christ’s sacrifice on the cross – why did Jesus have to die in our place? If death is just a natural part of life and it existed long before God stepped into the picture with Adam, then I’d have to side with Steve Chalke that God the Father is a tyrant who is guilty before man of cosmic child abuse against His Son.
Shifting one’s trust away from the God “who created the heavens and stretched them out,
who spread out the earth and what comes from it,
who gives breath to the people on it
and spirit to those who walk in it (Isa 42:5)” and placing it in the wisdom of man is aggressively undermining your own faith. What happens if CNN reports that scientists have found absolute proof that the big bang actually could have created heavier elements and that, given enough time and distance, that particles in a vacuum gain mass and begin to spin and create gravity, that the second law of thermodynamics has no place in the creation of stars, that our sun really has all of the components necessary to make all of the planets and moons in our solar system (as would be necessary for the planets to be created through the accretion (protoplanetry) disk), that they’ve figured a way around creating life in a reducing atmosphere that would then immediately require oxygen to exist, and… I’m getting way ahead of myself here. Let’s just say that, “if” CNN reports that scientists have revealed that there is a “scientific consensus” that God is irrelevant to our place in the universe – what would keep you believing that God exists and that He has any power over our lives?
God, as we know Him today, only makes sense as He is revealed to us through scripture. Rejecting portions of scripture (Noah’s flood, the Creation narrative, the Red Sea crossing, etc) is not “revealing the true God behind the words”, but is instead removing pieces of the character and nature of God as He has chosen to reveal Himself to us. Why stop at those parts? Why not remove most of Leviticus to make Him more inclusive, then add some to the New Testament to make Him more approachable? Either way, you’re building a god in your own image – something that you feel more comfortable worshipping. The god of theistic evolution is either too weak, stupid, or cruel to make it right in the first place. He has no power of this world or the next and is not to be trusted.
I prefer to stick by God as revealed through scripture.
Like or Dislike:
0
Believing in an old earth has nothing to do with rejecting a portion of scripture, but with properly understanding it.
Furthermore, believing in animal death before Adam’s sin is an entirely possible interpretation that does not impact the nature of sin or salvation.
It is not possible to understand the Bible apart from using our minds and language, which God gave us, nor is it possible apart from knowledge of the physical universe, which God also gave us. Otherwise, to be consistent, one would have to believe in a flat earth and that the earth is the centre of the universe and that God has actual arms and hands.
Those who interpret the Bible as requiring a young earth are interpreting the Bible in their own image, the image of a rich (compared to the world) western American Christian who reads only an English Bible and has no knowledge of Hebrew culture or literature. The only appropriate way to understand the Bible is to use all of the knowledge and abilities that God has given us.
regards,
#John
Like or Dislike:
0
“I don’t have theological intellectual schizophrenia because I’ve learned to separate the theological truths that the Bible intends to proclaim (e.g., all possess a sinful nature) from the incidental vessels in which those truths were originally proclaimed”
I would second Ian’s observation about death being caused by sin, if you believe death came prior to sin. Do you accept this theological truth?
But also, where do you draw the line between theological truths and incidentals? Is the claim that man started off in a sinless state before a fall, a theological truth? Is the fall itself a theological truth? If so, what might the fall be in a world of ape-men? If not, how is the whole Christian world view not undermined? If there was no fall, then we need no redemption of the kind the bible describes.
And if you can somehow sort through that problem, why should we believe any of it? If the bible is wrong in its foundation, but only true in the most general sense that we are sinners in need of salvation, why would we believe Jesus Christ saves us? All you’re left with is the notion that some folks thought that Jesus saves, but maybe that was a mistake too, the superstitious notions of some primitive people.
Like or Dislike:
0
Hi John (and anyone else who doubts human evolution),
If you’d like to see the multiple lines of genetics evidence for God creating us through an evolutionary process, you can view this talk I gave at the meeting of the American Scientific Affiliation (an organization of Christians in the sciences) this summer.
This evidence is obvious to anyone with biological expertise. That Christians continue to deny it only raises unnecessary barriers to faith for those who know about it.
Dennis
Like or Dislike:
0
As a kid, it was a puzzle why Adam and Eve didn’t die on the very day they ate, as God said. It was explained that they did die in a spiritual sense but physical death is different and came later in life.
If the old earth perspective is correct, it seems to almost demand physical life and death prior to Adam. So how could sin bring death, when sin didn’t begin until Adam?
It seems to me that God could have breathed spiritual life into an existing being, making it human – Adam. And only a being with spiritual life, i.e., the Image of God, is capable of sin. So sin enters the world with Adam and so does spiritual death. The life they lost after their fruit snack was spiritual, not physical. Physical death eventually came along in the normal course of things.
This seems to address the problems of sin and death coming into the world.
Just a thought. Probably too early in the morning to make much sense.
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael, right now the poll seems to show that around 35% of your readers accept Theistic Evolution and 41% accept Young Earth Creationism. I think that shows significant progress and definitely points to which way the trend is heading. It took a VERY long time before the Church (both Catholic and Protestant) was willing to accept that they had gotten Scripture wrong about geocentrism, and it will take a while with this as well.
At some point, the Church will look back on this whole debate with a combination of chagrin and frustration that it took SO long for folks to accept that they had simply been reading it wrong.
But you are right, folks in a modern world tend to read texts the way THEY would write them today, not the way someone in the Ancient Near East would write them or understand them. In modern times, we prefer our stories about the past to be written as literal narrative accounts, fact by fact. In the ANE, they never considered writing about their past that way. How boring they would have considered it, and entirely unworthy of the glory and majesty of the events and concepts being conveyed! :0)
Like or Dislike:
0
Can someone that believes in theistic evolution please tell me what facts and concepts were being portrayed when Genesis tells us that God formed Adam out of the dust of the ground and that Eve was taken from a rib in his side? I simply do not see how you understand that.
And as someone mentioned in a comment this a.m., how do you know where to draw the line? How do you know where the Bible stops speaking of things as if they were fact but that were really simply accomodations to the way people thought at the time?
And very frankly, how can you be so certain that you understand the theological truths being taught? If the statements of the “how” of things–referring specifically to Adam and Eve now–are not to be taken literally at all, how can you be sure that the theological “facts” that you are believing are taught are to be taken literally?
Like or Dislike:
0
Cheryl, let me ask you this. What do you think the writer is describing when he says that God “breathed” into Adam? If read literally, that means that God somehow used human breath, which would have to mean he took human form for this act. I don’t think any Christian believes that had to be what happened? We accept that when using the phrase “God breathed”, the author is using a literary device used to describe some historical event, but using non-literal language. Something big and important happened, and it was likely something we, as humans, could never really understand, but this was a wonderfully evocative way of retelling the event. Even hardcore creationists don’t seem to have a problem with this. But then they balk at reading anything else figuratively, which is not consistent.
As for where you draw the line, this is a problem we will always have. When Christians were insisting that Scripture, when read plainly, make it clear that the sun, moon and stars revolved around a fixed earth, and that to argue differently challenged the validity of Scripture, I am sure they said the same thing: if you read this “un-plainly”, where do you draw the line?
Well, we don’t have to have hard lines about what is written using strict literal historical narrative, what is using epic symbolism and powerful poetry, and what is some mixture of the two. We, as Christians, KNOW that it is TRUE no matter what style of literature is being used. Not that certain historical events are literally accurate, since that is not really important, but that Scripture properly and accurately conveys the message God wants for us.
Is it more important to know that God created, with a plan and with power, or that we know the minute details of the process?
Like or Dislike:
0
There are several ways of understanding how Adam, and the doctrine of original sin, can be understood in light of the paleontological record of billions of years of death, and the overwhelming evidence for evolution. I suggest a few of these in an article entitled, ”Evolution, What about Adam?”
When Ian contends that “God, as we know Him today, only makes sense as He is revealed to us through scripture” I have to wonder if he ever read Romans 1:20. Here, Paul makes it clear: we can know and understand much about God, including “invisible qualities” (NIV) without ever cracking open a holy book, but merely by examining the work of his creative hand. Science, good science, is nothing more nor less than the close examination of the handiwork of the Creator! Christians, of all people, should embrace science with heart and mind! and when then do, they will discover that evolution is most certainly true.
Like or Dislike:
0
vance,
I understand what you are saying and agree to a point. However, the breath of God metaphor is used elsewhere in Scripture too so is more easily understood as a metaphor and not that God became a literal man in this case.
However, assuming you believe in a literal Adam and Eve that somehow came about as a result of evolution, it frankly sounds to me like God was telling some kind of a fairy tale to people to explain what He did in the creation of man when He said He made Adam out of the dust of the earth, and then of all things, that Eve was created from a rib in his side. Neither one of them bare any resemblance to truth at all if they both came from evolution from another form of life. It sounds like an even better story than the 3 and 4 year old children in my world make up in their great imaginations! Do you really believe that this is the way ANE people understood things? And maybe most importantly in my mind is the question of why the Holy Spirit, who says He is the Spirit of truth, would use a completely false story that would give a totally false idea of what happened, to convey His truth to either the ancients or to us??
Like or Dislike:
0
This debate while interesting should not devide Christians or be a litmus test for faith. In my late teens I began to question a literal interpretation of Genesis, which along with some other issues led me to go on what I’ll call a 12 year hiatus from Christianity.
While I never stopped believing that God existed I could’nt reconcile a literal 6 day creation with what I learned about in school about the earth. In college I took two semesters of Geology and 1 semester of Oceanography and learned about the age of the earth and the length of time it took for geological processes to happen and how old rocks are ect. This did’nt and doesn’t square with a 6000 year old earth.
Two years ago I started to critically examine my religious beliefs and I was extatic to find out that not all Christians are young earthers and that there are ways to reconcile the Bible to reason and science and you don’t have to ignore reason and science to be a good Christian. Some how I got that notion growing up and the Youth Paster at the Church I grew up in never told us that there are other views out there. Perhaps had there been a Theology Program in place at my Church ( A plug for the course CMP which I’m taking by the way) 25 years ago I would’nt have gone on my hiatus.
How sad it is that people like MacArthur have this kind of all or nothing attitude toward this issue. Our salvation has nothing to do with believing this one way or the other. While I haven’t adopted a particular view ie. Theistic Evolutionist. It seems to me the crucial point is that God created us and this planet and the Universe. Man continues to study, learn and if need be revise his understanding of us and the earth. I think thats what God intended so we should’nt get all caught up in the details.
If the majority of scientists someday all come to the conclusion through scientific study that we have gotten the carbon dating assumptions wrong (as I read on a Creationist website) I’d be ok with that, but until that day comes I’m going with the 13.5 billion date for the Universe and 4.5 billion date for the earth.
Either way God did it.
Like or Dislike:
0
Cheryl, the fact that the breath metaphor is used elsewhere in Scripture is the point I am making. We accept that it is being used metaphorically here, even though there are NO clues in the text that it meant to be read that way. Why? Because we bring in evidence from elsewhere. Otherwise if we use a “modern” take on it, it should be read as God using a literal physical body.
Similarly, we need to take into consideration how those in the ancient near east preferred to write and think about their past. What is most telling in your post is when you use the terms “false story” and “false idea”. Do you feel that it was “false” for the God to allow the writer to use the phrase “breathed” when that is not what happened? No, you accept that it is simply a literary device, not false or “untrue” at all, even though it is making a seemingly factual statement and that “fact” never occurred. God did SOMETHING, and the writer chose to use the phrase “God breathed” to describe that “thing”. But God did not literally breathe.
So, why would it be any more “false” if the entire passage was written that way?
Folks in the ancient near east simply preferred to recount past events, especially huge, epic, even cosmic events in a poetic, symbolic, figurative manner. Let’s face it, think of that writer, in that time, with that audience trying to write something worthy to describe the creation of the entire universe and every living thing on it. Would a straightforward narrative account do it justice?
Like or Dislike:
0
Charles Williams
Sorry for my post. I find that all my thinking, when reduced to print, never seems to correspond to my thoughts.
In the proverbial ‘nutshell’ here is the two main points:
1. Never discuss the physical evidence in a Creation-Evolution debate, such as fossils, galaxy formations, or the Big Bang.
2. ONLY discuss the critical philosophical/metaphysical issue – What’s the metaphysical cause of the effect known as the physical Universe – that must be resolved and agreed to before there is physical matter to evolve.
An Evolutionist stops at the Big Bang, as if he’s answered some deep scientific conundrum. The Big Bang is philosophically self-stultifying. The Big Bang does not arrive at the metaphysical cause – a necessary condition to have obtained BEFORE evolution can be rationally discussed.
Hope this is a little better, but as you can see communicating in writing is not my forte.
Like or Dislike:
0
Vance,
Let’s narrow my question down to simply the story of Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib. Now if she was simply another highly evolved ape or whatever that God chose to call the first of the human race of the female gender, then why tell the story as if she was taken directly from Adam’s side as a part of him? That is carrying a literary device WAY past using a metaphor like the breath of God. What is that a metaphor of anyway? If she in no way came from Adam, what does the metaphor suggest?? I certainly have no clue. It can’t mean that they became one because that is covered very literally later. It seems to me to be an utterly false statement that conveys an utterly false idea.
Like or Dislike:
0
Vance here’s the problem I have with what I think you are saying. First we agree that God did “something.” But the approach you seem to suggest is that our interpretation of Scripture must always go back and try to determine what the author intended to say to the readers of his day. In other words we have to always do a kind of textual forensics to determine specifically what it meant to them in their context, since their context was so much different from ours today. While that seems reasonable, it means that across the thousands of years that the Bible would remain as God’s revelation of himself, each generation must set aside their own context and try to research…in some sense recreate…the original context, in order to determine meaning. That’s certainly one approach and one that is followed most often among theological liberals. I don’t like that approach because I don’t think God’s revelation of himself is located in the “events” described even though I believe they happened in a literal sense (in those places where the text makes it clear that it is intended to be taken literally). I believe the revelation is located in the text itself…that the Holy Spirit not only superintended the writing but also the collection, canonization, translation and preservation of the text. Therefore we are not constrained to always dig around to find out what the original audience was like and how they thought, even though all of that is interesting and worthy of study. Instead the meaning is resident specifically in the inspired text itself. That leaves us with a text that says God “breathed” with no explanation of the physiological process. Therefore we don’t know what the physiological process was and will probably never know until Christ explains it all to us in Heaven. However, it seems clear to me that the text presupposes a physical act of some kind with a physical human being who as a result became qualitatively and intrinsically different from all of the rest of creation. That man later rebelled in some way and brought sin into the world and this began the train of physical history that culminated in Christ’s birth, life, death, and resurrection…physical, actual events recorded in a text that was prepared for us as a witness go God’s character, purpose, and plan until Christ returns. To me that means that the old earth/new earth argument is wasted “breath”…no pun intended. The text doesn’t say how this worked so any explanation we can devise is pure speculation. We also don’t know how long seven days were. We don’t know how long it was between the formation of the atmosphere and the collection of the waters or how long between the creation of the beasts and God’s breathing of his spirit into man. So these are not subjects worthy of speculation. But the text is clear, at least to me, that something physical happened to a physical human being with persistent physical consequences.
Like or Dislike:
0
To play the devil’s advocate:
1. Methodological Naturalism serves as the backbone of the argument for Darwinism.
2. If methodological naturalism is true, then we should interpret all evidence through a natural lens: the only theories that should be considered are the ones that involve mechanistic natural laws.
3. Thus, if a claim to the miraculous is made, instead of believing the claim, we should come up with explanations that are in line with naturalism no matter how ‘unlikely’ they should be. To believe contrary is to commit the god-of-the-gaps fallacy (a.k.a. “goddidit”).
4. The Resurrection of Christ is a miraculous claim.
5. Because it is a miraculous claim, we should not accept the miraculous claim but instead accept only those theories that give a naturalistic explanation.
6. Therefore, Christ didn’t rise from the dead.
The reason why Dawkins believes in Darwinism is the same reason why he denies the Resurrection of Christ.
In fact, methodological naturalism is being used by the neo-atheist crowd as the mainstay argument against the Resurrection of Christ. There’s good precedent for this since it has been the greatest argument against all miraculous claims since the late 17th century.
Like or Dislike:
0
I agree, Charles. God says that all Scripture was given for doctrine, correction, instruction in righteousness, etc. If we always have to be ANE experts to understand what God actually intended for us to know as He hid His real meaning behind literary devices that could only possibly be understood by those living at that time, a lot of the world is not going to have a clue what the Bible is saying.
Like or Dislike:
0
@48 (Charles)
You said
But the approach you seem to suggest is that our interpretation of Scripture must always go back and try to determine what the author intended to say to the readers of his day.
Yes, you have the correct understanding, and yes, that is exactly what we should do.
but no, it is not a “liberal theology” viewpoint at all. I would call that Biblical Theology – the Bible means what the Bible meant.
Like or Dislike:
0
Yeah, the poll is interesting, but I hardly think that people who visit this blog have changed too much from a couple of months ago. I am sure that the longer I leave it up the more it will begin to reflect the older one.
Like or Dislike:
0
Saint and Sinner,
That is a good point about methodological naturalism. But wouldn’t the resurrection itself mirror the creation event itself that methodological naturalism is not able to explain?
I am not sure, I am just thinking that through.
Like or Dislike:
0
Saint and Sinner,
Methodological naturalism has actually served us quite well over the centuries. You have accepted its findings in countless ways, and the result is that you and I have both rejected many superstitions that dominated mankind in ages past. It has led us to reject astrology, geocentricity, gods of the weather, etc. To the degree that methodological naturalism continues to enlighten us about reality, I whole-heartedly embrace it. (You do too, if you will pause to consider it.)
But my acceptance of this epistemological approach does not imply that it is the only source of truth. I do not limit my view of reality to that which can be empirically verified. This is where your logic breaks down.
Tell me, what is the harm of finding natural explanations for phenomena if they exist? If you tell me that some snake handler or poison drinker survives their religious rites through supernatural means, and I am able to prove otherwise through methodological naturalism, have I done a disservice?
I believe in natural evolution. (And methodological naturalism is showing us more and more everyday about how it happened!) I believe in the supernatural resurrection of Jesus. (And nothing in methodological naturalism can show me anything about that historical event either pro or con.)
Like or Dislike:
0
I would nuance what dac said a little bit. While an understanding of the original author’s intent (which is an approach that even conservative theologians like Patton insist upon), I think it is simply a willingness to accept that it is ancient text and that our modern sensibilities and preferences need to be held VERY lightly. Even for those who do not know how they would have understood, it is enough for us to realize that this is 3000 years later and we should be open-minded about how to read ancient documents.
Yes, God wrote the texts for all of us to find relevant today and in every age. And what is the common denominator message that we can all understand? That God created, that He did so with purpose and a plan and that God chose to do *something* to set humans apart and desires to have a personal relationship with us, etc.
Once again, the geocentrism analogy is relevant. God allowed Scripture to be written in a way that millions of Christians for a VERY long time presumed that it was describing a fixed earth around which the sun and stars revolved, and that this held important theological impacts. When confronted with physical evidence to the contrary, even folks like Luther and Calvin joined in the chorus which insisted that this was obviously wrong since the PLAIN language of the text said otherwise and that if the new science was not true, Scripture would be proven false.
How does this jive with the concept that Scripture is written so that every generation throughout human history will be able to just read it plainly and get it right? I think we always need to remain humble and open minded about such things, especially when the evidence from God’s Creation itself starts piling up around us that we might have it wrong.
Like or Dislike:
0
re cherylu’s comments on theistic evolution
There are several aspects to evolution, not all of which have to be subscribed to by a theistic evolutionist. Furthermore, it is open to a theistic evolutionist to believe in special creation just for humankind. The fact that evolution is multifaceted and not a single coherent theory, and that fact that a theistic evolutionist is not required to accept all of it, means that MacArthur’s statement casts too wide a net and does not even address the matters at issue.
regards,
#John
Like or Dislike:
0
John 1453, I don’t know of anyone who calls themselves a TE/EC and holds out for special fiat creation of humans apart from common ancestry. The reason for this is the exceedingly abundant and clear evidence for human evolution, especially from modern comparative genomics. I linked previously to a lecture I gave earlier this year on this issue – it’s up in comment 41.
Even honest YECs admit that the evidence for human evolution is strong – for example Todd Wood of Bryan College.
Like or Dislike:
0
If we always have to be ANE experts to understand what God actually intended for us to know as He hid His real meaning behind literary devices that could only possibly be understood by those living at that time, a lot of the world is not going to have a clue what the Bible is saying.
God did not inspire Scripture in a universally understood language; instead, Bible translation into a single language sometimes requires decades of work. (Imagine how much more quickly the gospel could have been spread had God not smote Babel with babble!) Similarly, the Bible was not written in such a way that all cultures should be able to understand its unique theological ideas.
God forbid that we have to work to understand documents that are thousands of years old and produced by communities living in another culture, speaking another language, and thinking in paradigms that are utterly foreign to us. Cheryl, it sounds as if you think that the Bible must be utterly perspicious instead, which, if you stop to think about it, is perspicious in some areas (those which we possess in common with ancient cultures) and not perspicious in others, the “translation” of which require the expertise of others for us to understand. Don’t fear reliance on those whom this kind of work is their passion.
Like or Dislike:
0
#John,
“Furthermore, it is open to a theistic evolutionist to believe in special creation just for humankind.”
That is true, however, the folks commenting here don’t seem to believe that. At least if they do they certainly have not made it clear. Hence the way the conversation has gone.
Like or Dislike:
0
CMP said:
“But wouldn’t the resurrection itself mirror the creation event itself that methodological naturalism is not able to explain?”
Me:
Yes, that is my point. If you accept the Resurrection on the basis that material laws can’t explain it, then you have gone against MN. If you do so, then you also would have no reason to believe in Darwinism since MN is the mainstay argument used by scientists for Darwinism.
An alternative to MN has been proposed. Instead of science being the study of natural causes, it should be that science is the study of *ordered* causes. This would allow for not only natural causes but also causes made by an intelligent agent.
Like or Dislike:
0
Charles and Cherylu,
“I agree, Charles. God says that all Scripture was given for doctrine, correction, instruction in righteousness, etc. If we always have to be ANE experts to understand what God actually intended for us to know as He hid His real meaning behind literary devices that could only possibly be understood by those living at that time, a lot of the world is not going to have a clue what the Bible is saying.”
A lot of the world doesn’t know what the Bible is saying. At least in its original languages. That fact, coupled with ya’ll’s line of reasoning, leads to some interesting questions:
Why did God inspire the Old Testament scriptures in Hebrew? Can you read Hebrew? Do you know anyone who isn’t a Jew or isn’t a trained leader in the church who can read Hebrew? How many people in the world do you think can read Hebrew? What about across time? Over the last three thousand years how many people do you think knew Hebrew?
You question the presence of contextual literary devices but overlook the fact that God used a language for his holy Word that most people in the world will never be able to read. Thousands of scholars over thousands of years had to spend thousands of hours studying languages just so you could have a Bible you can understand.
You may not think you need ANE experts to understand the fine points of Genesis, but I doubt you would show as much skepticism towards the scholars who translated it into a language you can easily understand.
Since this is true, why do you find it so hard to believe that God inspired things in Genesis that would be obvious to the original audience, but not so much to you? It’s like straining out a gnat but swallowing a camel!
The Old Testament was written in ancient Hebrew. This should be enough to show that it’s a product of its time and place. This language is completely foreign to most of us. Thus it should not be hard to imagine that those whom it was originally written to used literary conventions that may also be foreign to our modern, Western, Post-Enlightened, English opinions about what constitutes “true” writings.
Not understanding this reveals a certain kind of cultural arrogance that uses our own familiar conventions as the Ultimate Standard by which we judge things of no little importance….like God’s Word.
Maybe, just maybe, people thought in different frameworks than we do today. And maybe God used those people’s frameworks instead of ours to convey his Truth to them.
Scandalous, I know, but God has a way of being that way at times!
Like or Dislike:
0
Cliff said:
“Methodological naturalism has actually served us quite well over the centuries. You have accepted its findings in countless ways, and the result is that you and I have both rejected many superstitions that dominated mankind in ages past. It has led us to reject astrology, geocentricity, gods of the weather, etc. To the degree that methodological naturalism continues to enlighten us about reality, I whole-heartedly embrace it. (You do too, if you will pause to consider it.)”
Me:
No, sir, that is simply false.
Science being the study of ***ordered*** causes has served us well in the past. Arbitrarily limiting science to mechanistic natural laws eliminates actual inferences to intelligence (i.e. ascribing causes to sentient agents) that we make every day.
Secondly, your description of what people believed in the past is for the most part inaccurate. It resembles the propaganda put out by atheists since the 19th century and has been debunked by many a historian.
Theologians since the beginning of Christianity have always distinguished between ordinary providence and miracles.
Even the more astute pagans of the past would admit that most things happen by natural causes. See John Oswalt’s The Bible Among the Myths.
Cliff said:
“Tell me, what is the harm of finding natural explanations for phenomena if they exist?”
Me:
There’s nothing wrong with that IF that is the *most plausible* explanation.
However, the case against the power of the combination of random mutation and natural selection has now grown to a crescendo pitch, and Darwinists are waving around MN as if it were a diplomatic immunity badge held up by criminal diplomats to get out of any situation where they might be prosecuted.
Neo-Darwinism is not the most plausible explanation for both the origin and diversity of life. An inference to special design is.
Cliff said:
“I believe in the supernatural resurrection of Jesus. (And nothing in methodological naturalism can show me anything about that historical event either pro or con.)”
Me:
Then the atheist will simply point out that you are being inconsistent and say, “God-of-the-gaps,” or more likely, “Goddidit!”
Like or Dislike:
0
This can be a very contraversial issue. I am not as passionate about it as I once was, though my convictions have actually increased.
I am a student in the life sciences at a public land-grant institution of higher learning. In all the biology, microbiology, and molecularbiology classes that I have taken, the support for evolution has always seemed weak. This is especially true in lite of “true science” and the scientific method.
Has the Church compromised? I’ll list some verses and you decide.
Hebrews 11:3
3By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.
Wait? What is seen did not come from what was visible?
Evolution is the development of “new” living creatures from older inferior ones through a slow subtle process of adaptation and mutation.
1 Cor. 15:21-23
21 So you see, just as death came into the world through a man, now the resurrection from the dead has begun through another man. 22 Just as everyone dies because we all belong to Adam, everyone who belongs to Christ will be given new life. 23 But there is an order to this resurrection: Christ was raised as the first of the harvest; then all who belong to Christ will be raised when he comes back.
Wait? Death came because of Adam?! Then how could God use evolution that requries death and destruction of an “inferior” life to allow a superior one to arise? If God used evolution, then cow could he have finished creating and saying it was “good” if it in fact was not and need to evolve to a higher life form?
There are a couple more, but I’m drawing a blank at the moment…
Like or Dislike:
0
Saint, got me thinking!
I have traditionally been one who loosely advocates many of the reasons why methodological naturalism is productive and helpful. However, what if quantum mechanics eventually gives us a “naturalistic” interpretation of the resurrection of Christ? I guess, the next question would be “How plausible is the explanation compared to the traditional Christian explanation that God raised him?”
Would we be obligated to go in the direction of this method, even when it challenges our most fundamental belief? I suppose we would.
However, the possibility that there may someday be a “better” explanation, does not alleviate us of following the evidence as it exists today.
I don’t ever think that there could be a naturalistic explanation of the resurrection any more than I do of the first act of creation.
Like or Dislike:
0
Adam,
“In all the biology, microbiology, and molecular biology classes that I have taken, the support for evolution has always seemed weak. This is especially true in lite of “true science” and the scientific method.”
This has been my experience as well. I have read the best that both sides have to offer. In the end, I don’t really know why so many evangelicals are advocating God guided evolution. I just don’t see it. There are too many elephants in the room for such passionate acceptance.
However, to repeat my original post: I don’t really know.
Like or Dislike:
0
Saint, you are cracking me up!
“Darwinists are waving around MN as if it were a diplomatic immunity badge held up by criminal diplomats to get out of any situation where they might be prosecuted.”
Don’t know if that is true, but very interesting. You are making me think more about this today than I have in a long, long time. Thanks!
Like or Dislike:
0
I still think we all need to answer a fundamental question as to whether or not God is deceiving us all???
Here’s what I mean by this. Even the most hardened YEC advocates will admit that the Earth has the appearance of great age. Many will even admit that there is significant evidence of evolution. So is God deceiving us? Specifically lets take the case of Human Chromosome #2 discussed near the beginning of the discussion. Having no knowledge ahead of time scientists predicted, based on evolutionary biology, that humans would have a chromosome that was a fusion of two chromosomes possessed by the great apes. After sequencing the entire human genome they then went a looked to see if this was the case and BAM!!! it was. There are literally dozens of examples of things like this where evolutionary science has made incredibly accurate predictions about the genetic composition of various species based on common descent.
So here are the two options
1. God is deceiving us. He created the world with the appearance of age and creatures with genetics that can only be described by evolution or a creator INTENTIONALLY trying to deceive his creations into thinking evolution occurred
2. Our interpretation of Genesis is wrong and we must adjust our understanding and theology accordingly. As numerous articles have pointed out evolution creates some difficulties for doctrines like original sin, but as other articles explain they can certainly be overcome without even requiring major changes to our base theology.
Like or Dislike:
0
Saint & Sinner,
“However, the case against the power of the combination of random mutation and natural selection has now grown to a crescendo pitch, and Darwinists are waving around MN as if it were a diplomatic immunity badge held up by criminal diplomats to get out of any situation where they might be prosecuted.
Neo-Darwinism is not the most plausible explanation for both the origin and diversity of life. An inference to special design is.”
Making the blanket statement that “Goddidit” doesn’t really tell us much. Did he do it all the way, or just help it along when it got stuck? Did he do it through fiat creation, or simply by using the laws of nature he put in place to get to where he wants things to be?
You’ve basically said that you know who did it all. And with that I have no disagreement with you at all.
But I’m more curious how this occurred. Saying Goddidit doesn’t answer that kind of question, and since you seem happy to jettison methodological naturalism, I don’t know if you’ll get very far in the “how” side of things anyway.
But, how did God do it and why do you think that?
Dennis Venema,
I’m glad to see you reading and posting here. I really enjoyed your lectures on evolutionary biology over at Gordon Glover’s blog. Very informative, and I thought the different viewpoints were represented fairly by you. I look forward to hearing what you can bring to the discussion here!
Like or Dislike:
0
CMP, I’m curious to hear what you consider “the best from both sides” with respect to evolutionary biology or evolutionary creationism. What have you read on the subject?
The evidence for evolution is very strong. There is no other way to put it, frankly. Why not have a look at that lecture I posted earlier? Then you’ll see what I mean.
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael (Patton),
I have read the best that both sides have to offer. In the end, I don’t really know why so many evangelicals are advocating God guided evolution.
Please don’t think I’m calling you out with the following question:
What have you read from the secular side of things regarding evolution? If it’s just Francis Collins, I’m afraid his book’s a little on the “lite” side of things.
Here are some “heavier” reading suggestions for you, some Christian, some secular. Although the secular authors are typically atheists, it shouldn’t affect your evaluation of the scientific evidence for evolution that they present. Just ignore their occasional digs against the existence of a Creator and you’ll be just fine.
Jerry Coyne, Why Evolution Is True
Richard Dawkins, The Greatest Show on Earth
Neil Shubin, Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body
Daniel J. Fairbanks, Relics of Eden: The Powerful Evidence of Evolution in Human DNA
These books really dig into the science of evolutionary theory and are written at the layman’s level, with the exception of Fairbanks’ book. (Fairbanks, BTW, is Mormon, but it doesn’t show.) Relics of Eden is, in its first several chapters, quite technical and it took me two reads through to grasp the info. Once I did, however, BAM!
Kenneth R. Miller, Finding Darwin’s God: A Scientist’s Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution
Kenneth R. Miller, Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America’s Soul (the sequel to Finding)
Miller is a devout Catholic, and both of these books are outstanding. The first combines both a look at the biological/geological evidence and bridges the gap between science and faith, and the second digs into why the Intelligent Design theory isn’t science.
Like or Dislike:
0
Hi Greg,
Thanks for the comment. I’m glad you found those lectures helpful. I don’t know how much I can contribute here, but I read P&P from time to time, and of course a thread on evolution & Christian faith is bound to get my attention.
Most of what I would say is already in those lectures, as well as the one I linked to in comment 41.
Gordon Glover’s series on Science & Christian Education is also an excellent resource.
Like or Dislike:
0
CMP,
In regard to your comment #68. You spoke of the remote possibility of a naturalistic explanation for Jesus’ resurrection being found by science some time in the future. Then you made this comment: “Would we be obligated to go in the direction of this method, even when it challenges our most fundamental belief? I suppose we would.”
The Bible is full of testimony that God raised up Jesus. What would such a naturalistic explanation do to your faith and your trust in the Bible? And would you actually go with what science said and not what the Blible says in such an instance?
I am asking this because of the very question I asked earlier: How do we know when the Bible is teaching actual fact and when it is only using metaphorical language? Where do we draw the line?
Like or Dislike:
0
CMP,
I seem to recall that some theologians of the time were angry at Isaac Newton when he used gravity to help explain the motions of the planets. Seems they thought since a phenomena could be explained or reliably described, it somehow took glory away from God, or something like that.
This isn’t a problem for me or most Christians I know simply because our God is a pretty big God. He moves the planets by gravity, a law he placed in motion in the first place. Pretty simple, right?
Regarding quantum physics or mechanics and Christ’s resurrection, so what if someday quantum mechanics can describe or explain it. Still doesn’t necessarily mean God didn’t have his hand in it all. It could just be that God built into his creation a set of tools that allows him to do miracles. I don’t see any theological reasons why God can’t manipulate quantum particles by means of quantum mechanics (which if I understand correctly, appear to us as causeless) and produce a miraculous result that is impossible with conventional physics. Might even be impossible with quantum mechanics without the extra “God-jolt” to cycle it up a bit.
The point is I just don’t see science ever completely pushing God out of the equation. There will always be room for the creator to act upon his creation.
Science will just never be bigger than my God. It may force me to think a little harder, but that’s to be expected when I’m thinking about God!
Like or Dislike:
0
It is absolutely imperative to distinguish between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism.
All MN does is a study of the purely natural and is the best method of discovering natural explanations for seemingly natural events. It makes no statement whatsoever about whether every event IS natural or whether there is ONLY the natural.
Philosophical naturalism is where the problem lies: the belief that only the natural exists.
Science is, and should be, merely the search for natural explanations for events. Science is not the arbiter of all truth, it is a tool to observe the natural and explain the natural as best it can. It is not equipped to delve into anything supernatural and should not be asked to consider potential supernatural causes.
Now, this means that when a supernatural event takes place, science can not say anything about it. It could never confirm or deny. MN does not say that Christ could not have been raised from the dead. It can only say that, in the natural course of events, science’s best understanding of how things work is that this is not possible *in the natural*. Period. Philosophical naturalism goes further and says that it is impossible BECAUSE it is not possible naturally.
What we need to do is leave science to the job of providing the best natural explanations it can regarding how the world works, and methodological naturalism is the best means of doing that. Really, it is the only reliable means of doing that.
Then, in our search for TRUTH, we can take what science has to say, the best naturalistic explanation, but not be bound to it when there is sufficient evidence to believe that something supernatural happened.
To require that science somehow transcend its pedestrian task of studying the natural and take into consideration ALL potential options is to make science the arbiter of all truth rather than just a mere tool for discovering how God’s natural world works when He is NOT doing something outside of the natural. And, on top of that, science simply wouldn’t work if you did that.
Like or Dislike:
0
Jerry Coyne, Why Evolution Is True, and Richard Dawkins, The Greatest Show on Earth, have to be among the two most unimpressive books on evolution going. There are better books. In particular, Coyne couldn’t think his way out of an intellectual wet paper bag.
But, before being taken in by the ideological indoctrination pseudoscience masquerading as truth, read the far more wittily written: The Deniable Darwin, by David Berlinski.
regards,
#John
Like or Dislike:
0
Dennis, I appreciate your coming here, as a scientist but many scientists disagree with your interpretation of the evidence. Judging by that video you appear to regard “junk DNA” as evidence for common ancestral link between humans and primates. However, as we learn more about things such as pseudogenes we find that many of them do not match Darwinism’s predictions about them;
http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2009/10/stephen-matheson-taking-trash-about.html
http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2009/05/evolutions-circular-reasoning-and.html
http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2009/05/what-journalists-need-to-know-about.html
Someone tried to pull this pseudogene argument on Greg Koukl the other day, regarding vitamin C, and he pointed out that Stephen Meyer had addressed much of this during his conversation on the show a few weaks earlier. Meyer explained that we are now learning that DNA is not destinate, and there is a lot more to what is going on than just looking at genomes would tell us. So pointing out similarities between humans and chimps is not the ‘compelling’ evidence it was once claimed to be. There is much, much more going on.
Even if we were to somehow overcome these problems and accept common relationships between humans and animals, there are still the deep problems as to how the Darwinian mechanisms are capable of producing all the life forms we see. We are supposed to believe that genetic mutations coupled with some sort of sifting process was capable of forming all the body plans and diversity we observe. Yet the evidence for this is almost nil, mutations that lead to new morphological features and structures are nowhere to be seen. All we observe is variations in existing structures; longer beaks, different colour hair, etc. Even examples that are cited as ‘beneficial’ are usually bacterial resistance which leads to a loss of genetic information, and certainly not changes that could turn molecules into men – no matter how much time is available.
As esteemed Cornell geneticst, inventor of the gene gun, and former evolutionist John Sanford explains in Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome, it is not just the lack of beneficial mutations that is the important matter, it is the nearly neutral mutations that evolution is to ‘ ‘see’ and so unable to select against and which would acccumulate and lead to complete break down in the genetic code within relatively few generations. The genome shows clear sign of deterioration, as the 2nd law states, and ‘devolution’, but no improvement as Darwinism requires.
Like or Dislike:
0
Greg,
I guess what you say sounds reasonable, but I do have some trouble with this: “There will always be room for the creator to act upon his creation.”
I not sure that it is “room” that the creator is opting for, but necessity.
Like or Dislike:
0
Saint and Sinner,
Re. Methodological Naturalism. Good responses.
Methodological naturalism is a term that is used in a variety of ways, one of which is roughly the equivalent of the western scientific method. I was using the term in that way.
I do not claim that all of mankind accepted flat-earth, or geocentrism, or other superstitions. Yes, I am aware of the falsities perpetrated by the New Athiests. But it remains that the history of science has debunked many gaps in our knowledge which were attributed to “the gods” by many ancients, and surely you know this.
You write, “There’s nothing wrong with that IF that is the *most plausible* explanation.”
How do we determine that? The more we learn about DNA, the more plausible Darwinism becomes. But I will agree with you that it still seems unlikely on some levels. But how do we know unless we exhaust the possibilities of natural explanations?
I do agree with you that secularists are often arrogant in their assertions that the material world is all there is, and MN is the only way to understand it.
You write, “Neo-Darwinism is not the most plausible explanation for both the origin and diversity of life.”
You must surely know that Darwinism, neo or otherwise, does not propose any explanation for the origin of life. And even ID people like Behe acknowledge that evolution is the best explanation for life’s diversity. Evolution might well have been “front-loaded” (ala Denton and Mike Gene). It’s course may have been predictable by a Creator (ala Simon Conway-Morris). God may have superintended the process. But science is limited it what it can say about those possibilities. And science has not alternative but to search for natural causes until they have exhausted all possibilities. It is in this regard that the naturalistic approach of science serves us so well.
But of course I agree with you. It may not find all the answers, because it can tell us nothing of divine providence.
You write, “ Then the atheist will simply point out that you are being inconsistent and say, ‘God-of-the-gaps’…”
Yes, you are correct. This is exactly how the typical atheist responds. But I didn’t write what I did to an atheist, but to you. So, more to the point, do you see some inconsistency in what I wrote about my belief both in natural evolution and the resurrection of Christ?
Like or Dislike:
0
As a marine ecologist, I use evolutionary theory to try to figure out what’s happening in our oceans right now. I really feel that my calling in life is towards stewardship of creation, and conservation, and evolution science is the best tool to help me acheive that. Although I don’t think I know exactly how the universe came to be, I beleive that Genesis is 100% true, just in a way we don’t understand yet. As a scientist, I know that the current state of knowledge is not set in stone, and is constantly in revision. I don’t think that it’s the absolute truth, but it’s the best theory we can come up with with the informaiton we have.
Working in a field that’s dominated by atheists, I really have a heart for my colleagues. I do my best to show Christ’s love. That’s the important part. Statements like MacArthur’s do nothing but re-enforce non-christians beleif that to seek Jesus, they must give up intellectual integrity. I have a few friends who are YEC, or IDers, and while I respect their opinions, and think that if they really do see a conflict between the science and the scriptures, then they’ve taken the right stance for them. But, I do not approve of “evangelical creationism.” Taking your own sense of conflict between science and faith, and casting it onto non-christians, who -not yet knowing Jesus- do hold science with higher regard, causes them to turn away from faith.
I do see that evolution is a rational escape for the existance of the universe without a creator. But that should be a challenge to Christians to win people over to Christ through love, and spiritual truth. Denying that there is another option for understanding the world can only backfire to those non-beleivers who hold an evolutionary viewpoint.
Like or Dislike:
0
Mike, I have a small library of only secular scholars on the issue of evolution as well as one that are Christians. And then I have an even bigger library YEC!! Like I said earlier, it is simply too difficult, and too many holes in every theory, philosophical (which most people don’t add into their presumptive equation, theological (enormous), and scientific (you know what I mean) that should give us all a good dose of humility in this area.
Like or Dislike:
0
Re post 71 and similar posts about the great predictions of evolution, “There are literally dozens of examples of things like this where evolutionary science has made incredibly accurate predictions about the genetic composition of various species based on common descent.”
Yeah, like predictions that there would be vestigial and useless organs like the appendix. Except that it isn’t and there aren’t.
Or that there would be lots of junk DNA, except that there isn’t.
Or that its RNA that’s junk, except now it isn’t.
Or that there would be lots of gradual transitional fossils, except there aren’t any.
Or that ontogeny would recapitulate philogeny, except it doesn’t.
Or that bacteria is an evolutionary step, except that they aren’t and bacteria don’t evolve.
Or that we could construct a tree of life representing common descent, except that now it’s admitted that we can’t.
Or that we descended from apes, except now it’s thought that apes descended from us.
etc., etc. The theory of evolution is a pretty useless predictor, but it’s a great source of post hoc “just so” stories and fables. The world has a greater chance of ending according to the Mayan calendar than evolution does of being true.
Oh yeah, and what about that fused chromosome? Well, just a touch of logical thought (not too much though, I wouldn’t want any brain cells to burst) would serve to reveal that it proves nothing, nada, zero about ancestry. It is entirely feasible, and perfectly explanatory, that ancient humans did not have a fused chromosome, and that a mutation in the humans fused it, and that the fused chromosome spread among all humans. No need for an ape at all. And besides, with Ardi now, apes come from humans, so the fused chromosome can’t be demonstrative of descent from apes. I expect another “just so” story to pop up any day now.
regards,
#John
Like or Dislike:
0
Dennis, I am sure that it is strong, in your opinion and from the commitments that your approach demands. I will have to decline at this point being able to see what you have posted. Not because I don’t think it is valuable, but because, as you must understand, I have piles of books and links to read and that have been read that make the same claims. In the end, I normally become more suspenseful in my judgment!!
Like or Dislike:
0
BTW: I really appreciate that no one has damned another to hell for their views here or assigned them to the pit of academic irrelevance.
No ad homs here! Keep it up.
(Especially since it will not be able to monitor this post so closely from here on)
Like or Dislike:
0
Greg said:
“But I’m more curious how this occurred. Saying Goddidit doesn’t answer that kind of question, and since you seem happy to jettison methodological naturalism, I don’t know if you’ll get very far in the “how” side of things anyway.”
Me:
Please read my remark more carefully. I was actually giving the atheist response to the claim that He [i.e. God] did it at all!
Taking it to its logical conclusion, the atheist, when confronted with the claim of the Resurrection, will simply use methodological naturalism to dismiss the Resurrection as a superstitious fable altogether.
In other words, they will accuse the Christian that is making that claim of using God-of-the-gaps reasoning.
However, I reject MN as being arbitrary because it excludes a design inference. It eliminates the possibility that natural laws are insufficient explanations in some cases. No sentient agents allowed!
The premise of the rejection of the (so-called) God-of-the-gaps (GOTG) reasoning is that GOTG is an argument from silence. However, arguments from silence are not formal fallacies which means that they are not always fallacies. [Thus they can be informal fallacies if they are fallacies at all.]
Some silences are ‘deafening’.
To quote Dembski and Wells (and I’m not citing them as authorities but for their substantive argument):
“But when in times past people invoked the action of an intelligence to explain eclipses or the motion of planets, it was in ignorance of the relevant astronomical facts underlying these phenomena. We find ourselves in a radically different situation with regard to life’s origin: by knowing the relevant facts of biochemistry and molecular biology, we are in a position to assess how difficult it is for the chemical building blocks of life to arise and then arrange themselves into the information-rich structures required for cellular life. So long as design hypotheses are based on knowledge rather than ignorance, they are scientifically legitimate.”
-Dembski and Wells, The Design of Life, p.255.
Like or Dislike:
0
Hi James,
The point about human/primate comparative genomics is that it provides multiple lines of evidence that all converge on the same conclusion.
Those that object to this evidence are typically not qualified to deal with it at a professional level: Meyer for example. I will be reviewing Meyer’s new book in the near future.
This is an easy topic to mislead Christians on if one is so inclined: the vast majority of Christians are (a) intensely desirous that the evidence be incorrect, and (b) no where near qualified to debunk the misleading arguments they eagerly wish to believe.
Hi John,
Please don’t take this as harsh, but all you’ve shown is that you don’t really understand evolutionary biology. You seem to be basing your thoughts on a misunderstanding of popular articles (news articles, perhaps). There was a post up-thread where several books were mentioned. They should be of some help – or, if you prefer online materials, some of my lectures might help get you started.
Dennis
Like or Dislike:
0
Moara said:
“As a marine ecologist, I use evolutionary theory to try to figure out what’s happening in our oceans right now. I really feel that my calling in life is towards stewardship of creation, and conservation, and evolution science is the best tool to help me acheive that.”
Me:
I respect your opinion that you posted here, but I must disagree.
You are confounding a theory’s teleological value (i.e. usefulness) with its alethic value (i.e. truthfulness). A theory can be useful without being true.
For example, many civilizations in the ancient world were able to predict the position of stars and planets to an extraordinary degree.
What you may not have known is that these predictions were based on ***Geocentric*** models of the solar-system.
Like or Dislike:
0
#John1453
What?
• “Or that there would be lots of gradual transitional fossils, except there aren’t any.”
What newspaper do you read? New transitional fossils are being found constantly! Here is a Wikepedia partial list of transitional fossils. Due of the rarity of conditions required for fossils, we do know that we will never find every “missing link”. But so far, we have found hundreds!
• “Or that ontogeny would recapitulate philogeny, except it doesn’t.”
Of course not! Most evolutionists abandoned recapitulation theory decades ago. Science has been a story of theories abandoned. That is the nature of scientific progress.
• “Or that we could construct a tree of life representing common descent, except that now it’s admitted that we can’t.”
Admitted by whom? This is news to me. Rather, even the most devout evolutionists are astonished by how well the tree we now construct from DNA resembles the tree Darwin drew without the benefit of DNA. Talk about accurate predictive power!
• “Or that we descended from apes, except now it’s thought that apes descended from us.”
No! You are probably referring to the most recent fossil discovery of an early primate transitional form (which you claim don’t exist??) which is believed to be the ancestor of apes and humans.
Like or Dislike:
0
Re #John1453′s list of failed predictions, I think these should be added.
That fossils would emerge demonstrating the gradual evolution of Cambrian organisms, except they are still nowhere to be seen. Essentially all modern phyla spring into existence with no known precursors. Included in this are organisms such as trilobites with some of the most complex eyes known, and other advanced creatures that have no obvious predecessors anywhere.
That the genetic code is universal, except it isnt.
That phylogenies built on different genes would produce the same tree, except they don’t.
That we would find a solution to the origin of life problem, except we haven’t and none appears to be on the horizon. If anything the problem is getting worse.
That cellular life would be simple as Darwin thought, except it isn’t. It is an interconnected series of molecular machines all prefectly interacting and combining in ways that we can’t even begin to understand.
That there would be a unique nested hiearchy of life, except there isn’t. As New Scientist explained the tree of life breaks down and to explain this away evolutionists have to invent some story about ‘horizontal gene flow’. Moreover, elsewhere we find violations and contradictions in this supposed nested hiearchy, and these problems are again explained away by ‘convergent evolution’.
Like or Dislike:
0
Saint and Sinner writes …
“For example, many civilizations in the ancient world were able to predict the position of stars and planets to an extraordinary degree. What you may not have known is that these predictions were based on ***Geocentric*** models of the solar-system.”
It was not Geocentricity that led to their predictive success, rather it was the application of pure geometry. Geocentricity, as you know, had to be convoluted in numerous ways to account for the movement of the stars and planets. In other words, rather than Geocentricity giving them insight into the movement of heavenly bodies, physical observation and geometry compelled then to contort their Geocentricity almost beyond recognition.
Like or Dislike:
0
Listened to Venema’s lecture, and was quite unimpressed. A series of just so stories, assumptions based on unobserved processes, processes or observations that have or could have alternate explanations, and projections of his western based pyscyhology on what God should have or would have done had He actually created things rather than using evolution. The most that could be said about his presentation is that what he suggests and theorizes would be consistent with evolution, but not that they necessitate evolution as the only tenable explanation. The fact that some data is consistent with a particular explanation, does not mean that that the explanation is true (geocentrism or flat earth anyone?).
I’m with the skeptics on this one and Venema’s smug intellectual snobbery doesn’t convince me, nor should it bother anyone else. Woo hoo! if only I had a PhD in cell biology just like him then I would see the light and fall in line behind Darwin! I’m so glad to have been shown the error of my ways in such a smashingly condescending way that leaves me mentally exhausted and without any adequate response. I shall forthwith give up my beliefs in phlogistan, phrenology and a steady state universe. So long have I been in darkness, that I wail and gnash my teeth at my wasted years.
One doesn’t have to understand all of cell biology to be able to see the points where the theory of evolution fails. I regularly eat PhDs for lunch in my trial practice, regardless of the number of PhD’s or publications they have. That is to say, I’m never convinced of anything just because a PhD states it, regardless of the side that they are on.
That fact that I am extremely skeptical of evolution, does not, however, mean that it is wrong for Christians to believe in evolution or to pursue a career in that area. A belief in evolution, though it does provide sufficient grounds for atheism, does not necessitate atheism.
regards,
#John
Like or Dislike:
0
Cliff said:
“But it remains that the history of science has debunked many gaps in our knowledge which were attributed to “the gods” by many ancients, and surely you know this.”
Me:
There are a few cases of this, but to cast that upon even paganism in general is to fundamentally misunderstand the nature and claims of pagan mythology.
Cliff said:
“How do we determine that? The more we learn about DNA, the more plausible Darwinism becomes. But I will agree with you that it still seems unlikely on some levels. But how do we know unless we exhaust the possibilities of natural explanations?”
Me:
I would deny that the more we know about DNA, the more likely Darwinism becomes. In fact, I believe that it is just the opposite.
Cliff said:
“Yes, you are correct. This is exactly how the typical atheist responds. But I didn’t write what I did to an atheist, but to you. So, more to the point, do you see some inconsistency in what I wrote about my belief both in natural evolution and the resurrection of Christ?”
Me:
Cliff,
I never said that someone couldn’t believe that. I am saying that it is still inconsistent.
If you’re going to eliminate the possibility of the special creation of life on the basis of methodological naturalism, then you should eliminate the claim of the Resurrection of Jesus on the same basis.
Theistic evolution is an unstable middle ground, and all too often, those in it become either atheists or heretics.
Kenneth Miller was mentioned earlier as a Darwinist who is a Christian. What was not mentioned was that he is also a Process Theist and recently denied the historicity of the Virgin Birth.
Dobzhansky is another “Christian” Darwinist. What is rarely mentioned is that he was a Theosophist.
Cliff said:
“But science is limited it what it can say about those possibilities. And science has not alternative but to search for natural causes until they have exhausted all possibilities. It is in this regard that the naturalistic approach of science serves us so well.”
Me:
Why? Why do you eliminate a design inference from the list of possibilities from the outset?
Should we disregard the supernatural claims of the Resurrection on the basis that we have not exhausted the list of naturalistic possibilities?
Like or Dislike:
0
John, even if the said lecures do have such a tone, let us not respond in kind here.
Like or Dislike:
0
Cliff said:
“It was not Geocentricity that led to their predictive success, rather it was the application of pure geometry.”
Me:
Yes. Nevertheless, those cultures still believed in geocentrism along with it.
My point is that simply because a theory can predict something and that prediction turns out to be true doesn’t mean that the theory is true.
Such would be to commit the formal fallacy of affirming the consequent:
If A is true –> B is true.
B is true.
.: A is true.
That is a fallacy.
My point was that Moara’s use of neo-Darwinism to help her do her work does not prove that Darwinism is true since other theories can account for the evidence just as well as (if not better than) neo-Darwinism.
Like or Dislike:
0
Please note that I said, “gradual transitional fossils”. Note the word “gradual”. Furthermore, morphological similarity does not necessitate the explanation of either (a) common descent, or (b) linear genetic relationship. While such theories might be consistent with the evidence of similar morphology, they are not necessitated by it.
Note also that I was talking about failed predictions (usually the sort of thing that indicates problems in a theory, but I digress). Hence the failed prediction of ontogeny/philogeny does constitute a blow against evolution (well, in so far as anything could constitute a blow that comes up with just so stories faster than I can tell the one about how the elephant got its long nose).
Even the Guardian (national British newspaper) printed stories on the failed tree of life. For those who can’t to get out more and buy some newspapers, here’s a link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/jan/21/charles-darwin-evolution-species-tree-life
The article, from way back in January, was titled, “Evolution: Charles Darwin was wrong about the tree of life”. And, as James writes, it also appeared in places like New Scientist.
My favourite just so stories, though, are the origin of life ones. And there are so many that it’s hard to choose just one as a favourite.
regards,
#John
Like or Dislike:
0
CMP, Venema’s lectures were straight forward lectures, and had no snobby tone about them at all.
The comment I was mocking was his comment that I obviously don’t understand biology. That kind of intellectual snobbery should be held up and made fun of. And note that it was the snobbery I made fun of, not him personally. I’m sure he’s a fine professor; his lecture was certainly perspicacious, even if I disagreed with the conclusions that he draws from it. Moreover, I ended my comment by affirming that he and other evolutionists can validly hold their beliefs and remain Christians.
regards,
#John
Like or Dislike:
0
John, thanks for the explanation. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Like or Dislike:
0
Saint and Sinner:
“You are confounding a theory’s teleological value (i.e. usefulness) with its alethic value (i.e. truthfulness). A theory can be useful without being true.
For example, many civilizations in the ancient world were able to predict the position of stars and planets to an extraordinary degree.
What you may not have known is that these predictions were based on ***Geocentric*** models of the solar-system.”
Me (Moara):
No, I’m not confusing evolution’s truthfulness with it’s usefulness. I’m saying its truthfulness is less important to me than it’s usefulness.
Just about every scientific theory held throughout history has been discounted or seriously revised in the present. For we scientists to beleive that our current theories are 100% accurate would be hubris. But, we know that what we have now, is our best approximation of reality, and with that, we move forward, constantly revising when new information is presented.
==================
Cliff said:
“But science is limited it what it can say about those possibilities. And science has not alternative but to search for natural causes until they have exhausted all possibilities. It is in this regard that the naturalistic approach of science serves us so well.”
Saint and Sinner:
“Why? Why do you eliminate a design inference from the list of possibilities from the outset?
Should we disregard the supernatural claims of the Resurrection on the basis that we have not exhausted the list of naturalistic possibilities?”
Me (Moara):
I actually ran across this concept in geography, not with evolution, but it still applies (especially since that it where most of the evidence for an old earth comes from, not from evolution).
The aproach we take to explaining historical natural events is to assume that the way things happen now is the way things have always happened. It assumes that if we can understand the current natural laws, we can backcast onto evidence from the past, and try to come up with an explanation. If you don’t take this approach, then there is no end to the number of theories that are possible.
This does not say that the supernatural does not exist, only that it it is outside the domain of science to explain.
Like or Dislike:
0
John, my comment was that you don’t understand evolutionary biology. Even Cliff (Hi Cliff!) who also, if I have his identity correct, is not a biologist by training, understands where you have interpreted things incorrectly. I wasn’t trying to be rude, and online fora are not a good place to convey tone.
You mentioned a few times that you think the genomics evidence is compatible with other views of creation – care to share which ones you have in mind?
Dennis
Like or Dislike:
0
There is a veritable smorgasbord of failed predictions – http://www.darwinspredictions.com/ , erroneous conjecturing, just so stories, and outright fraud (you mentioned Haeckel, might I add Piltdown man, Nebraska man, archaeoraptor, and the recent Ida find which we are now learning is not what it was claimed to be – what a surprise!!!) that pervades the history of darwinism.
Yes, there is some section of data that can be construed in such a way as to fit with some vague idea that some species are somehow related, but there is ultimately no mechanism or any real idea of how we get from A to B, never mind from A to Z, from a planet devoid of life to one replete with it in all conceivable shapes and forms.
There is just as much data, if not more, that makes no sense in an evolutionist’s world and which would certainly not exist if darwinism or something like it were an accurate description of reality. We find it leads us down various blind alleys, and dead ends, offering little explanatory power.
Chimps and humans share similarities, what a surprise? Darwinism must be true.
There are no pre-Cambrian rabbits. Darwinism must be true.
We see bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics. Darwinism must be true.
Life we are led to believe only ‘looks’ designed, but Dawkins assures us that it is only an ‘illusion of design’. Ah… now I understand, I have seen the light.
There’s an old saying, about something that “walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck” but I’m sure it is only the illusion of a duck.
Like or Dislike:
0
“If you’re going to eliminate the possibility of the special creation of life on the basis of methodological naturalism …”
I do not.
“Why do you eliminate a design inference from the list of possibilities from the outset?”
I do not. Actually, I am interested by the work of Mike Gene, and the work Conway-Morris is doing in the area of convergent evolution. I’m not sure that either of these theories can be verified scientifically. In science we are limited to testable, verifiable, and falsifiable hypotheses. These we explore using methodological naturalism. I do not presuppose philosophical naturalism. And hence, I believe that methodological naturalism will inevitably hit up against walls it cannot penetrate, (abiogenesis being a possible candidate!). But I do not see any other way to progress scientifically except to turn every stone looking for every natural explanation which may exist.
“Should we disregard the supernatural claims of the Resurrection on the basis that we have not exhausted the list of naturalistic possibilities?”
Absolutely not! Neither should be disregard the possibility of supernatural assembly of the original chain of DNA. But that ought not stop science from pursuing a natural mechanism for abiogenesis.
My point about Geocentricity is that it did not provide a framework for predicting planetary movement. Planetary movement created difficulties for Geocentricity which were resolved through various convoluted add-on theories. Alone, it did not predict planetary movement.
Geocentricity’s “framework” for predicting planetary movements is hardly analogous to the way evolution informs biology and medicine, and creates a meaningful framework for paleontology.
Like or Dislike:
0
The original post is about the supposed lie of evolution, and whether Christians who believe in evolution compromise their faith. My initial post was that it isn’t and they don’t. The thread seems to have veered off that path and into a discussion of whether evolution is true. MacArthur rolls up all possible Christian understandings of evolution into the simple conclusion of “it’s provably false”. In his 1999 article he writes, “Now if you accept an evolutionary view, you then go against your reason, which is a faculty that God has given you. It’s part of personhood. And more importantly, you violate revelation, because God has clearly indicated that He Himself created the world.”
regards,
#John
Like or Dislike:
0
#John1453
Thank you for the link to the Guardian article about the tree of life. The article never even hints at the possibility that a confused tree of life would mitigate against evolution. Clearly, the “tree concept” may require adjustments, perhaps significant adjustments. And once we understand and make those adjustments, look for the predictive power of evolution to be even more accurate.
As Moara has pointed out, the history of science is all about falsifying theories, adjusting theories, and replacing theories. We are in the midst of a continuing search for deeper understanding of the history of life. The tree of life problems amount to nothing more than a speed bump along the way. One that is fascinating for evolutionary scientists, I’m sure. But hardly one that moves them outside of the basic framework of evolution.
Like or Dislike:
0
Here’s a follow-up question.
Has MacArthur compromised his faith because the believes that the earth goes around the sun? What’s with his reinterpreting of the Bible to be consistent with science? And following Copernicus of all people! Doesn’t MacArthur know that Copernicus was a papist?! (The fact that RC was the only game in town is no excuse). Tut Tut John, you really are the pot calling the kettle black. If God doesn’t actually make everything revolve around the earth, then the story of the sun standing still in Joshua is false, the entire Bible is thus false, Jesus never existed and I’m a monkey’s uncle (and a monkey, too, of course).
The question becomes, I suppose, how certain do we have to be about science, or any other area of knowledge, before we let it inform our interpretation of the Bible. Even more basic is the question of why we should hold so firmly to certain interpretations of the Bible in the first place, since those interpretations are only based on fallible knowledge.
As to understanding evolutionary biology (I think it’s pretty clear what I was referring to), the fact that I am skeptical, or that I come to different conclusions when looking at the same evidence, does not entail that I don’t understand evolutionary biology (note the word “entail”). Moreover, the failed predictions are, and remain, failed predictions in and of themselves and so reveal nothing about the level of my understanding of evolutionary biology.
Regards,
#John
Like or Dislike:
0
#John,
I agree! I have skepticism about Darwinism (which may not be apparent here) also. Maybe yours run deeper. But I appreciate your perspective on the troubling questions about how and when science should adjust our understanding of the Bible. And yes, the jury is out on Darwinism, and may stay out indefinitely in some respects.
Like or Dislike:
0
Correcting misconceptions in #84…
“Yeah, like predictions that there would be vestigial and useless organs like the appendix. Except that it isn’t and there aren’t.”
* Vestigial doesn’t mean useless. The function can be reduced, eliminated, or even changed – as in the case of the penguin’s ‘wings’. Other examples include embedded hind limb bones in whales and some snakes, eyes of blind cave fish, the left lung in most snakes, human goose bumps, etc.
“Or that there would be lots of junk DNA, except that there isn’t.”
* Protein coding regions make up ~5% of our DNA. Their exist other functions in the other ~95% (like regulation, positioning identifiers) but much of that 95% is thought to have no function, 10% or so of our DNA is retrotransposons from viruses.
“Or that its RNA that’s junk, except now it isn’t.
* No, since its discovery, RNA has always been seen as vital to protein expression.
“Or that there would be lots of gradual transitional fossils, except there aren’t any.”
* No, we don’t have a continuous record of evolutionary change in the fossil record (nor should we expect it statistically), but, there are numerous examples of fossil species that show transitional features – some of the best examples are in the human lineage.
“Or that ontogeny would recapitulate philogeny, except it doesn’t.”
* This is a long discredited theory. Current evolutionary understanding doesn’t follow this idea at all. Science is self correcting and discards ideas that don’t fit the evidence.
“Or that bacteria is an evolutionary step, except that they aren’t and bacteria don’t evolve.”
* Richard Lenski’s microbiology lab recently reported on clear evolution in metabolic capabilities of e.coli over 20 years.
“Or that we could construct a tree of life representing common descent, except that now it’s admitted that we can’t.”
* Scientist have shown that Lateral Gene Transfer can be an important method of speciation in single cellular life. There is no true trunk to the tree (rather like an interweaving vine), but, none of these scientist disbelieve evolution or are discounting the role of natural selection in single or multicellular life.
“Or that we descended from apes, except now it’s thought that apes descended from us.
* Neither did humans descended from ‘apes’, nor apes descend from humans. Humans and ‘apes’ descended from a common ancestor.
“etc., etc. The theory of evolution is a pretty useless predictor, but it’s a great source of post hoc “just so” stories and fables. The world has a greater chance of ending according to the Mayan calendar than evolution does of being true.”
*One ex. of a succesful predicition is the descovery of Tiktallik – a transitional species between fish and amphibian. Shubin used geology and biology to predict where to look for a fish-amphibian transitional fossil and after several summer expeditions in northern Canada is team…
Like or Dislike:
0
Dennis: Your little “Theistic Evolution” talk is an epic fail, because you completely fail to tell us why the information given is better explained by evolution than by creation.
Let me give you an analogy. As a computer programmer, I release a number of programs with quite different functionality. However they all share 90% of common code, because I have an affinity for various libraries and patterns and common code. When I make a new program, it shares much with old programs, and it tends to share more with recent programs I designed than with older programs. Furthermore, they all contain the equivalent of junk DNA. They all contain code that once did something in an earlier program, but now doesn’t in a later program. They share the same code that is non functional in later programs, because I share codes between programs as a designer who uses his work in multiple places. In fact programs contain the common code of earlier programs that have nothing to do with their function, because I bound them into a library that I share between a number of programs. In fact all my later programs tend to inherit a lot of functionality that is “junk” in some programs that my earlier ones didn’t have because the core of my common design expands in later iterations. If I’ve designed an “egg” library, I’ll use it in all my programs, whether or not a particular program needs the “yolk” subsystem.
What you describe is PRECISELY what I would expect to see if life was designed by a designer. So why do you choose to believe the naturalistic explanation? It sounds like you are only willing to consider what is probable IF we assume naturalistic explanations. But this assumption destroys not only creationism, but theistic evolution as well. If the explanation of why things are how they are is evolutionary probability only, then God is completely out of the picture, and functionally there is no God. You failed in your attempt to meld religion and evolution.
Like or Dislike:
0
John,
I understand how a computer programmer might just decide its easier to leave in old non-functional code. It might require more effort than its worth to extract such code. The result is a somewhat haphazard, albeit functional code. But are you suggesting that a Creator would use the same approach? Too much trouble to extract the needless DNA, so He would just let it ride.
Maybe this is the result you would expect from an almighty, omniscient Creator. Seems a little sloppy to me.
On the other hand, if the Creator allowed evolutionary processes to run their random course, if mutations were allowed to compound randomly, then the DNA we observe is exactly what I would expect.
Like or Dislike:
0
Cliff, I could write the “perfect” egg library, and nobody would accuse me of sloppiness for using it in a program that doesn’t require the yolk.
Now look at Genesis. Was God being lazy in making woman from Adam’s rib? Why not start from scratch? The whole rib extraction thing seems superfluous for an infinite God, right?
If I wanted to make it look like life was designed, why not make it like a human designer would do it, since he wants to make man in his image? The mark of design is what a human would do, not what we think some imaginary being ought to do.
These complaints are no different to many others. Why isn’t such and such a thing in the world not “perfect”, according to some arbitrary and fabricated notion of perfection that we foist upon God?
Like or Dislike:
0
And I might add Cliff, that if God “let it ride” in theistic evolution, isn’t God’s theistic evolutionary plans and methods rather imperfect? This argument cuts against ALL theistic views.
Like or Dislike:
0
One of the most important questions that no one is discussing concerns their interpretation of Genesis.
Face it, the only REAL reason anyone here actually cares about a field of science like evolutionary biology is because of the supposed conflict between what it proposes and what Genesis is assumed to say.
All Christians in their opposition start out with Genesis. That is the springboard of all Christian skepticism regarding evolutionary biology. It is the foundation of their disbelief. Christians try to dismantle evolution so they don’t have to consider it because they think it contradicts scripture in some way. Seriously, unless you are a scientist elbow-deep in this stuff, you have absolutely no stake in the matter at all. Is there any other scientific field you aren’t involved in that you passionately argue against on the internet for hours on end?
Any Christian that opposes evolutionary or geological science does so because of some perceived theological problem the conclusions cast on scripture. My question to everyone here would be, What if your interpretation is wrong? What if your entire justification for opposing this science is based on a casual misreading?
What if the creation account really is written to a nation of ancient Israelites and not modern Americans? What if it really uses the ancient science they believed, but which we now consider false? What if it used certain literary conventions that were common to that time period and culture, but which we’ve since forgotten? What if the seven day structure in Genesis 1 is a guide for ceremonial purposes and actually says nothing about how long it took to create the universe? What if, when we think of what it means for God to create, we think of something different from what an Israelite would? What if God created time on Day 1, and not light?
And I could go on and on. Even if only one of these questions is true, it drastically changes how Genesis 1 is interpreted and understood.
I want to challenge everyone’s motivations here and ask you to question your assumptions about the chapter. Don’t look at it through modern eyes, but through ancient eyes. Ask ancient questions about what it means, not modern ones. If you don’t know those questions, do some homework and figure them out. The meaning isn’t found in modern science, nor does modern science have anything to gain from Genesis 1.
To Be Continued…
Like or Dislike:
0
Continued…
Finally, I have no issue with evolutionary biology for two reasons: The first being since I do not think Genesis has any stake in the origins debate, none of my theology depends on it. I don’t have to prove science right or wrong or misinterpreted or too theistic or too atheistic. Science could support evolution with fantastic and convincing evidence, or the theory could be replaced by something better next month and I wouldn’t bat an eye. The second being since I have no stake in the matter, I’m very comfortable relying on the field’s experts to figure it all out and relay that information to me. You know, the same reason why you don’t question the meteorologist, neonatologist, or astronomist when they make this or that scientific pronouncement. You have no theological doctrine intricately invested in these three fields, even though the Bible makes the same sort of pronouncements over these that it does over origins.
I challenge you to separate the intent of Genesis 1 from that of the modern origins debate. Not because they populate two distinct fields that shouldn’t overlap. In some areas they do, but in the areas where overlap occurs, its across 30 centuries of science and theology.
Trying to reconcile the two is an exercise in futility.
Like or Dislike:
0
John1453,
I don’t know if he’d be up for it, but I’d really like to see you and Dennis get into the nitty-gritty details of evolutionary biology. Maybe, other than simply dismissing his lectures or making broad assertions, you can interact with what he’s saying. I think we’d all benefit from a discussion like that from two qualified individuals.
Like or Dislike:
0
One of the reasons that I have a perpetual aversion to commitment in this area (or relative trust in what people think) is the ever changing nature of science and propositions. I just saw this: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/biology_evolution/article6884359.ece
As one person put it, “the history of science is the history of bad ideas.” I am just too postmodern.
Love theories. Fascinated by new ideas. Think we need to keep them coming. But loosen up on our commitments when the conclusions have to do with subjects that are beyond the ability of the evidence to concede and when there is so much baggage tied to it.
Like or Dislike:
0
Yep, Michael, I am firmly in agreement with you there. We can go back and forth ad infinitum, but no one can know for sure what it all looked like back in the beginning. I do know one thing for sure: God started it all, and he is still in charge of the show. That’s good enough for this simple mind.
Like or Dislike:
0
“Face it, the only REAL reason anyone here actually cares about a field of science like evolutionary biology is because of the supposed conflict between what it proposes and what Genesis is assumed to say.”
It’s not just Genesis and ancient Hebrew, its the New Testament too, but it also goes to theism in general. The Muslims are no happier about evolution than we are.
Like or Dislike:
0
Sorry everyone. I had chores to get done today.
One final comment:
If you want to see what happens when you take methodological naturalism and apply it to history in the same way as biology, then read James F. McGrath’s book on the Resurrection.
Here’s the blurb on the back:
“In The Burial of Jesus: History and Faith, Dr. James F. McGrath seeks to introduce a general audience to the methods historians apply to the study of the life of Jesus. Topics addressed include: how historical study work (and why historians regularly explore possibilities that religious believers find shocking); why Jesus’ disciples would have wanted to steal his body from the tomb; why later Gospel authors changed elements in Mark’s earlier version; and why Christian faith in the resurrection cannot be about what happened to a body almost 2,000 years ago.”
The methodological naturalism in the science of biology that is used to attack ID is the same methodological naturalism in the science of history that is used to attack the Resurrection.
As you can see McGrath does just that and thus eliminates the Resurrection entirely.
Choose this day whom you shall serve.
Like or Dislike:
0
So far people do not seem to have confused me with other Johns, but I’m just providing a reminder. It’s why I’ve added the symbols & numbers to my name.
regards,
#John
Like or Dislike:
0
re post 109
There are responses to each of your points, but since CMP’s initial comment is not about evolution per se, but about whether believing in evolution is a compromise, it would be a hijack of this thread for me to reply and go off in that direction.
A question relevant to CMP’s thread, which I raised, is: when should we defer to science in our interpretation of the Bible? and How compromised is MacArthur for accepting a heliocentric view of the universe?
regards,
#John
Like or Dislike:
0
Out of those who have voted ,76 votes so far, 14 voted evolution w/o a litereal Adam & Eve.
I think many here have educated themselves to point of entertaining foolishness. I have no averstion, no hesitation in saying “We were created in the image of God” “Evolution is a lie” I’m sorry and sad that there is no soundness anywhere, anymore..everything is tainted with foolishness.
Like or Dislike:
0
“I think many here have educated themselves to point of entertaining foolishness.”
Now there’s an interesting thought. I will readily admit to accepting evolution because I finally caved in, deciding to read and educate myself. After 30 years of avid (and highly informed!) belief in Young Earth Creationism, I boldly ventured out and discovered how overwhelming is the evidence that God indeed created us through an evolutionary process. Cadis suggests I ought to have remained ignorant.
Do Christians like Cadis actually believe that we should not learn, expand our understandings? Is there really a premium on ignorance? Should we shelter our minds from scientific discovery? Do Christians like Cadis fear what they might learn if they did educate themselves? Has Cadis read the evidence favoring evolution? or just rejected it out of hand because of his a priori chosen theological opinions?
I do not mean to ridicule. I am asking an honest question. Are there others who believe that I erred when I ventured outside of my YEC literature to become better versed in the arguments favoring evolution?
Like or Dislike:
0
I really fail to see how anyone can honestly look at the human and chimp genomes and conclude that they are not ultimately derived from the same ancestral genome (in a common ancestor). Dennis’s video is particularly good at driving the basic points home. For me the redundancy issue alone refutes common design as any sort of viable alternative.
I think Christians need to face reality. After all, all truth is God’s truth. Saying that rejection of evolution, and the rest of modern science, is a prerequisite for belief in Christ is not a good approach.
I would ask one question of all those who doubt common ancestry between humans and chimps and who say Dennis’s video was unimpressive: if we are to consider the genomic evidence that we are both descended from a common ancestor, what is it that you would expect to see in our genomes that you don’t see?
Like or Dislike:
0
Cliff,
I’m sorry if I offended you, but the question of this post is do I think it is compromise to believe in theistic evolution. I do. I guess I should have stuck with that answer and left the poll alone. I made my comments too personal. I am not about to rewrite all of Genesis and then quite a bit more of the rest of the scripture for the sake of not looking ridiculous.. I’m sorry you feel most of the YE people are “low brows“, I personally don’t. I think MacArthur is being hung up like a dart board here. I think that stinks too. I’m neither young earth or a MacArthur groupie , but I think it is awful that both are criticized and made to look silly to make room for a position (evolution) which is theory and theory that is contrary to Genesis and the widest held interpretation of Genesis. If I think it a compromise to allow evolution that is without a literal Adam and Eve then yes I am also going to be insulted that those who hold a somewhat questionable but biblical position are going to be treated lowly for the likes of one that I feel compromises the Genesis account. So…I was answering the question and I’m sorry I did not do it more generally and I’m sorry I addressed this period. It’s unfathomable that I should have to, at least to me and at the very least John MacArthur.
Like or Dislike:
0
Cadis,
I understand there are differences of opinion about evolution. But how can it be compromise when sincere believers find the evidence for evolution irrefutable, and adjust their interpretation of the Scripture according to what they view as empirically backed reality?
Evolution is troubling for many believers. I get that. It was for me too. But I cannot deny what I have seen and read, pretend its not true so I can cling to my cherished interpretations of Genesis.
These are difficult days for the church. Surely you are aware of the similar gut-wrenching struggle the church went through in the days of Galileo. His revelations shook the church! He was called a compromiser, and worse. If he was correct, it meant that the church had to back off of the (at that time) clear and plain teachings of the Bible of a fixed earth at the center of the universe with a solid sky in which moved sun, stars and planets. (at least 64 verse support these ideas … more of the Bible was upset by Galileo than by Darwin!) Surely you know that the church took literally hundreds of years to make its peace with Copernicus. Were the early Christian followers of Galileo compromisers? Were they?
More and more leading evangelical leaders are taking another look at evolution and discovering it to be true. A recent survey conducted by Bruce Waltke indicated up to 46% of professors in leading evangelical institutions now accept evolution. Their number is growing rapidly. Are they all compromisers? Are they?
Maybe they are on to something. Believe me, Cadis, it is not easy to abandon a view one has held for decades. It was not easy for me. I did not do it “for the sake of not looking ridiculous”. I did it because, having viewed the clear evidence, I found I had no choice. Are you willing to look at the evidence? Is Dr. MacArthur?
I agree; it is sad the MacArthur is being hung out like a dart-board. But he was the one who chose to declare that thousands of sincere evangelical believers are nothing more than duped, capitulating compromisers. It is MacArthur who has chosen to be divisive.
Like or Dislike:
0
Cadis,
You really need to gain a better grasp on what science means when they use the word “theory”. I hear (quite frankly) ignorant people repeat the line “its just a theory” time after time. When science uses the word “theory” they don’t use it in the sense a normal person might use it. In science a theory is a explanation for natural phenomenon which is supported by significant empirical data. Much of what is accepted as fact is actually labeled as theory in science (i.e. the “Theory” of Relativity). Simply put don’t say “it’s just a theory” in front of even mildly educated people unless you want to get laughed at. Instead refute the theory by offering empirical evidence which contradicts the theory.
Also to echo what Cliff said the last time the Church decided to hold to a particular interpretation of Scripture over empirically validated science we ended up with SERIOUS egg on our face. As Cliff indicated when properly understood evolution shakes up our understanding of Scripture less then believing in a sun centered solar system did for those who a few hundred years ago were absolutely certain that the sun and the whole universe for that matter revolved around the Earth.
Bottom line: If YEC advocates like yourself and MacArthur want to claim that adjusting our interpretation of Genesis to match the scientific data is “compromising” then to be consistent you should all be arguing that the Sun revolves around the Earth since believing the opposite is just as much of a “compromise”.
Like or Dislike:
0
John from #119,
“It’s not just Genesis and ancient Hebrew, its the New Testament too, but it also goes to theism in general. The Muslims are no happier about evolution than we are.”
When it gets to the issue of theism, it becomes a philosophical discussion, not scientific. All science, even evolutionary biology, can make no pronouncements on God.
And I think there are ways to reconcile the NEw Testament with an ANE influenced reading of Genesis (and the Old Testament). After all, while they aren’t exactly the same, they are similar enough where the New Testament writers drew from or already believed various bits of ancient science from the Old Testament and included it in the New. Second Peter 3:5 is a good example. He’s clearly drawing from Genesis 1 in that statement, which itself was based on the Ancient Near Eastern belief that the universe started out as a vast cosmic ocean.
#John1453 from Post #122,
“There are responses to each of your points, but since CMP’s initial comment is not about evolution per se, but about whether believing in evolution is a compromise, it would be a hijack of this thread for me to reply and go off in that direction.”
How about ya’ll take the discussion to the other thread that we spent the better part of the summer discussing this issue? I’d still enjoy seeing you and Dennis talk this over too.
Here’s the link: http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2009/05/six-views-on-the-creationevolution-debate/
“A question relevant to CMP’s thread, which I raised, is: when should we defer to science in our interpretation of the Bible? and How compromised is MacArthur for accepting a heliocentric view of the universe?”
For the first one, I’d say when the pressure from science is too great to withstand. Too often we think our interpretation is just as inspired as the Bible itself. That or we prefer tradition over change.
Of course, I would also want to limit these deferments to competent individuals. Ones who have a firm understanding of both subjects.
For the second one, MacArthur is very compromised. He feels free to accept science when interpreting astronomy-related verses, but digs his heels in when it comes to origins science. Any Christian that picks and chooses what science they allow to influence their interpretation simply aren’t being consistent. And they delve into the realm of hypocrisy when they accuse people like me of being a compromiser or one who uses science to determine scripture’s meaning. They do the same thing.
I spoke more on this in the other thread here http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2009/05/six-views-on-the-creationevolution-debate/#comment-26649 and here http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2009/05/six-views-on-the-creationevolution-debate/#comment-27805
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael,
Talk your theories over with God and then let me know his definition. Genesis ? Genesis is a theory? not.
Like or Dislike:
0
Tom: “I really fail to see how anyone can honestly look at the human and chimp genomes and conclude that they are not ultimately derived from the same ancestral genome (in a common ancestor).”
Eh, why is a common ancestor a better explanation than a common designer again? These discussions go round and round because the evolutionist party can’t see the obvious that a common designer provides an equally viable explanation for commonality.
” For me the redundancy issue alone refutes common design as any sort of viable alternative.”
If this was a great argument, then all computer programs in existence “evolved”.
And again: if there is no design… not even design via theistic evolution… then there is no God. So you just refuted the existence of God.
“Saying that rejection of evolution, and the rest of modern science, is a prerequisite for belief in Christ is not a good approach.”
So, do you object to teaching the bible, as-is? It’s one thing if you want to harbour private thoughts. It’s another if you can’t stand to hear the bible taught as written.
“I would ask one question of all those who doubt common ancestry between humans and chimps and who say Dennis’s video was unimpressive: if we are to consider the genomic evidence that we are both descended from a common ancestor, what is it that you would expect to see in our genomes that you don’t see?”
What is the point of the question? Let me ask you this: If we are to consider the genetic evidence that we are designed by a hyper intelligent race of space aliens, what is it you would expect to see in our genomes that you don’t see?
Like or Dislike:
0
“Are there others who believe that I erred when I ventured outside of my YEC literature to become better versed in the arguments favoring evolution?”
Your eternal destiny doesn’t hang on whether the earth is old or young. But I think it does hang on the underlying assumption of darwinist evolution: namely that humans are the way we are because of random mutation and natural selection according to survival of the fittest. I think we’ve seen in this very thread the inability of christians to defend evolution without that Darwinist structure and assumptions that underlie it. And yes, that teaching is un-Christian.
Like or Dislike:
0
John, Re #131
namely that humans are the way we are because of random mutation and natural selection according to survival of the fittest. I think we’ve seen in this very thread the inability of christians to defend evolution without that Darwinist structure and assumptions that underlie it. And yes, that teaching is un-Christian.
Proverbs 16:33
I believe God did it. How is that un-Christian?
Like or Dislike:
0
Cadis,
Genesis is NOT a theory, however your proposed interpretation of Genesis IS at best a theory (conjecture would be a better word), and your interpretation is far from the only one. Seeing as there are plausible interpretations that line up with the best available empirical evidence, and don’t have a drastic effect on core doctrines such as original sin, I’m going to go with those. Also if I were you I would study Near Eastern conceptions of the universe, because the whole account of Genesis assumes a conception of the universe we know to not be true. For instance Genesis assumes that the world is flat. Phrases like the “firmament”, “the deep” and others are based on a Ancient Near Eastern conception of the universe which categorically wrong.
Honestly Cadis your perspective on this issue is no different then the one the Catholic church took when Galileo inconveniently informed them that the Earth revolved around the sun. The Catholic church was convinced that they could infallibly interpret Scripture, and they had interpreted Scripture to mean that the Universe revolved around the Earth. Thus when Galileo empirically proved otherwise his teachings were taken as a threat to not just established doctrine, but the authority of the Church, and the Christian religion itself. Of course we all know how this turned out for the Church. Every atheist and skeptic on the face of the planet will, to this day, bring up this incident.
Genesis is the infallible, inerrant word of God, but our interpretations as to the purposes and meaning of Genesis are VERY fallible. Should it be understood historically, literally, figuratively, allegorically??? Was the primary purposes of the author theological, historical?? When there is good evidence that our interpretation is wrong and another interpretation is right we should we just ignore it and dogmatically hold to our interpretations??? If we did we’d still be believing that the sun revolves around the Earth, the Earth is flat, and the sky rests on pillars as pointed out many times i this discussion. Then again maybe we should have just stayed in the dark ages believing that the world was flat, the universe revolved around the Earth and using blood-letting as our primary treatment for illness.
Like or Dislike:
0
John,
“Eh, why is a common ancestor a better explanation than a common designer again? These discussions go round and round because the evolutionist party can’t see the obvious that a common designer provides an equally viable explanation for commonality.”
If our similarities to other species were simply in our functional DNA and the manner in which our bodies operate this argument would make sense. However, as has been pointed out before a large chunk of our DNA serves no purpose any longer. Now if God had just created us by divine fiat without a evolutionary process why would he maintain the same junk DNA found in other creatures??? Wouldn’t he just create us with what we needed??? Why do we have a chromosome that is a exact merger of two chromosomes in the great apes?? God is all powerful, not some lazy computer programmer who leaves in old code to make things easier. Simply saying “common creator” doesn’t answer these questions, because it isn’t logical for a all powerful creator to create beings who have DNA which serves no useful purpose but points us to common ancestry.
This in the end goes back to a question no one wants to take up. Is God deceiving us??? I can accept that God “COULD” create us in such a way that it appears we share common ancestors with other creatures on the planet when we actually don’t. I can accept that God “COULD” create a planet with the appearance of great age when it was actually really young. But why the deception???
Like or Dislike:
0
Cadis,
This is the best picture I could find of it, but the link below will lead to a diagram showing how peoples in the Ancient Near East viewed the universe.
http://www.aarweb.org/syllabus/syllabi/g/gier/306/OTcosmos.jpg
The creation accounts in Genesis assume this cosmology. In addition numerous passages elsewhere in the Bible (especially the Psalms) assume this cosmology. Of course we all now know that the Earth isn’t flat, and the sky doesn’t rest on pillars, and there aren’t actual floodgates in the sky etc. etc. etc., but if we read Genesis 100% literally as you suggest we would have to believe this. You see this is my problem with YEC, you all want it both ways. You want to accept science in places and not in others. You want to interpret things figuratively or symbolically in places and then literally in others. YOU CAN’T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS!!!!! Either we must interpret Genesis literally 100% and believe in the conception of the universe depicted in the link above (which every astronaut, Christian or otherwise, will tell you is false because they’ve seen the Earth from space) or we must admit that Genesis should be interpreted in some other manner opening the door for what we know scientifically to be true (whether that be that the world is round, the earth revolves around the sun, theistic evolution, etc.). It’s one or the other.
Like or Dislike:
0
“I believe God did it. How is that un-Christian?”
Because in defending evolution you have to appeal to evidence saying “our genes are explained by natural causes, they are not explained by design”. If God did it, even by evolution, that would be design. But you believe evolution, because of an argument that our genes are best explained by lack of design. QED, you have no god.
Like or Dislike:
0
John Re #131,
“Eh, why is a common ancestor a better explanation than a common designer again? These discussions go round and round because the evolutionist party can’t see the obvious that a common designer provides an equally viable explanation for commonality.”
I would recommend watching the last two videos on this page: http://www.blog.beyondthefirmament.com/video-presentations/science-and-christian-education/science-and-christian-education-page-3/
Biological Systematics 1 and 2 go into the reasons why common descent is much more likely than common design as an explanation for similarities between organisms.
I think it would be really helpful if you watched those videos. If you had the time, try to watch all 16. The author, Gordon Glover, is very good at explaining evolution from a Christian perspective.
Like or Dislike:
0
“However, as has been pointed out before a large chunk of our DNA serves no purpose any longer. Now if God had just created us by divine fiat without a evolutionary process why would he maintain the same junk DNA found in other creatures??”
This was all discussed above. If this argument is convincing, then every computer program evolved without design.
“Now if God had just created us by divine fiat without a evolutionary process why would he maintain the same junk DNA found in other creatures?”
Why did he create woman with a rib from Adam according to Genesis? Maybe he took genes from his previous work and resused it. How do I know?
Yet again, as I have stated several times, you have to appeal to arguments that cut against ALL theism, not just creationism. You don’t think God would re-use genes with junk in them in special creation because it goes against what an infinite God ought to do? Why wouldn’t an infinite God using evolution as his sovereign mechanism let all that junk fall out during the evolutionary process leaving his master design pristine? I guess because you don’t REALLY believe there is a God behind it. All the junk is evidence of an UNGUIDED mechanism in your world. And that is an unchristian world.
“Why do we have a chromosome that is a exact merger of two chromosomes in the great apes?”
John1453 has already explained twice why that is irrelevant. And it was obvious to me also before I read what he had to say.
“God is all powerful, not some lazy computer programmer who leaves in old code to make things easier.”
Again, why does the “all powerful God” of theistic evolution leave junk DNA in there? Huh? Apparently the God of theistic evolution IS a lazy computer programmer.
And BTW, programs having unused code is NOT the sign of lazy computer programmers. There are extremely good reasons for programs to have unused code in them, which I also explained above, and which also ignored in this discussion.
” it isn’t logical for a all powerful creator to create beings who have DNA which serves no useful purpose but points us to common ancestry.”
You claim it points to common ancestry. I claim it points to a common designer. And it is perfectly logical, since logical computer programmers do it all the time, ON PURPOSE and FOR GOOD REASONS.
“The creation accounts in Genesis assume this cosmology.”
(a) Prove it. I’ve never read anything in Genesis saying the earth is flat.
(b) Why is it I should care less what the Bible says in your world view? The bible assumes there is a God out there who created us, loves us and sends his Son to die for us. If he didn’t create us, all the rest is called into question, for obvious reasons.
Like or Dislike:
0
John Re. #137,
“Because in defending evolution you have to appeal to evidence saying “our genes are explained by natural causes, they are not explained by design”. If God did it, even by evolution, that would be design. But you believe evolution, because of an argument that our genes are best explained by lack of design. QED, you have no god.”
Please be careful in declaring that I have no god. Your emotions are getting ahead of your reason. I have never stated, either in my comments here or elsewhere, what you claim I have.
Did you have a chance to look at the Proverb I posted?
Proverbs 16:33 – The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord.
Do you understand what this is saying? A seemingly random event from our perspective is fully known (or caused) by God.
If I were to state I believe in evolution by common descent through random mutation brought on by natural causes, I would in no way be compromising or contradicting my beliefs.
First, I believe that God is our savior (through Jesus Christ), sustainer, and creator. He created a universe with certain laws that he upholds moment to moment. These laws govern how physical matter acts in the universe. These laws are the “natural causes” I referred to above. Simply a common term used to refer to common occurrences in nature.
A random mutation is whatever change that occurs to an organism’s genetics in which we, the observers, are unaware of the specific cause.
When I refer to something as random, I do so from my perspective. I don’t know why something happened or what caused it, only that it happened. This is also how evolutionary scientists use the term. Random does not imply causeless, nor does it imply godlessness. Random also does not imply that God is unaware of it, or did not have a hand in the matter. Nothing of the scientific theory of evolution requires this kind of thinking.
In the broadest of terms I believe in an intelligent designer. But my understanding of this designer is one who, knowing the outcome, designed the universe in a manner that would produce his desired result: a creature such as ourselves that could bear his divine image.
Evolution is a good description and theory on how this occurred. Some aspects of it may appear random to our limited perspective, but in no way is it the same for our all-knowing and all-powerful creator God.
Like or Dislike:
0
And lest you think of me as some sort of glorified Deist, I am also of the opinion that it is entirely possible, and probably likely, that God is intimately involved in the running of his universe from moment to moment.
The movement of every quantum-sized particle of matter is known by God and, if he so wills, even caused by him, producing a cascade of physical events that build up like a snowball to bring about effects in the world in which we can observe and react to.
I believe God’s involvement in the world is one of immense beauty and impossible to fully fathom. In no way should it or could it be limited by simple scientific jargon or descriptions.
And John, please refrain from calling other posters godless or atheistic because they disagree with you over an issue of science. Those kinds of accusations do not belong here.
Like or Dislike:
0
John Re #139,
“(a) Prove it. I’ve never read anything in Genesis saying the earth is flat.
I’m not sure Michael specifically said Genesis says anything about the earth being flat. Other parts of scripture refer to that, but nothing specific in Genesis that I recall. He is right on the cosmology presented there though. It fits very well into an Ancient Near Eastern context, and not our modern one.
Let me show you with this little Bible study. If you can refute it and show me where my reasoning is wrong, by all means do so.
Genesis 1:6-7
And God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse. And it was so.
Genesis 1:14-17
And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth.” And it was so. And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars. And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth
1. The Bible says the expanse was made to separate the water below it from the water above it.
2. The Bible says the sun, moon, and stars were placed in the expanse.
3. Thus, there is water above the sun, moon, and stars.
Further scripture supports this:
Psalm 148:3-4
Praise him, sun and moon,
praise him, all you shining stars!
Praise him, you highest heavens,
and you waters above the heavens!
John, can you identify these waters Moses and David are talking about? Using modern science you can’t, because they don’t exist. But with ancient science you can. The Israelites lived in the Ancient Near East. And just as you today are a product of your culture and time, so were they. It should not be difficult to imagine them adhering to the scientific beliefs of their time, as you also do.
Just as God, by Jesus, used our flesh and form to reach out to us in a way we could understand, so did he use their ancient science and beliefs to explain to them that he is their creator.
God has accommodated himself to our limitations in more ways than you have realized.
“(b) Why is it I should care less what the Bible says in your world view? The bible assumes there is a God out there who created us, loves us and sends his Son to die for us. If he didn’t create us, all the rest is called into question, for obvious reasons.”
Is your last name MacArthur?
Like or Dislike:
0
Greg: “Biological Systematics 1 and 2 go into the reasons why common descent is much more likely than common design as an explanation for similarities between organisms.”
Remind me where God fits into a system that is devoid of design. No design = no God. I don’t hear anyone here arguing for God designing by common ancestry. No, the alternative presented is LACK OF DESIGN. Do you hear yourself?
As for specific arguments:
I take it you’ve done a survey of gods to find out what deities are likely to do?
I see the same pattern all the time in designed objects. Computers with 2.5″ hard drives seem to always have screens. Not all computers with built-in screens have 2.5″ hard drives. Computers with batteries always have screens. Not all computers with screens have batteries. Computers with Power-PC chips run OS-X, but not Windows. Not all computers with OS-X have Power-PC chips. Computers running OS-X can be manufactured from solid chunks of aluminium. No Windows machines are like this. We could use these facts to form a darwinian tree. I guess I’ve just proven that computers evolved through natural selection.
Like or Dislike:
0
“Proverbs 16:33 – The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord.
Do you understand what this is saying? A seemingly random event from our perspective is fully known (or caused) by God.”
In that case, God would have DESIGNED the outcome, and therefore arguments presented here about what a DESIGNER would or wouldn’t do are null and void, and your argument collapses. You cannot argue for evolution without making arguments about what designers wouldn’t do, and so your position is inherently conflicted.
Like or Dislike:
0
“2. The Bible says the sun, moon, and stars were placed in the expanse.
3. Thus, there is water above the sun, moon, and stars.”
The sun, moon and stars are in the expanse from our point of view. It’s like saying “the sun is in the middle of the sky”. It doesn’t mean I am labouring under the delusion that the world is flat, and right now the sun is in the middle of it. Rather it means it is in the middle relative to my current viewing position. So the sun, moon and stars are in the expanse, relative to my viewpoint. Another example is the photo “earth rise”, taken by the astronauts on the moon. It doesn’t mean they are laboring under a notion that the earth rises, except in relation to their viewpoint.
Like or Dislike:
0
“You cannot argue for evolution without making arguments about what designers wouldn’t do, and so your position is inherently conflicted.”
That is why Dennis in his video didn’t say what a designer would or wouldn’t do. He simply explained what we can predict common descent should look like, and that is exactly what we observe when we examine genomes; everything from homology, redundacy, synteny, and pseudogeny. That’s all a scientist can say; everything that we would expect from common descent is what we see.
One particularly compelling example, described by Francis Collins, are Ancient Repetitive Elements (AREs), these insert themselves in random places in the genome. Now not only are many of these in the same places in the genomes of humans and mice but there are many instances where they don’t insert properly and become broken, and we and mice have exactly the same broken ones in the same places in our genomes, broken in exactly the same way.
How does common design explain that? Or the existence of a defective vitellogenin gene in placental mammals that is clearly functional in other egg-laying mammals and birds? Precisely as we would expect if mammals are ultimately descended from egg-laying ancestors.
The questions might sound rhetorical but I am genuinely asking.
If people still want maintain belief in a common designer who went to such great lengths to manufacture an illusion of descent then there is really nothing more that can be debated.
Like or Dislike:
0
Chris,
About your post #20, I think you make an excellent point. If we agree with the evolutionary model, where changes took place gradually over millions and millions of years, some occurring somewhat more quickly due to random mutation, then the first man’s parents would have to have been essentially human. But that would mean that the first man wasn’t really the “first man”, right? You either have to suggest that an ape gave birth to a man (that would be the granddaddy of all mutations), or that the parents of the first man were 99.99….[with nines on into infinity] percent “human” but not *really* human.
I remember seeing a debate between two evolutionists and two creationists. One of the creationists asked, “Where are the transitional forms?” The evolutionist replied, “We are all transitional forms”, and the crowd, comprised largely of evolutionists, exploded with applause.
According to the Bible, God’s Son died for sinful mankind, not for the animals. But there must be a beginning point where that sacrifice is to be applied. If an ape gave birth to a human via the most unlikely mutation in evolutionary history then God has an easy choice, I suppose. However, if “we are all transitional forms”, as the highly praised evolutionist declared, then God will either have to save some who were part ape and part human, just to be safe, or he’s going to have to tell thousands, perhaps millions of individuals who are so much like us that we wouldn’t be able to discern a difference that they didn’t make it. “After all”, God will tell them, “I had to draw the line somewhere”.
~Kaz
P.S. I’m sorry if I’ve repeated something similar to what someone else may have said, but I didn’t have time to finish reading all the posts in this thread.
Like or Dislike:
0
Kaz,
The idea of where transitional forms between man and ape are has always bothered me too, since evolution by its own definition doesn’t stop. The answer by a group of evolutionists that quote, ‘we are all transitional forms’ is just as ridiculous as some of the crazy one line statements some Christians make, like the kind CMP has been doing a series about.
Clearly, no ‘missing link’ has thus far been found, so until such time evolution remains an unproven theory. It has been answered by some atheists, and even theistic evolutionists that so is Christianity, and Christ’s resurrection from the dead cannot be proven either.
So here’s a questions for the Calvinist theistic evolutionists, if there are any out there: If a completely sovereign God elected only a certain group of folks to be saved before the foundations of the world, why would he have gone to all the trouble and experimentation with forms of animal life to get to a man? That part simply doesn’t compute.
And, while we might have DNA in common with apes, they are driven by instinct and not capable of intelligent decisions regarding their choice of lifestyles, nor are they even capable of a spiritual belief in God. I would think the burning question should be is when the quantum leap occurred between rational decision making and spiritual awareness, as opposed to merely instinct driven behavior. Simply arguing a case based solely upon the physical manifestations of DNA evidence as proof isn’t sufficient to close that gap.
Like or Dislike:
0
“Clearly, no ‘missing link’ has thus far been found”
Um… by whom? If you mean by you, where have you been looking?
http://www.theistic-evolution.com/pages5455.jpg
http://www.readingevolution.com/images/hominid_brain_cavity_size.jpg
http://www.iupui.edu/~mstd/a103/Human%20Origins%20Chart_files/iskull.gif
http://www.addingup.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/brain_evo.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael,
Your assuming a lot of things about me and are speaking for me things that I have not even implied let alone have said. Your seeing communists behind every tree. I’m not YEC. And YEC and OEC was not any part of my objection to evolution. Although I do interpret Genesis literally I was not even objecting to other interpretations. I’m objecting to the evolution of man being forced onto the Genesis text. Even if Genesis was interpreted as an ANE myth, the myth is still conveying the truth that man is created in God’s image, you will have to also include apes being created in God’s image etc. on down the line. Evolution of man will not fit with any interpretation of Genesis There is no way to interpret Genesis to include evolution without causing major damage to the whole of scripture. And at this point in time the “theory” of evolution (unlike the theory of electricity) is under enough question that it does not need to be forced onto Genesis. And I don’t think it ever will be a proven theory. And paralleling the whole flat earth thing with what is going on now with evolution is ridiculous there is little comparison and no one is calling for the halt to scientific studies, not even the YECists So give it up. It is equally ridiculous an accusation that a literal interpretation of scripture cannot accommodate custom or poetry or metaphor etc. Your using intimidation tactics , those tactics are effective but they work contrary to getting to the truth. And with that I’m done here, because I can see where this is headed. I’ll only sit in the passengers seat until I can see ahead and notice we’re headed to some God forsaken place, the smart thing to do at that point is to say..I think I want out of the car. That and this is getting silly.
Like or Dislike:
0
Cadis,
What do we mean when we say man was created in God’s image?? Cause this has been a subject of debate for millennium. It certainly doesn’t mean that we were physically created in God’s image as God is spirit, without form. Quite frankly I see no problems with the theory of evolution and the Imago Dei at all since I see the Imago Dei as spiritual rather than physical. At some point in our evolution, God, as He had planned from the beginning, chose to give us souls and it is at that point we became the image bearers of God. The hardest issues issue for theistic evolutionists to explain generally revolve around death before the fall, and original sin, though both can be explained, not the Imago Dei. One could only claim that evolution requires us to view apes as created in the image of God if they believed that the Imago Dei was physical or genetic.
Like or Dislike:
0
John,
You are missing a big point that both Greg and myself have been making. Whether or not an event is “Random” is a matter of perspective. Science posits that evolution occurred through “Random” mutations, however as has been pointed out many times it is not random to God!!!. God has an eternal perspective from outside of time. Think about it this way. Quantum mechanics tells us that on the quantum level all matter behaves in a random and indeterminate manner. At the smallest level there is only probability of how things will behave. Yet (at least I believe) God knows the exact position of every quantum particle (Yes that’s right, I believe God can violate the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle). As such God could determine everything that’s going to happen while at the same time having it appear as “random” natural events from our perspective. In other words what science calls “random” mutations weren’t at all random or unforeseen to God. Now I know most evolutionists would say this puts me in the Intelligent Design camp and they are probably right and I’m OK with that.
As to your comment about junk DNA being an argument against all theism. I don’t think this is true because if God created a nuniverse with certain physical laws and then chose to create through a process that was bound by those laws the”junk” DNA is exactly what we would expect to find. Whereas if God created everything directly we would expect that to be there. Now you are at least partially right that this opens the door for atheism, but it is not a necessary or (I think) even a probably conclusion based on the facts.
Finally as to Genesis. As Greg pointed out I never said that Genesis specifically says the Earth is flat cause it doesn’t. However, when Genesis tells us things like God separated the waters below from the waters above it is appealing to ANE cosmology and in that cosmology the Earth was flat. Basically this has nothing to do directly with evolution. It is simply evidence that interpreting Genesis in any kind of a literal manner is a very bad idea because Genesis assumes a false conception of the universe.
Of interesting note there are people out there who claim that there were waters above the Earth and that this is how people lived so long prior to the Noahic flood and that all the waters came crashing down in that flood. Of course they don’ realize the who cosmology involved in making those statements or I suspect they wouldn’t want to make them.
Like or Dislike:
0
John,
As Micheal has pointed out, you’ve completely missed or misrepresented what we’ve been trying to explain to you. I see no need to repeat what I’ve already said, so you can go back at your leisure and reread it, hopefully with a more understanding attitude.
As for post #145, you completely missed the point. Let me repeat it for you:
1. The Bible says the expanse was made to separate the water below it from the water above it.
2. The Bible says the sun, moon, and stars were placed in the expanse.
3. Thus, there is water above the sun, moon, and stars.
Regardless of who’s perspective is in mind, the Bible still says there is water above the sun, moon, and stars.
John, show me this water above the stars! The Bible says its there, so where is it? Either appeal to modern science or just admit the Old Testament was influenced by Ancient Near Eastern science!
Kaz & mbaker, Re posts #147 & 148
“Clearly, no ‘missing link’ has thus far been found”
I’m just gonna leave these here….
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html
The first Wikipedia article explains what a transitional fossil is, and the second gives a hefty list of examples. You may be interested in some of the subtopics in the first link on “Missing Links” and “Common misrepresentations by creationists”
The two Talk Origins articles go into even more detail on what constitutes a transitional fossil, and also how its determined to be one. They also provide dozens of examples for you to consider. They may take some time to read through, but in the end I think it may be very helpful for you.
Like or Dislike:
0
Tom,
The missing links that I’m are speaking of are not simply findings based upon similar bones, brain cavity measurements and some common DNA evidence, and theories about genomes. The big question is where the quantum leap occurred between man and animal as far as independent thinking and spiritual awareness, as opposed to sharing some common physical characteristics.
To give an example, I worked as photojournalist for many years, with nature being my specialty. There is, as you know, a specific order and instinctive lifestyle common to every animal in nature, which is not deviated from, on that I think we can agree. Yet all animals, even those of the same species still have identifiable differences, and differences in lifestyle and purposes. While we may share some commonalities with apes and chimpanzees, and other mammals, just as we share a common genetic code with our blood relatives, we are in actual practice just as different as eagles are from sparrows. One does not equal the other, except they are both birds. By the same token my ability to operate on something other than instinct gives me a distinct difference in mammals who cannot.
To tie this back to the subject of the post, which is whether evolution is a lie, I think it depends on whether you only look at physical evidence, and posit a further possibility from that. It’s still a theory, or at best an educated guess. It seems to me that the weakness in the evolutionist argument is that they assume because there are physical similarities of having wings and beaks, that makes an a sparrow equal to an eagle. We both know from evidence we can readily observe that it does not. However, according to the present evolutionary thinking that could mean that a sparrow is only an eagle that has yet not evolved!
Like or Dislike:
0
Kaz,
Your comment about something that is 99.99% human not being human just doesn’t seem to work to me. Think about it. If it were the case that Adam and Eve had blond hair then all brunette haired people wouldn’t be human by your estimation since they don’t share the exact genetics as Adam and Eve. Furthermore no one alive could be considered human since every human has a slightly different genetic makeup then every other human (i.e. a friend of mine is 4’11″ while I am 6’4″).
I think we really need to have a serious discussion about what it means to be human. What does it really mean to be the image bearers of God??? I think if we answered these questions honestly and Biblically we would find that they are not at a fundamental level in conflict with evolutionary theory.
Like or Dislike:
0
mbaker, Re Post # 154
The missing links that I’m are speaking of are not simply findings based upon similar bones, brain cavity measurements and some common DNA evidence, and theories about genomes.
I think you’re just moving the goal posts here.
The big question is where the quantum leap occurred between man and animal as far as independent thinking and spiritual awareness, as opposed to sharing some common physical characteristics.
That wasn’t really the topic of discussion. Just because a spiritual question can be posed does not mean scientific evidence can be invalidated. Also, this seems like a question more suited for philosophy and theology, not science.
…we are in actual practice just as different as eagles are from sparrows.
And just like a sparrow and eagle share a common ancestor, so do we with modern primates.
I think it depends on whether you only look at physical evidence, and posit a further possibility from that.
That’s all evolutionary theory is about. Physical evidence. That’s all it seeks to explain also. Questions of philosophy and theology are best answered by philosophy and theology.
It’s still a theory, or at best an educated guess.
The theory of gravity is, well, only a theory, if it helps put things into perspective.
It seems to me that the weakness in the evolutionist argument is that they assume because there are physical similarities of having wings and beaks, that makes an a sparrow equal to an eagle.
The theory proposes nothing of the sort. All it suggests is that the physical evidence points to common descent. A common ancestor is shared by a sparrow and eagle.
However, according to the present evolutionary thinking that could mean that a sparrow is only an eagle that has yet not evolved!
I think you need to look at evolutionary theory a little more seriously. As in, to understand what it is really saying. It does not say anything of the sort in which you claim it does. The sparrow and eagle are free to develop in whatever direction that they do.
Like or Dislike:
0
Greg,
I don’t think I am moving the goalposts as you put it. Just trying to get my original question answered, one that I’ve already asked twice now, without being accused of trying to invalidate scientific evidence. I am not questioning that physical evidence has been discovered that shows we have some common characteristics with primates or other mammals.
What I am asking is how evolution can be theistic in nature, if it is based upon physical evidence, especially in light of your statement:
“That’s all evolutionary theory is about. Physical evidence. That’s all it seeks to explain also. Questions of philosophy and theology are best answered by philosophy and theology.”
Like or Dislike:
0
mabaker,
Evolution, defined simply as the idea that more complex life forms evolved from less complex life forms, is neither atheistic or theistic. It is simply a framework that explains the physical evidence. It is only when one combines evolution with various philosophies that it becomes atheistic or theistic. Simply put the question of whether or not there is a God is a question that evolutionary theory does not and can not answer and if some scientist (cough Richard Dawkins cough) claims otherwise they are no longer speaking as scientists, but as philosophers. Evolution simply tries to describe the “how”, not the “why”. The “why” can only be answered by philosophy and theology, not science.
Like or Dislike:
0
Tom: “That is why Dennis in his video didn’t say what a designer would or wouldn’t do”
Okay……
“How does common design explain that?”
Ha! See? Here we are AGAIN, back with no designer and what a designer wouldn’t do.
“Or the existence of a defective vitellogenin gene in placental mammals that is clearly functional in other egg-laying mammals and birds?”
Again, man made things like computer programs exhibit the exact same things. The only retort is that our God wouldn’t do that, which cuts off your own feet, because you simultaneously claim that he DID do that, except that he didn’t do that because he wouldn’t.
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael:
“John, You are missing a big point that both Greg and myself have been making. Whether or not an event is “Random” is a matter of perspective. Science posits that evolution occurred through “Random” mutations, however as has been pointed out many times it is not random to God!!!. God has an eternal perspective from outside of time.”
Michael, how is it me who is missing this, when it is the evolutionary camp here claiming that analysis of life on earth precludes the hypothesis of a designer? PRECLUDES! Classic was Tom’s one who starts off saying what you do, but ends up with the retort ““How does common design explain that?””, as if to say, “These set of facts are not compatible in any way with there being a designer”.
Again, no designer means no God. Why don’t all you evolutionary folks go off and take a serious look at yourselves and why you have to present atheist arguments while claiming to believe in God.
“Whereas if God created everything directly we would expect that to be there.”
Again, have you done a random sample of deities to find out what they would be expected to do? When the things that supposedly preclude intelligent design are the exact same artifacts found in man-made designs, the argument is simply a non-sequitur. And again, stealing from previous designs is exactly what Genesis teaches in the Adam’s rib incident.
“However, when Genesis tells us things like God separated the waters below from the waters above it is appealing to ANE cosmology and in that cosmology the Earth was flat.”
A fallacy of the highest order. That’s like saying that using the term “the sun rises” is appealing to a geo-centric cosmology.
“Of interesting note there are people out there who claim that there were waters above the Earth”
There IS waters above the earth. Some of it is falling down right now.
Like or Dislike:
0
Greg: “Regardless of who’s perspective is in mind, the Bible still says there is water above the sun, moon, and stars.”
Again, this is equivalent to claiming that anyone who uses the term “sunrise” is promoting geocentrism.
“John, show me this water above the stars!”
Actually, there is water above the sun, moon and stars, since it is one of the most common compounds in the universe. But I don’t think this is what it is talking about. You’re taking a very rigid interpretation of what expanses are being referred to and where exactly they are located, and what expanses are being referred to where and when. And frankly, the whole scenario takes place around creation, which if you are mapping it to big-bang cosmology would be billions of years ago. So asking me to show you something now from the cosmic soup of 10 billion years ago, is a bit much don’t you think? Show me a photo of the universe one day after first light, and maybe I can pinpoint it for you.
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael,
It may be true to you that evolution is not atheistic or theistic, but then as you said, Richard Dawkins (cough, cough here too), and others have made evolution in recent years into more of a stronghold to disprove God and Christianity.
So, I’m back to trying to understand how you or anyone can be a theistic evolutionist if you believe in God., but believe the physical evidence points to an entirely different outcome than scripture teaches is the theological evidence.
You just got through saying, and so did Greg in his quote above, that the two don’t go together.
Like or Dislike:
0
Hi Michael,
You said:
“Your comment about something that is 99.99% human not being human just doesn’t seem to work to me. Think about it. If it were the case that Adam and Eve had blond hair then all brunette haired people wouldn’t be human by your estimation since they don’t share the exact genetics as Adam and Eve. Furthermore no one alive could be considered human since every human has a slightly different genetic makeup then every other human (i.e. a friend of mine is 4′11″ while I am 6′4″).”
I wonder if you’ve misunderstood the point of my post? It is not my contention that parents who were 99.999999…. [with 9's to infinity]% human were not human. My point is that they WERE human, and could have been nothing else. Those who subscribe to creation via evolution, on the other hand, must allow that there was some point where a non-human gave birth to a human. Either that, or God employed his own “random selection” by declaring that all who were prior to the one he allowed was the first image bearing man would not have everlasting life made available to them, even though, of both logical and scientific necessity, they would have to have been essentially indistinguishable from the lucky chap who arbitrarily ended up to be the first one on the right side of the dividing line. Now THAT doesn’t work for me.
~Kaz
Like or Dislike:
0
Hi mbaker,
Regarding your post 148, I heartily agree that the declaration “We are all transitional forms” seems rather silly. It sounds like something that one who is aware of the paucity of evidence of transitional forms might make up to avoid having to try and give a meaningful answer to the question.
As for sharing DNA with Apes, I don’t see how that poses a problem to a creationist. Computer programmers often use bits and pieces of the same computer code for different programs, but that doesn’t change the fact that they are *different* programs. Genetic code is just another feature of God’s design. Thus, sharing such code doesn’t necessarily imply a shared ancestry; it could just as easily imply a shared designer.
~Kaz
Like or Dislike:
0
Computer programmers designing the Creator in their own image. Classic. =)
Like or Dislike:
0
Hi Mike,
Don’t you hate it when a simple analogy potentially deflates the force of what an opponent might consider a powerful counter argument?
~Kaz
Like or Dislike:
0
Kaz,
Classic. =)
Like or Dislike:
0
mbaker Re Post #162,
So, I’m back to trying to understand how you or anyone can be a theistic evolutionist if you believe in God., but believe the physical evidence points to an entirely different outcome than scripture teaches is the theological evidence.
You’re assuming your interpretation of Genesis 1 is correct. I brought this up in post #114 if you’d like to look more into it. How sure are you it is correct?
Genesis has ancient science in it. Do you accept this?
John, Re Post #160,
Again, no designer means no God. Why don’t all you evolutionary folks go off and take a serious look at yourselves and why you have to present atheist arguments while claiming to believe in God.
It takes one to know one, John. I tell you this because perhaps that is why you do not recognize a Christian when you see one. Further, I would expect a Christian to act better.
I explained to you in post #140 how your entire line of reasoning and accusations are devoid of any sense at all.
Take your accusations elsewhere because they are in no way welcome here. You have ignored what we have tried to patiently explain to you, entrenching yourself in a state of chosen ignorance.
I believe in a common designer that used common descent to produce the variety of organic life on this earth.
And with that I must say you’ve lost your privilege to be answered. Not because you make compelling arguments. But because you have proven completely disrespectful to what we have done to try and help you understand. You’re accusations of atheism are based only on your willful and prized ignorance in the subjects we are talking about.
Unless you start treating us with dignity and respect, you will be ignored. You don’t deserve to be answered with behavior like that.
Like or Dislike:
0
Its very frustrating to see good science overpowered by bad assumptions, ignorance, and repetitive shouting.
Its even worse to see Genesis hijacked by culturally egocentric types that can’t fathom God talking to anyone in ways they haven’t approved of.
Like or Dislike:
0
“I believe in a common designer that used common descent to produce the variety of organic life on this earth.”
Fine. But stop saying you believe this because such and such evidence indicates no designer. Make up your mind, designer or no designer, but stop the schizophrenia already.
Like or Dislike:
0
Greg,
I should tell you that I am more of the OEC persuasion, if that makes a difference. I think that the evidence that the earth’s age is far more advanced than the assumed 6000-10000 years is pretty clear, and I don’t necessarily see a conflict with traditional Christianity there, I also believe that the flood could have well have only been the known world at that time, based upon all our discussions on the previous threads.
Where I am dubious, and think that evolution has gotten off on the wrong foot and in a sense compromised Christianity is that it assumes something more from Ardi and Lucy than we can know, and that is they were the beginnings of thinking rational beings, or spiritual beings simply because they were bi-pedal.
Other than God randomly deciding to put a soul into beings like Ardi and Lucy somewhere along the way, I really haven’t heard anything concrete enough to be convincing of that kind of quantum leap. So could you specifically discuss where, when and how as theistic evolutionist you believe it occurred?
Like or Dislike:
0
Its getting a little heated here folks. If you can’t keep your cool, don’t post. I know that this is a subject that many of you are passionate about, but treat each other with respect. We are starting to cross lines here and there. Just remember, this type of post gets a lot of tire kickers. Please represent the spirit of Christ well.
Like or Dislike:
0
CMP,
I apologize for any fuel I have added to the fire.
John,
Fine. But stop saying you believe this because such and such evidence indicates no designer. Make up your mind, designer or no designer, but stop the schizophrenia already.
I have never said this. All of my posts have been made under the umbrella of Christian theism. It you were confused about my stance, it would have been good for you to ask me to clarify before any accusations were made.
mbaker,
So could you specifically discuss where, when and how as theistic evolutionist you believe it occurred?</i.
I'm not sure. I know broad truths, such as we bear God's image, that he is our God and we his people, and that he is the creator of all things.
Echoing Galatians 4:4, I believe when the fullness of time had come, God, in a way I do not know how, placed his divine image upon us and started the adoption process.
Certain truths, once accepted, serve as boundaries, and in as much as these truths hold, you have to operate within them. I know a few such truths that help me understand the big picture, but not necessarily the details.
For example, I know God exists, or I believe it on faith at least. Either way, it is a boundary for me. I also know he has given us an inspired Word that we can read to know him better. I also know that God's revelation is both time-bound and timeless. It's as much a product of its time and culture as it is meant for all people everywhere. Only God could make something like that.
I also know evolution is true, and is most likely the reason why we are here (I say this under the umbrella of Christian theism. Just as we can naturally explain how the weather is what it is right now, so too can we do that for our origins, even though the Bible says God causes the weather and is the creator of humanity).
The theory, or explanation of how evolution occurs will most likely change over the years, as all science does, but the fact that it happens will remain. Gravity does not cease operating because we do not fully understand it, nor does it change when our theory changes every 50 years or so.
Within these boundaries I have to operate and decide my stance on certain things. Some are easy to figure out, like the days of Genesis, while others are more difficult, like Paul's appeal to the first Adam.
So I cannot answer your question simply because scripture's scope, and therefore explanation, is fairly limited, and because science cannot even tell us much about God's actions upon his creation.
God's special revelation and general revelation are both silent on this topic. Science cannot detect with certainty something like that in the past, and neither does scripture assign a date to Adam's creation. We can guess by adding up genealogies, but scripture never comes out and tells us plainly. So it is silent on the matter.
With that said, I hope I've helped you understand my position better.
Like or Dislike:
0
John,
I can’t figure out why you keep saying that the arguments for evolution necessitate no God. Let me see if I can do this in logical format.
1. God creates a universe with certain physical laws and designs DNA and other biological processes to work according to these physical laws.
2. God acting through these physical laws and biological processes causes more complex forms of life to arise out of simpler ones.
3. The result of acting through the physical laws and biological processes God created is that all species have junk DNA which is the evidence of the evolutionary process God used to create life.
Why does the junk DNA argument necessitate atheism??? Now if your saying that the idea of evolution allows for atheism this is absolutely true, but when you claim that evolution and the evidence for it necessitates atheism I lose you. As noted earlier the theory of evolution is neither atheistic or theistic in and off itself. It is only when people like Richard Dawkins marry it to a philosophy or theology that it becomes so, but that in no way represents the science itself, only one of a number of possible conclusions that can be drawn from it.
Your argument only holds if we were claiming that God acted outside of the physical laws He created to cause evolution. Since we aren’t claiming this your argument is void.
Like or Dislike:
0
Kaz,
I know this is a zinger (no offense intended to anyone by this), but the idea that there was a dividing line before which there were no humans and after which there were humans with everlasting life as a result of being given a soul seems no more arbitrary then the idea that before the beginnings of time God had chosen who would turn to him and who wouldn’t by his own Sovereign choice thereby deciding who would live in eternal bliss and who would suffer eternal torment.
Like or Dislike:
0
On the Computer Programmer Argument,
Alright my understanding of this argument is that junk DNA should be expected because there is a common creator just like there is common code in many computer programs because of common programmers. Below are three scenarios and what I think would be logical to expect in those circumstances with regards to junk DNA.
1. Atheistic Evolution (No God)
In this case we would of course expect junk DNA because everything is purely random.
2. Creationism (God creating humans from a completely blank slate)
If God were a computer programmer we would expect him to reuse parts of old programs that were useful without filtering out all the junk code for efficiencies sake. However, God is not a human computer programmer, but rather an all-powerful, all-knowing being. As a result we would expect for everything to have a function and that junk DNA which is useless to our species, but useful to other species, wouldn’t be there if He created everything in a manner that accords with a literal reading of Genesis. Now of course He could put this junk DNA in there if He so pleased, but it seems kinda deceptive to me to put a feature in our DNA which would lead one to believe He had created in a evolutionary process.
3. Theistic Evolution (God creating humans in a evolutionary process conforming the physical laws and biological processes he created).
Assuming God chose, for whatever reason, to create humans in a process conforming to the physical laws and biological processes He put in place when He created the universe then we would still expect to find junk DNA as a result of the limitations of the physical laws and biological processes He operated under.
Conclusion
The concept of junk DNA could support either Atheistic or Theistic Evolution, but does not necessitate either.
Like or Dislike:
0
mbaker,
As Greg rightly points out our view only contradicts Scripture if your interpretation of Genesis is the correct one. However, there are numerous ways of interpreting Genesis other than literal. Not that I like linking to wikipedia or consider this an entirely accurate portrayal the link below explains another interpretation of Genesis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framework_interpretation_(Genesis)
Here is a theopedia article that shows a number of various views on interpreting Genesis
http://www.theopedia.com/Genesis_creation_account
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] John MacArthur and the “Lie of Evolution” [...]
Like or Dislike:
0
Hi Michael,
You said:
“I know this is a zinger (no offense intended to anyone by this), but the idea that there was a dividing line before which there were no humans and after which there were humans with everlasting life as a result of being given a soul seems no more arbitrary then the idea that before the beginnings of time God had chosen who would turn to him and who wouldn’t by his own Sovereign choice thereby deciding who would live in eternal bliss and who would suffer eternal torment.”
First, IMO, it is absurd to suggest that a non-human could have given birth to a human being. THAT takes even more _religious faith_ in evolution than my own belief that God created man directly.
Second, I’m a non-Calvinist who, like Edward William Fudge, believes in Conditional Immortality, so you might want to come up with another analogy for me. The above could only potentially work on a Calvinist, and even then I wonder. It appears to be problematic even from a Calvinist’s perspective.
~Kaz
Like or Dislike:
0
re post 129
This past summer’s thread was almost all on the age of the earth and is over 1,000 posts long. It would be more useful, I think, to have a theistic evolution thread on its own, if CMP would oblige at some point. I think that this thread is usefully kept to the concept of compromise only. Hence, I’m done posting here unless the discussion is on on the issue of compromise.
regards,
#John
Like or Dislike:
0
Greg,
Thanks for explaining where you are in theistic evolutionism. While I respect your point of view, the theology of it is very weak and general, IMO. That’s why I find it hard to understand why folks are so strong on the physical aspects of evolution as proof positive to prove creationists wrong, yet they cannot support their theology of how it occurred in a similarly evidential manner. But, I thank you for being so gracious in this explanation.
Michael,
Thanks for the links. I must tell you guys don’t even bother with Wikipedia as a source any more. One reason is that if you give a link to it, the next day it can be totally changed since it is reader written. Sorry to any loyal Wikis out there, but it is notoriously unreliable resource to depend upon..
Also, your assumption seems to be that anyone who takes the literal translation of Genesis as true is wrong. There are things, IMO, that can never be proven conclusively, either way. However, even though I lean toward OEC, and can accept the physical evidence of science regarding the age of the earth with no problem, I still do not find the scientific proof sufficient that somewhere God put a soul into an animal, and that animal became a man.
While there are myths in other religions which talk of animals becoming human, there is nothing in the Bible to support that theory.
Like or Dislike:
0
Maybe it depends on what makes us human. Is it physical or spiritual? If physical, I’d agree with the above, but as I read scripture, the clear difference between animal and human is the “Image of God” which God could have placed into an already existing physical being. I’d still count that as a special creation of mankind. Therefore, no compromise.
Like or Dislike:
0
Though the lack of evidence for evolution is sufficient reason to reject it, in rereading CMP’s original post and the comments (more than once) and reflecting on the issue of compromise, I’ve come to believe more strongly that theistic Darwinian evolution is a compromise of one’s Christian faith (it is important to note my use of “Darwinian” and the further extrapolation of its significance below).
I have come to believe this because Darwinian evolution is inherently anti-teleological because two of its key concepts are randomness and undirectedness. By saying “anti-teleological” I am referring to teleological explanation as explanations that make a reference to the telos or end of the process.
If there is one thing that Genesis and the rest of the Bible makes clear, it is that God had an end in view when He created things in the beginning. The goal of creation was humankind, and along the way there were subgoals such as the creation of a garden with plants and animals to serve as a locale for humans and for their interaction with God. A random and undirected process would not deliver a teleogical result.
Second, a belief that what exists is comptable with a random undirected process entails a belief that God’s hand is not detectible in it (most clearly, I think, this includes “design”). Such a belief seems to be explicitly contradictory to Romans 1:20, which states that God can be detected in what we see around us:
NIV: “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.”
NAS: “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.”
ERV: “For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse”
KJV: “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse”
regards,
#John
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael on 26 Oct 2009 at 2:50 am # Kaz, I know this is a zinger (no offense intended to anyone by this), but the idea that there was a dividing line before which there were no humans and after which there were humans with everlasting life as a result of being given a soul seems no more arbitrary…
Where does this idea that man was “given a soul” come from (some call this concept “ensoulment”)?
According to Genesis 2, God formed both man and animal from the ground, any difference being that man was formed from “dust from the-ground” while animal was formed “from the-ground” proper.
One might argue for a distinction between man and animal by saying that God breathed the breath of life into man, and not into the animals. Whether God also did that to the animals is not stated, but neither is it explicitly denied.
Note that after God breathed into the man the breath of life, he became a “living being” (nephesh chayyah), Genesis 2:7. In Genesis 1:24, God says re: the creation of animals: “Let the earth bring forth living beings.” It’s the identical nephesh chayyah as in Gen. 2:7, and in both cases “living” is a feminine singular adjective, modifying the feminine singular nephesh (often translated “soul”).
Thus the argument can be made that there is no distinction between the creation of man and animals: i.e., both were created/formed/made to be a “living being” and both were formed from the ground – save that Man was made after God’s image and likeness, and [the other] animals were not.
Since man didn’t become a nephesh chayyah until God breathed into him the breath of life, and animals, too, are designated nephesh chayyah, one cannot rule out that God breathed into animals the breath of life also, just like He did to man. Genesis 7:21-22 reads:
“And-died all flesh that-moved on the-earth with-the-fowl and-with-the-beast and-with-the-living-[things] (chayyah) and-with-all the-creeping-thing the-creeping on the-earth and-all the-man[kind]. All which breath (n’shamah) of-spirit (ruach) of-lives (chayyim) in-his-nostrils from-all which in-the-dry-land they-died.”
It thus appears that n’shamah ruach chayyim (breath of spirit of life) and n’shamah chayyim (breath of life) may be interchangeable terms, which suggests that man also received ruach when God breathed into him. And because the same language used here with respect to all living things is the same language that was used with respect to man in Genesis 2:7, it suggests that birds and beasts and all living things also received n’shamah [ruach] chayyim at some point in order for them to have life. This again supports the idea that the primary difference between man and animal is that man was made in the image and likeness of God, and other animals were not.
Like or Dislike:
0
I left out this part:
The common Hebrew word for “spirit,” ruach, is also the word for “wind” or “breath,” just like the Greek word pneuma also means “spirit/wind/breath.” Some say that God breathing the breath of life into man gave man a spirit, which made him distinct from animals. In Genesis 2:7, however, the word ruach (breath, spirit) is not used. The Hebrew states: “wayyippach b’appayw nishmat chayyim – and he-blew/puffed in-his-nostrils breath (n’shamah*) of-lives (pl. of chayyah).” There is no mention of spirit/ruach here. While one might infer that this is what happened, ruach is not said to be imparted to man in the text, and God’s ruach is not explicitly involved.
* This word n’shamah (translated here as “breath”) is frequently used with the same meaning as nephesh in rabbinic literature. In the Kaballah, it is used for the part of man that is higher than the nephesh, i.e., the intellectual and spiritual aspects as opposed to the instinctual and physical aspects.
which should precede this paragraph:
Since man didn’t become a nephesh chayyah until God breathed into him the breath of life, and animals, too, are designated nephesh chayyah, one cannot rule out that God breathed into animals the breath of life also, just like He did to man. Genesis 7:21-22 reads:
Like or Dislike:
0
This is a fascinating discussion. I read all 185 comments (so far) and appreciate the efforts of several individuals here to provide some good information as well as perspectives on the issues. Since no one has mentioned it, I will refer interested persons to the elective course in The Theology Program that I taught this summer on Science and the Bible. It included an examination of many of the points raised here concerning both the age of the earth and the role of evolution in the origin of biological species on earth. I gave particular attention to discussing in some detail the arguments for evolution as set forth in Jerry Coyne’s book Why Evolution is True. My own position is that of an old-earth creationist, though I continue to study the arguments for and against evolution and am willing to change my view if the evidence warrants.
Like or Dislike:
0
#John,
I quite agree with you that it would be more appropriate if we had a separate thread for this kind of discussion, especially since someone here said over 40% of evangelical theologians are now leaning toward this.
After participating in the thread you are speaking of last summer, certainly I think we covered the earth age debate, and the scientific proof offered from all sides of that quite thoroughly. We have heard from scientists and biologists, but I, for one, would like to hear from more theologians as to the reasons why they believe scripture supports theistic evolutionism.
How about it, CMP?
Like or Dislike:
0
Follow-up to my post 183
There is another reason to treat evolution differently from geocentrism, as regards compromise.
Geocentrism and a round earth are theories that are not based on randomness (Newtonian physics is based upon the behaviour of aggregates, and so atomic, subatomic or quantum randomness is irrelevant), but upon deterministic principles or “laws” of “nature”. Furthermore, geocentrism and round earth can be proved in more direct and immediate ways, and by more than one line of proof. None of those things can be said about evolution, or at least about Darwinian evolution. Furthermore, Darwinian evolution relies on a “Darwin of the gaps”, which is not true about either geocentrism or round earth.
regards,
#John
Like or Dislike:
0
Hi #John,
Mendel’s ideas about the segregation of gene copies (alleles) and chromosomes during meiosis require randomness. Gamete fusion is also random with respect to the alleles carried by the gametes. In all my years of teaching Mendelian genetics I’ve never had any student object to this randomness, even though it directly applies to one’s own formation from a genetics viewpoint.
John, do you agree that Mendelism (what we now call the chromosome theory of inheritance) requires randomness as a core feature? If yes, should Christians reject Mendelism because of this randomness? Or is it ok in this instance to hold that God ordains, oversees and sustains a process that appears to us as random?
Like or Dislike:
0
@ EricW (or anyone else)
I was looking at the same thing regarding the breath of life and came to the same conclusion – the only difference in descriptions is the Image of God. But I found it interesting that “chay nephesh” (as my Strong’s shows it) is translated at least 3 different ways in Gen. 1 & 2. Mostly it’s “living creature” but in 1:30 it’s just “life” and in 2:7 it’s “living soul” or “living being.”
Are these differences (especially creature vs. soul or being) demanded by the text in any way or are they traditional in nature?
Like or Dislike:
0
Another addition here to the compromise factor, then I will be out for the rest of the day.
There is a definite order to the creative process of God in Genesis, as # John has explained. Those of us who have been involved with nature on a professional basis, can see that order. Animals behave the same way. each according to their kind, no matter what part of the world they are found in. Where I believe some folks get hung up is they don’t understand the difference in actually evolving into entirely different creatures, and the practical changes that occur in all of nature based upon necessity. All of us are having to constantly adapt to change, and things like weather, and availability of food and water.
While that includes man, it does not follow that we evolve into entirely creatures randomly because of these changes in the end. We have never seen lions for instance evolve into other creatures, whether they are in the wild or in a zoo.
The difference in progressing, or not as the case may be, via normal adaptive behavior and evolving into different creatures because of it is huge. This is another area where I feel Christianity is being compromised. We must learn to recognize the difference in mankind’s progress by his adaptive behavior and evolving into a different creature to get a truer picture.
Like or Dislike:
0
#John,
“proof” is something restricted to formal mathematics. Science gives you lines of evidence, not proof.
There are many, many lines of evidence for common ancestry – genomics (including several independent lines of evidence within genomics as I outline in my talk), developmental biology/embryology, comparative anatomy, the fossil record, and so on.
These lines of evidence converge on the same conclusion. In science, that’s the sign of a successful theory.
Common ancestry also has strong predictive power. For example, in genomics, it allows us to predict exactly where in the genome we should find the defective remains of genes once used for ways of life the organism no longer uses – egg yolk genes, a gene for making vitamin C, and so on.
I’ve looked over the long thread from the summer, and you clearly see how many lines of evidence point to an old earth (coral reefs, ice cores, and so on). You rightly reject the argument that an appearance of age is what God intended. I’m curious why you fail to see the same pattern here on the common descent issue.
Like or Dislike:
0
Dave Z:
My Biblical Greek is quantum leaps better than my Biblical Hebrew, but all language and translation is contextual – i.e., a word should be translated (if possible to determine) so as to mean what the author meant it to mean in the context in which he used it. I wouldn’t, however, rely on a Strong’s Concordance for determining the translations of Hebrew words. I assume your Strong’s is based on the KJV, and the KJV translators stated their translation philosophy – i.e., they didn’t feel bound to translate the same Hebrew or Greek word by the same English word – nor would that be a proper practice anyway, unless one is creating an interlinear for the sole purpose of ensuring a one-to-one correspondence between the interlinear and the original language.
One should look at Hebrew lexicons or wordbooks and see how the word is defined and then, via a concordance, read the passages where the word is used. It really helps to learn the Greek and Hebrew alphabets and pronunciation and some vocabulary and a little about the grammar (one could go through Goodrick’s DO IT YOURSELF HEBREW AND GREEK if one doesn’t have the time or inclination to learn the languages in depth) so one can read or follow the passage in the original and see how the translation maps to the original text. With that knowledge, one can begin to interact with commentaries that deal with the Hebrew and Greek texts and see what they say about the meaning and translation of the word.
Like or Dislike:
0
Hi Dennis,
Good to have a scientist involved. I found your talk linked above very interesting, although I’m still uncertain about various things involving evolution and how it fits in to everything. It does make certain things unclear with regard to Adam and Eve, and I’m concerned about how that affects the rest of scripture. You seem to be saying that there really is no possibility of all of humanity being descended from two individuals. Are you familiar with Reasons To Believe? They seem to say the opposite, it is a big part of what they call their ‘testable creation model’ that genetic evidence shows we are all descended from one man and one woman, and that this can be traced to around where they say the Garden of Eden would have been.
On a side note, your talk appears to have attracted a response from a young Christian youtuber – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rimah8a-hWM .
Like or Dislike:
0
re post 189
I am not opposed to randomness per se, or to a Christian’s belief in a theory that entails randomness. The distinction I was drawing in my post 188 was the difference between the science of geocentricism and round earth (and stars in space instead of in a firmanent) and the science of evolution. The nonrandom, predictable, law-like, directly observable, repeatable, and falsifiable nature of the physical sciences in relation to geocentrism is entirely unlike the nature of the science in the theory of Darwinian evolution. The former is thus irrational not to believe and so properly informs our interpretation of God’s word. The latter (Darwinian evolution) is thus not irrational to disbelieve and, on the (lack of) evidence, is in fact very rational to disbelieve.
I think that another reason why Darwinian evolution is a compromise of belief is that it has an underlying religious nature and requires a considerable degree of faith. Its underlying religious nature is its removal of God, purpose and teleology entirely from the natural order (which I use instead of “creation” or “evolution” in order to be more value neutral). If Darwinian evolution is true, then God is entirely unecessary to the process. Of course, using a possible worlds philosophical argument one could conjecture that a world exists in which God used a process in which his hand is entirely undectable by humans in order to manufacture the natural world.
But such a hypothesis or belief is entirely speculative and without any grounding in Scripture. Moreover, it has all the appearance and smell of being merely an ad hoc, and also post hoc, hypothesis or belief that is adopted solely to preserve the possibility of belief in God in the face of an acceptance of Darwinian evolution as true. Such a speculative belief is rather thin gruel for a believer.
In addition it is difficult to escape some sort of deism if one accepts Darwinian evolution. For example, Elihu Palmer (ripping off, I believe, a 1746 pamphlet by Peter Annet), published in 1804 a piece titled, “Prospect, or View of a Moral World”.
He wrote, “. . . but perfect wisdom and power can do no otherwise tham pursue the best end in the best manner–therefore cannot alter either.–If God ever determined for moral ends and reasons to interpose, if needful, by a different method, than that of his standard laws–it must be either because he could not foresee the consequences, which is like blundering in the dark; or he foresaw it would be needful–and then it would be like a blunder in the design and contrivance; or he foreknew and determined his own works should not answer His own ends, without His mending work, which is worst of all.”
A similar argument is made by Francis Collins. However, I do not see any warrant for this belief on the basis of, or from, Scripture.
As to the evidence, and disputability or lack thereof, for evolution, that is a matter for another thread.
#John
Like or Dislike:
0
Yeah, I haven’t done that yet, and probably won’t in the next few hours…so…that’s why I was asking if someone else could enlighten me on that particular difference in translation, which seems to be pretty consistent across the half dozen versions I checked.
Like or Dislike:
0
mbaker,
Thanks for explaining where you are in theistic evolutionism. While I respect your point of view, the theology of it is very weak and general, IMO. That’s why I find it hard to understand why folks are so strong on the physical aspects of evolution as proof positive to prove creationists wrong, yet they cannot support their theology of how it occurred in a similarly evidential manner. But, I thank you for being so gracious in this explanation.
Can you answer the same question that you asked me?
So could you specifically discuss where, when and how as theistic evolutionist you believe it occurred?
Considering that you are more of an old earth type, of which I also am, how do you fit the timeframe into Genesis of man’s creation and subsequent soul indwelling?
I’m somewhat confused as well, as I don’t recall Genesis even touching on that particular subject. In chapter 1 we have God making man in his own image, and in chapter 2 the breathing into his nostrils to make him a living being. If you refer to that event as the soul-indwelling, then I’ll point there and say “Here is where it occurred”.
Now if you wish to decide exactly what that means, theologically, then I’m fine if it means all that Christian theism has come to believe it to mean. I’m sure there are ANE nuances to the meaning, and I’d love to explore those more to understand just what the original author meant to convey by that, but now I’m comfortable with what I have. If you want an exact process, I have nothing other than scripture, and I’m fine with that. If you want an exact time, then I have none. But you don’t have one either.
As to where, well Eden, of course. If you want to translate that into a physical location, then you’re showing more concern for it than the writer of Genesis, as he provides no definite location. Again, I’m very interested in what ANE studies can shed on this.
And as I pointed out in my previous explanation, neither the Bible nor science can answer your question, so I do not think it right that you hold that against my theology. In essence, you are asking me a question that you cannot even answer with certainty from your own vantage point.
Further, if you have all the theological answers please tell them to me as I am all ears. I was unaware that a theology in development qualified as means to dismiss it and science. It almost seems that tradition and dogma is more prized than seeking truth where ever it will lead.
As mentioned by CMP very early on, Evangelical scholarship is moving in the direction of theistic evolution. It will take time for us to integrate that into our theology just as it is taking time for us to integrate an ANE view in as well. But we are making strong progress.
Remember, Rome was not built in a day. Neither is our theology.
Like or Dislike:
0
mbaker,
I, for one, would like to hear from more theologians as to the reasons why they believe scripture supports theistic evolutionism.
I think we’ve been going about this all wrong. One of the things I am firmly against is trying to find modern science in ancient scripture. This is why I’ve emphasized reading and understanding Genesis through ancient eyes, a rather basic hermeneutic, but one that is constanly overlooked in the debate over origins.
Of course Genesis doesn’t have anything about theistic evolution in it! The concept itself didn’t exist. The only science in Genesis is Ancient Near Eastern science, which God very obviously used to convey his spiritual and theological truths to the newly released Israelites.
Genesis, and also all of scripture, has to be read first from the perspective of the original author and recipients. If we start from our perspective and try to look for answers to our questions, than we are trying to get the Bible to answer something it may not be equipped to answer.
Overlooking historical and cultural contexts brings the interpreter very close to eisegesis too, reading meaning into scripture instead of finding meaning within it. For example, if I found justification for theistic evolution in the Bible, I would be doing eisegesis and not exegesis.
I should only expect to find science already known to the original author and audience. Anything more isn’t being fair with scripture.
Like or Dislike:
0
Evolution, whether Darwinian or not, is also a compromise to faith because it is naturalist and materialist in both ideology and methodology. Since it a priori excludes the non-natural and the non-material it can never be a complete explanation of anything except the workings of a deistic God, a God who flips the switch to get things going and then backs off. It thus seems to me that “theistic evolution” is a misnomer; what is actually meant is “theism and evolution”, or two ideas in parallel that never meet or interact. There is nothing theistic at all about evolutionary theory. The theism is just a tack on that justifies prayer and religious experience in the face of the evolutionary explanation.
As mentioned above, in response to comments by John and mbaker, it is not impossible for God to use Darwinian evolution and to be deistic at least in regard to the result in the natural world that we observe today. However, that is merely a possible worlds speculation (as I discussed in an earlier post) that is certainly not necessitated or even implied by evolution, and which is also not implied by Scripture. Indeed, given passages such as Romans 1:20, various Psalms, etc., it seems not only unlikely but improbable and contrary to Scripture that God would have used a process to bring about nature such that we could not detect his handiwork.
If God did use some sort of process akin to evolution, that is, developmental from common descent but not devoid of immaterial and spiritual causes, then modern science will not ever construct the correct theory and current “theistic evolution” is both a red herring and a misdirection of effort and belief.
The deism of modern evolutionary theory, especially Darwinian evolution, is incompatible with God as He reveals Himself in Scripture, and is thus a compromise of Christian belief.
Like or Dislike:
0
Kaz,
I’m really uncomfortable with your statement that non-humans gave birth to humans because I think it not only mischaracterizes what I have said, but mischaracterizes what a human is.
The only way your statement could be accurate is all that composed humans was physical. Since all Christians believe that humans are greater then just what physically composes us (soul and spirit) this argument loses it’s force. No non-human could ever give birth to a human because creating a human requires a supernatural intervention of God in giving humans a eternal soul. Now the idea that God gave this soul to a preexisting creatures does not mean that a non-human gave birth to a human, rather that God gave birth to humans. Oh yeah and God guided the process from the beginning with the intent of that happening all along.
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael on 26 Oct 2009 at 1:41 pm #
Kaz,
I’m really uncomfortable with your statement that non-humans gave birth to humans because I think it not only mischaracterizes what I have said, but mischaracterizes what a human is.
The only way your statement could be accurate is all that composed humans was physical. Since all Christians believe that humans are greater then just what physically composes us (soul and spirit) this argument loses it’s force. No non-human could ever give birth to a human because creating a human requires a supernatural intervention of God in giving humans a eternal soul. Now the idea that God gave this soul to a preexisting creatures does not mean that a non-human gave birth to a human, rather that God gave birth to humans. Oh yeah and God guided the process from the beginning with the intent of that happening all along.
Would those of you who continue to use language that suggests that God “gives” humans (as opposed to animals) a “soul” (eternal or otherwise) please respond to what I wrote about how this belief does not stand up to a reading of the Hebrew chapters of Genesis?
I don’t know when or how this idea came into the synagogue or the church (Greek thought? Zoroastrianism (about which I know nothing)?), but it does not seem to be Scriptural.
I will be happy to be shown that I am wrong. That would remove one pet peeve from my life!
Like or Dislike:
0
Mbaker, John, John1453,
I think you guys are continually missing what we are saying about the nature of evolution. Evolution is neither atheistic or theistic. Thus to expect science to construct a theory of “theistic” or “atheistic” evolution is completely absurd cause you are asking science to answer questions science can’t answer. This is the realm of philosophy. I have laid out three phrases below and their definitions to help out.
EVOLUTION – Merely the idea that more complex forms of life evolved from less complex forms of life.
ATHEISTIC EVOLUTION – The marriage of evolution with a philosophy of naturalism which believes that the material is all that exists and there is no God. Holds that mutations are in fact random and without any guidance from an outside source whatsoever.
THEISTIC EVOLUTION – The marriage of evolution with one of a number of philosophies that hold there is a God. Holds that evolution is the process through which God chose to create and that what appear to us as random mutations are not random at all, but were planned by God from the creation of the universe.
I think the biggest problem that many of you are having is that you are unable to separate evolution itself from the atheistic context people like Richard Dawkins and others present it in. For this I can’t blame you. Evolution has unfortunately become so entrenched in the philosophy of naturalism that it is difficult to unentangle from it. It would do us good to remember that as soon as someone has taken a scientific theory and drawn conclusions about the existence or nonexistence of a God they have moved beyond the science and have entered the realm of philosophy. The conclusions an atheist draws from evolutionary science are no more valid or scientifically supportable then the ones I draw on the theistic side. It’s philosophy not science.
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael,
You demonstrate a phenomenal misunderstanding of evolution, of what actually happened around Galileo, and a very deep lack of respect for the experience of John MacArthur as it relates to the effect of evolutionary thought on Christianity and its underpinnings (Scripture). Even though you say you respect Dr. MacArthur, you demonstrate this to be false in this blog post.
God could not have (by His nature, not the laws of logic) used a process which excludes His existence by its own definition.
Go re-read the history of Galileo and who said and did what at that time.
Give Dr. MacArthur a break. This ain’t his first rodeo. I’m sure he would be much more charitable with your comments than I have. That is his experience showing. It (and he) deserves more respect than, “I would have taken the bait and swallowed this hook, line, and sinker.”
Like or Dislike:
0
Eric W,
I’m unfortunately unable to adequately respond to your post because I admittedly don’t have the background in Hebrew necessary to address it. I must admit my own ignorance on the matter here. When I was in undergrad I actually took a course devoted to the issue of interpreting Genesis in the light of what the Scripture says and what modern science says (At Bethel University, not some secular school, if it matters). I will try and find a number of the articles I read in connection with this class and on my own time which may answer your question, but I honestly have no idea if I even still have them or where they would be.
I do however wonder if your argument matters much if one accepts, as I accept, the literary framework conception of Genesis. It seems to me that your post assumes a literal or at least somewhat literal interpretation of Genesis as opposed to a symbolic one. Like I said I don’t know and don’t have the requisite knowledge to respond, just wondering is all.
Like or Dislike:
0
Doc B,
Sorry man I’ve read too much of Johnny Mac talking about Arminianism, Continuationism, Evolution, Eschatology, etc. etc. etc. to have even a shred of respect for him. He is a over the top reactionary who believes that anyone who disagrees with his particular perspective on any given issue is destroying the Christian faith and misleading the flock. He regularly draws caricatures of his opponents which are inaccurate and then proceeds to burn the straw man he has created. I find the titles of his church and radio program amusing at best since grace is not a thing I have ever heard from JMac directed to anyone who disagrees with him.
NOTE!!!! – To be clear I am not CMP, the author of this blog post. He posts under the tag C. Michael Patton – I have changed my tag from Michael to Michael T. to avoid any confusion.
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael:
The only thing I’m questioning is whether or not the Old Testament specifically (Genesis in particular), and perhaps the New Testament as well, teaches that God puts a “soul” in a human or gives a human a “soul” such that this “soul” or this act of giving a human a “soul” thereby differentiates a human from a non-human animal.
My post/comments was to point out that a reading of the Hebrew text of Genesis 1-2 and 7 does not say that God gives humans a “soul” or that the creation of animals is any different than the creation of humans in that regard. Rather, the thing which Genesis seems to say differentiates humans from non-human animals is that the adam/human was/is made in God’s image and likeness, and animals were/are not.
This does not depend on one’s interpretation or reading of Genesis being either literal or symbolic. It simply has to do with what Genesis and the Old Testament say about the creation and life process of man and animals and about the meaning and use in the Hebrew text of the word(s) we translate as “soul.”
And I am arguing that the Genesis text in particular does not support the concept of what is popularly called “ensoulment” – i.e., that God somehow and at some point in the embryonic process gives humans something called a “soul” that differentiates a human from the way Genesis says animals were first created or are created thereafter.
Bottom Line: Christians shouldn’t IMO assume and teach the concept of “ensoulment” until they can show that the Scriptures teach it, and that it wasn’t instead a later concept deriving from, e.g., Greek philosophy.
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael T:
I, too, recall finding this straw man construction and then destruction evident in MacArthur’s books on Charismatics (both editions) – e.g., using quotes out of context and then arguing against what he is saying the person is saying/believing/teaching.
Also, his study Bible repeats the fallacious argument from Spiros Zodhiates, I believe, that there is a difference in Acts and 1 Corinthians 12-14 between “to speak in tongues” (plural) and “to speak in a tongue” (singular) such that one refers to a true language and the other refers to the mindless gibberish he characterizes tongues-speakers as exhibiting. This distinction cannot be proven from the Greek text, and indeed it fails at a couple points.
[The comments and opinions expressed by my post do not necessarily represent the views of the author of this blog or the views of others who post here.]
Like or Dislike:
0
“EVOLUTION – Merely the idea that more complex forms of life evolved from less complex forms of life” is not an adequate definition because it defines itself by itself. It’s like defining blue as “the colour of the blue sky”. It obscures what is meant by “evolved from”.
Also inadequate is the definition, “THEISTIC EVOLUTION – The marriage of evolution with one of a number of philosophies that hold there is a God. Holds that evolution is the process through which God chose to create and that what appear to us as random mutations are not random at all, but were planned by God from the creation of the universe.”
Theistic evolution is not the marriage of the two at all, unless it’s a marriage in which the couple live in different cities from the get go and never even meet. It’s more like parallel lines that are (maybe) within shouting distance from each other.
What is the significance of the statement, “God guided the process of evolution”? None. It is a speculative statement without content. It serves merely as slogan identifying one as a person who believes in both God and evolution. It can be reduced to “I’m a Christian so I have to believe that God guided the process”. One certainly can’t tell from looking at evolution that God guided it, nor can one come to that conclusion from Scripture.
Evolution has, as a core concept, “unguidedness”. Except for being able to retain one’s faith, there is no value to believing that God actually guided a process that looks unguided. It’s like saying, the picture is actually white, even though it looks like it was painted black. The artist actually used white, but it appears to us as black.
If one believes that God moves each atom around like it was a snooker or pool ball then it is possible to belief that God ‘guided’ the process of evolution. Yet, at the same time, it empties the notion of “guided” of any substance or value. Why believe that God manipulated the movement of atoms and genetic material in such a way that we cannot now detect the fact that he did it? That the only thing we can detect is a process unaffected by God? Does that even make sense, except as an after the fact rationalization of a belief in God. “I don’t need God to account for the existence of the present state of nature, but I believe in Him, so I’ll speculate that He did it in such a way that I can’t tell if He did it”.
The speculation that God guided an unguided process is mandated by the fact that the process of evolution is defined from the get go as one that is entirely material and random. The methodology of materialist and naturalistic science is limited to the box it creates for itself and cannot get outside of that box. It can only create explanations that do not have God in them, which leaves Christians who accept the metaphysical assumptions of such science in a position of saying incoherent things like “God guided evolution”. or “God did it in a way that doesn’t…
Like or Dislike:
0
Eric W,
Ok, I think I understand where your going a little more clearly. I think that this is a tough issue. As you are probably aware there has been significant disagreement on what exactly makes up a human being in the Christian Church for millennium. There are in fact three major views on this issue. Trichotomists believe humans are body, soul, spirit. Dichotomists believe humans are body and soul. Finally there is a view holds that man is body and spirit, but that these are inseparable into their individual constituents. I believe Greg Boyd and Paul Eddy actually address each of these views in their book “Across the Spectrum”. Not sure if you have that book, but I’m sure it wouldn’t be hard to find.
Like or Dislike:
0
John 1453,
I just have one question. Do you believe that God acts through natural processes and that things in the natural world which appear to us to be simply “natural” may in fact be caused by God???
Like or Dislike:
0
missing part of my post 208: or “God did it in a way that doesn’t require that He actually did it.”
How is the belief that God created in an undetectable way any different from gnosticism or the mystical and unprovable claims of cults?
How is that belief consistent with Romans 1:20?
or Isaiah 42:5, “This is what the true God,10 the Lord, says –
the one who created the sky and stretched it out, the one who fashioned the earth and everything that lives on it, the one who gives breath to the people on it, and life to those who live on it”
How is that belief any different than the belief in the invisible gardener? Where two explorers accidentally came upon a garden in a jungle. In this garden, there were many beautiful flowers and weeds. One explorer says, “some gardener must tend this plot”. While the other disagrees, “there is no gardener”. So, these two
explorers tried to figure out who was right and who was wrong. They waited the whole night, but no gardener was ever seen. Then the “Believer” said that there must be a gardener, that he “is an invisible gardener”. He tried everything he could to convince to the “Sceptic” that he was right, barbed-wire, electrifying fence, patrolling bloodhounds. But no gardener was ever found. Still the
“Believer” was not convinced. He gave the “Sceptic” many excuses as to why they couldn’t see the gardener. The “Sceptic” told him that he was crazy because what started out as a simple assertion that there was a gardener, turned into “an imaginary gardener”.
The God of the theistic evolutionist is an imaginary gardener who moves around each atom in a manner that is indistinguishable from the godless materialist and naturalist explanation.
****
I also don’t let off teachers of creation either.
JMac, for instance, may have been in many rodeos, but he keeps riding the same lame horse in every one.
It is fundamentally wrong for teachers to remain or claim agnosticism about Genesis and origins. The statement, “I simply believe that when it is interpreted rightly, it is true” is a tautology (I believe that what is true, is true) and so is completely unhelpful and irrelevant. We need to, and can, determine what is true.
The determination of truth respecting Genesis 1 & 2 is important because, first, God gave it to us so He at least thinks it’s important. In additin, evolution attacks not only the how, but also the who and the what. Christianity is a faith grounded in history and fact, and without a way of viewing our origins that is consistent with that we have a deficient belief system, one that raises-and rightly so-suspicions about its veracity and validity, and one that provides justification for unbelief and a barrier to evangelism.
The reason that a seven 24-hour day creation 6,000 years ago seems so evident “on its face” is because teachers have failed to teach us correctly and properly about it.
Like or Dislike:
0
A god who let us prove his existence would be an idol. –Deitrich Bonhoeffer
Like or Dislike:
0
Re post 212
“A God who let us prove his existence would be an idol.”
Whether Bonhoeffer is correct or not depends on what is meant by “prove” and also on whether that statement is just one of his many intentionally provocative statements.
What constitutes proof depends on one’s ontology and epistomology. Certainly Romans 1:20 indicates that sufficient “proof” of God exists such that no person can ever argue that they didn’t have enough.
In the above quote from Bonheffer, which appears in his book “Letters and Papers from Prison”, he meant that the final proof of God lies in faith, not in scientific testing. “A God who let us prove [scientifically] his existence would be an idol.” God’s existence cannot be verified, or disproved, by scientific means, rather God is known by revelation, given to us in the Scriptures. To do otherwise is to raise up science as the final arbiter of knowledge, as a “God” to whom we give allegiance for all that we know and can know.
With respect to post 210 above, whether God uses secondary means in which His presence is not detectable to accomplish some things is not relevant to the issue of origins or to the meaning and purpose of the quotes from either Romans or Isaiah.
regards,
#John
Like or Dislike:
0
re the poll
CMP’s poll, like all other polls on blogs, is statistically irrelevant and meaningless and contains no information that can be used to make any inferences about groups other than the group of votes itself.
However, the bare fact that 70 votes would be registered in favour of YEC is interesting in light of the facts that it can be conclusively proved that the earth is not young (unless God made it with the appearance of age) and that very few YECs seem to leave comments on the blogs relating to evolution or creation.
regards,
#John
Like or Dislike:
0
#John,
re: Romans 1:20 – no one here is arguing that the natural world allows one to escape the natural conclusion that God is behind it all.
Romans 1:20 is about how looking at the created order obviously implies a Creator. TEs do that just as OECs do – they just don’t look for “gaps” in natural theories to do so. TEs/ECs argue that everything – what we call natural, and what we call supernatural – is part of God’s domain. God works through direct causes, and secondary causes – as you yourself accept. Why can’t God use evolution as a secondary cause? The evidence strongly suggests that He did.
Like or Dislike:
0
#John,
It cannot be conclusively proved that the earth is old – it’s just that every line of evidence we have points to that conclusion, and as of yet there is no credible evidence to the contrary.
Just like for evolution.
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael: “I can’t figure out why you keep saying that the arguments for evolution necessitate no God.”
No, I didn’t say all arguments for evolution necessitate no God. What I said is that many of the arguments presented here are the equivalent of saying “there is no God”.
i.e. when someone points to the genetic data and says “See, this is not consistent with a designer”, then they are saying there is no designer, which is equivalent to “there is no God”.
When people want to make their case without having to resort to the argument that the data indicates no designer, then MAYBE we can see if there is a Christian case or not. Until then, it is just atheism repackaged.
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael: 2. “Creationism (God creating humans from a completely blank slate)”
Why does creationism necessitate the blank slate? As I’ve said, Adam made Eve with a rib which is non-blank slate. God made the world first formless, and then formed it which is non blank slate. You are presenting a false dichotomy.
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael: “Now of course He could put this junk DNA in there if He so pleased, but it seems kinda deceptive to me to put a feature in our DNA which would lead one to believe He had created in a evolutionary process.”
It seems kind of deceptive to me that God would on the one hand say he created every creature according to its kind and according to his will, and on the other hand actually created everything with the appearance of random selection and mutation where things are how they are through apparent chance and apparently without the need of a deity. This whole “God is deceiving us” argument cuts both ways for the theist.
Like or Dislike:
0
John,
RE# 219. I agree!!!
Like or Dislike:
0
I have made a statement/question here some time ago that no one has attempted to answer.
While I can see how the days in Genesis one may very well not refer to literal days, there are other aspects of the creation story that the explanations for are not nearly as easy to come by if any form of evolution is true.
The one that troubles me most is the creation of Eve, from Adam’s rib. Now that is obviously not in any way, shape or form true if both of them were a product of evolution and not a special creation as the account would seem to indicate.
Could someone that believes in evolution please tell me what they think this symbolizes if it is not to be taken literally?
Like or Dislike:
0
On a personal note, while I say more power to you if you can reconcile Christianity and evolution, I cannot. Therefore considering the evidence presented in this thread for evolution, I find to be a profoundly depressing experience because for me it is asking me to look and see the evidence there is no God. So I feel pretty sick to my stomach, faithless and hopeless from having done it, despite the good intentions of those who think they are telling it how it is.
This guy also apparently looked into the chasm, and acted consistently with what he saw there.
I can see no possible benefit in promoting evolution in any place or forum or context, even if per se, it is true.
Like or Dislike:
0
Greg says:
“I think we’ve been going about this all wrong. One of the things I am firmly against is trying to find modern science in ancient scripture. This is why I’ve emphasized reading and understanding Genesis through ancient eyes, a rather basic hermeneutic, but one that is constanly overlooked in the debate over origins.”
And one of the things I disagree with is the other extreme: dismissing ancient scripture with modern science. That is a man-invented hermeneutic, not a proper contextual theological interpretation of what scripture says. While I agree historical and cultural context is important to our understanding, it does not in any way change the core message, simply because there are not enough specific details provided to fulfill modern scientific scrutiny of it. As Christians, we cannot simply dismiss the theology of our beginnings on the grounds that it is simply ancient history, or aimed at the ancients alone. Using that kind of selective hermeneutic method, we could then easily claim that because it happened 2000 years ago, Christ’s death and resurrection was ancient history, and not relevant to us, when we know it was and is now central to our modern faith.
Greg claims: “Of course Genesis doesn’t have anything about theistic evolution in it! The concept itself didn’t exist.”
I agree with you on that part. And it doesn’t now, because of your insistence that the science of evolution and philosophy, as you call your theology are two different things.
Like or Dislike:
0
I can’t remember if I have mentioned this here before or not. Please excuse me if I have. However, it seems to be fitting into the context of the conversation at the time.
But for the life of me I can not wrap my mind around the idea of the Holy Spirit who call Himself the Spirit of truth, speaking of totally false ideas as if they were fact. Why would He choose to give His people the story of their creation using total lies to get His point across?? That just does not make sense to me in any way.
Like or Dislike:
0
Hi Cheryl,
Jesus also uses the mustard seed as “the smallest of all seeds” in one of His parables. Biologically speaking, this is false – orchid seeds are far smaller than mustard seeds, for example.
Now, Jesus’ contemporaries would have had no clue that orchids even existed – should Jesus have corrected their false biology, or accommodated His teachings to their (erroneous) understanding of the relevant science so that they would get the theological point of what He was saying?
Like or Dislike:
0
Hi John,
I’m sorry you find the evidence for evolution discouraging – but I would ask you to consider that perhaps the issue is our (human) problem, in that we have failed to retain what the original intent of Genesis is / was, and instead have replaced its original intent with unfair, modern, scientific demands the original authours would know nothing of.
Dennis
Like or Dislike:
0
Just looking on that youtube channel where Dennis’s talk is, there are some good lectures by Denis Lamoureux, Karl Giberson, and Richard Colling that discuss the relationship between evolution and Christianity.
I don’t think Christians have anything to fear, if evolution is how the world is then so be it. If the evidence shows it is ultimately somehow wrong then that’s fine too. But I struggle to see how anyone could argue that it would be better for us to remain ignorant of the facts lest we somehow find them to be uncomfortable.
Like or Dislike:
0
Dennis: this has little to do with Genesis and everything to do with lack of a designer, which is why Muslims have the same issues.
And go explain it to Jesse Kilgore who saw the obvious conclusions.
Like or Dislike:
0
“Jesus also uses the mustard seed as “the smallest of all seeds” in one of His parables”
Smallest of all seeds “sown on the ground”, is what I think it says.
Like or Dislike:
0
John,
I firmly beleive that God is still on the throne and very much in control of all things. Please don’t let this conversation get you down and destroy your faith in Him. I’ll bet if you think about it, you can remember many times that He has proven Himself real and faithful to you and probably to those around you. Hang onto those memories!
Like or Dislike:
0
Hi John,
As far as I can see, no one here is using the evidence for evolution to argue that there is no designer (i.e. that God doesn’t exist). You’ll notice that in my talk I compare common descent with a Non evolutionary Designer. TEs hold that God designed life through evolution.
As for Jesse Kilgore, I agree, his actions are tragic. I suspect he came from a community (like has been argued here) that believes evolution and God are incompatible. When faced for the evidence for evolution (mixed with Dawkins’ atheistic philosophy), he was set up for a tragic fall. If only he knew that other Christians think otherwise…
If for no other reason, this is a good one to discuss these issues openly in the church.
Like or Dislike:
0
Cherylu,
This theistic evolutionist also believes that “God is still on the throne and very much in control of all things.”
Please don’t let this conversation get you down and destroy your faith in Him.
Accepting evolution hasn’t destroyed my faith one iota. In fact, it’s strengthened it, made it more vibrant and robust. If you think acceptance of evolution would destroy your faith, perhaps your faith is focused too much on the written word rather than the living Word.
Like or Dislike:
0
Hi John,
Matthew 13:31 -32 was the reference I had in mind. Here it simply says that the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds.
Like or Dislike:
0
Thank You Dennis as you have pointed out one of the major flaws that I see with appealing to Genesis to discredit evolution. Assuming for a minute that evolution is true and that God guided this process to create all that is would we really expect to find a accurate and full explanation of this process in a story that is thousands of years old even if this story was directly spoken by God to Moses?? I posit that we wouldn’t for the simple fact that if God had fully explained evolution to the ancients no one would understand it. Rather God gave the Israelite’s a symbolic story which conveyed the Truth that was necessary for them to understand while not intending to give a scientific account of creation. To interpret Genesis (or the Bible for that matter) as a scientific text is to force meaning and demands on the text which was completely unknown to the ancients. It is no better then trying to read Revelation in a literal manner.
Like or Dislike:
0
I think we may have compromised the text prior to the past few years in trying to make it say more than it does.
Personally, I’m undecided on the whole thing. I have difficulties with certain arguments each make.
I do agree, though, that this is not the battle we should be fighting.
Like or Dislike:
0
Dennis: “Matthew 13:31 -32 was the reference I had in mind. Here it simply says that the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds.”
It’s the same incident with the same context of sowing seeds.
But look where we are now. You’re not only claiming ignorance of the author of Genesis, you’re claiming God doesn’t know what the smallest seed is, or else he is lying about it.
And this is compatible with Christianity how?
Like or Dislike:
0
mbaker, Re Post #223,
And one of the things I disagree with is the other extreme: dismissing ancient scripture with modern science.
For what its worth, I’m not doing this. I interpret Genesis in the framework of an Ancient Near Eastern Israelite, to the best of my ability. Just because the outcome is different than your expectations doesn’t mean I’m dismissing it.
That is a man-invented hermeneutic, not a proper contextual theological interpretation of what scripture says.
All hermeneutics are man-invented. What theology have I missed out on? Is my hermeneutic bad because I cannot answer the same questions you cannot answer? What about your theology? I asked you some questions in a previous post to you that I’m interested in the answers to. Other posters have added some interesting Hebrew word studies on the idea of the soul that would be good for you to look at and respond to, I think.
While I agree historical and cultural context is important to our understanding, it does not in any way change the core message, simply because there are not enough specific details provided to fulfill modern scientific scrutiny of it.
Historical and cultural context is important because it is essential. I have not changed any core messages. I still say God is the creator of all things, we are made in his divine image, and we can trust him fully for our survival (though this meant more to the ancient Israelites than it did to us, given the historical context). These are the core messages found in the opening chapters of Genesis written to a post-exodus group of wandering Israelites. Nothing has been changed that wasn’t there to begin with.
Making the case that ancient scripture cannot influence modern science, and modern science ancient scripture isn’t dismissing anything except bad hermeneutics.
As Christians, we cannot simply dismiss the theology of our beginnings on the grounds that it is simply ancient history, or aimed at the ancients alone.
I’m not dismissing any theology of our beginnings. Since it was aimed at the ancients first, we must start with the ancients before we go on to us. It was written to them, for our benefit. You can benefit from reading a love letter from your dad to your mom. But it wasn’t written to you, and you’d run into a host of problems if you interpreted it that way.
Using that kind of selective hermeneutic method, we could then easily claim that because it happened 2000 years ago, Christ’s death and resurrection was ancient history, and not relevant to us, when we know it was and is now central to our modern faith.
I’ve never dismissed anything simply because its old. I do insist it be interpreted accordingly. Understanding the historical context of a passage is essential to a proper interpretation.
[To Be Continued]
Like or Dislike:
0
[Continued]
The great thing about understanding the death and resurrection of Christ is discovering that his sacrifice is good for all people everywhere from then on forward. That’s according to my “selective hermeneutic” that thinks ancient scripture is best interpreted within its historical and cultural context.
So maybe its not as bad as you say it is.
I agree with you on that part. And it doesn’t now, because of your insistence that the science of evolution and philosophy, as you call your theology are two different things.
Agreed. But do you understand the reasoning behind it? My “philosophy”, as you say? I’ll explain some of it if you want to take the time to read it.
To begin with, I am not bound by trying to make science fit my interpretation of Genesis. Nor am I bound trying to make Genesis fit what modern science currently claims. I hold the two separate because to combine them requires compromise in some way.
Let me repeat that: If anyone uses one to decide the other, they are compromising. They compromise God’s special revelation or his natural revelation. Either way, they compromise some aspect of God’s revelation. I think this is a concept relevant to this blog post that has been overlooked.
If Genesis determines science, then science is restrained. If science determines Genesis, then scripture is restrained. You will always lose something essential if you use one unrelated subject to impose boundaries on another unrelated subject. Its like using modern meteorology to decide what an English professor can or cannot teach about 16th century British Literature.
Genesis should be interpreted by first taking into account ancient standards, conventions, and understanding. Starting off with any other culture, standard, knowledge, or science and you confuse its meaning. It becomes compromised, and anything built off of that will be slanted. Once original meaning has been established to the best of our knowledge, then the gaps between ancient and modern can be bridged and the fruit of that applied to our contemporary setting. (An entire commentary series, the NIV Application Commentary, is based off of this very basic concept, by the way.)
If the process of modern scientific enquiry has any influence from ancient scripture placed on it, the results will be slanted. They will be slanted towards whatever group’s interpretation of Genesis has the field at the time. It’s like two children arguing over a toy. In this case, the best thing to do is take it away from both of them.
No influence from either subject should be allowed to interfere at this point.
[To Be Continued]
Like or Dislike:
0
[Continued]
Because this is true, findings in one subject do not affect findings in another. Genesis contains ancient cosmology that we know now doesn’t exist. Who cares? Genesis isn’t about ancient cosmology anyway, but ancient cosmology God explained that he is the creator and sustainer of this world, that he created time, weather, and food for our benefit, that he made us in his image, and we can trust him in all our needs.
That’s the point and teaching of the creation account, and if that’s been missed, then the whole point of the creation account has been missed. Its not about Ancient Near Eastern Cosmology, but ANEC does help us understand what the account is about. That’s what should be focused on when we interpret it.
If someone wants to find whatever modern science they currently accept in Genesis, they can go ahead and try it. After they’ve found it, integrated it into their understanding, and built this or that theology off of it, they should not be surprised when science comes around and says its previous assertions have been overthrown and hands them a new theory they can use to define their religion around.
That’s how modern science works….and that’s why it doesn’t belong as any foundation for timeless truths in scripture.
Understand ancient Genesis and modern science for what it is. Anything further and one or the other will be weakened. Because I do this, I am free to believe what science reveals about God’s created order at present. I have no theology based on modern science, and I don’t have to fight a useless and losing battle with any and all science I have a bone with. I also don’t have to alter my interpretation of scripture according to current science, or any new theories that come to light over my lifetime. My interpretation is time-bound to scripture, and the truths it reveals timeless because of it.
When I have the results of both in my hand, boundaries are set that I have to operate within. My faith in God is held high above all else. I may not understand how these things go together immediately or completely, but I will persist in my search for a reconciliation that honors both subjects because I believe that all truth is God’s truth.
If anyone does not have faith in that, then they aren’t ready to handle truth.
[Finished]
Like or Dislike:
0
“As far as I can see, no one here is using the evidence for evolution to argue that there is no designer”
Au contraire, we have been told in this thread that “common design is refuted”, by an evolutionary proponent.
“You’ll notice that in my talk I compare common descent with a Non evolutionary Designer.”
And we’ve seen that non-evolutionary designing humans come up with designs with the same artifacts. So where you you’ve done your random sample of designing deities and how they behave remains an open question.
“If for no other reason, this is a good one to discuss these issues openly in the church.”
If for no other reason this is NOT a good topic to discuss. Jesse Kilgore was not ignorant. He apparently prided himself on being a debater. Some ideas are dangerous, and this is one of them.
Like or Dislike:
0
But look where we are now. You’re not only claiming ignorance of the author of Genesis, you’re claiming God doesn’t know what the smallest seed is, or else he is lying about it.
John,
We certainly want to help you understand, but it is very difficult when you respond to us with accusations. I think you should reread this thread again. Multiple people have explained these things to you very well, but it seems you have not yet understood what we are talking about.
If we have confused you, it would be better for you to ask us nicely to explain them to you again, perhaps with a bit more context if you need it. It is better to do that than to proceed directly into accusing us of various things that are not true.
Your responses tell me you do not understand what is being discussed. It also tells me that you may not be reading replies given to you. Or not doing so carefully.
Before you assume the worst, make sure you understand what we are saying. Ask questions to clarify if you have to. Once you understand what is being said, then you are in a position to critique it.
Criticism is always helpful in a discussion like this. But it needs to be relevant before it can be helpful.
Like or Dislike:
0
It’s not an accusation Greg, I’m just repeating what I’ve been told here. Christianity teaches Jesus is God. The claim is on the table that God stated something that… and I quote “is false”. The author of that statement said God is saying false things, not I.
Now quit the condescending nonsense that I am ignorant and I don’t understand. True and false are pretty simple concepts, even for an evolved monkey.
Like or Dislike:
0
The Catholic Church thought that the Earth revolving around the Sun was also a dangerous idea and beyond that if it’s so dangerous maybe you should stop responding rather than carrying on the conversation further since debating this is so dangerous.
Also where in the world does Greg claim that God is ignorant with regards to what the smallest seed is?? On the contrary Greg seems to affirm (and I certainly affirm) that God is well aware of what the smallest seed is. However, when this passage was written the people who were being spoken to were unaware of orchid seeds so they were spoken to in terms of the smallest seed known to their culture. God is not ignorant about what the smallest seed is, but the people He is talking to are. Rather than correct their understanding he uses what they know to communicate a theological Truth. The science is immaterial to the Truth being communicated just as it is in Genesis. In Genesis God is using the cosmological understandings of the people He is communicating with to communicate theological Truths and is not concerned with trying to correct their scientific misunderstandings because they are immaterial to what is being communicated.
Like or Dislike:
0
John,
Dennis said this:
Jesus also uses the mustard seed as “the smallest of all seeds” in one of His parables. Biologically speaking, this is false – orchid seeds are far smaller than mustard seeds, for example.
Now, Jesus’ contemporaries would have had no clue that orchids even existed – should Jesus have corrected their false biology, or accommodated His teachings to their (erroneous) understanding of the relevant science so that they would get the theological point of what He was saying?
If you read it carefully, and his further replies, you will see that is not what he is saying at all. Your “sown in the ground” comment doesn’t change anything. After all, orchids are sown in the ground, are they not?
One thing that I think you do not understand about God is that he meets those he created where they are.
For example, when he speaks to people in the Bible, he does so in the language they speak. Nothing would benefit from this exchange if the people couldn’t understand God, right?
He meets people where they are, like when God put on flesh and dwelt among us. He become one of us and took up our own limitations and frailties so he could save us.
It is like a parent speaking to a toddler with words the toddler can understand. Of course the parent can use more complex words and sentences, but the toddler just wouldn’t understand them.
Likewise, if a scientist gave a lecture to a lay audience and spoke only in scientific jargon, the audience would gain nothing from it except a frustration with scientists!
What Dennis is saying here is that Jesus Christ simply used an example that would be known to the people he was talking to. He could have used orchid seeds, but no one there knew about those and how small they were. He could have gone into the science of it all, but that would have distracted his audience away from his parable.
I think our discussion is a very good example of what would occur if Jesus talked about things the people didn’t understand. Dennis, myself, and a few others are talking to you in a way that assumes this basic understanding about God, that he accommodates himself to his people so they can understand him.
But it seems we were wrong in our assumption, so you do not understand the things we are saying. We are speaking in ways that are foreign to you, and the effect, unfortunately, is frustration. You think we are misrepresenting God and scripture.
If God spoke to people about things they did not know about or understand, then that would likely result in confusion on their part. Instead, as I’ve said, he meets them where they are and uses their knowledge to reveal some new, amazing things about himself to them.
I hope, after explaining this to you, you are able to understand better what we are saying God did many times in scripture.
Keep in mind that as he did with our flesh, he does with our knowledge.
Like or Dislike:
0
“After all, orchids are sown in the ground, are they not?”
People were farming orchids circa 30AD? I think not.
“Nothing would benefit from this exchange if the people couldn’t understand God, right?”
How does it add to the story to make a statement that is false biologically? He could have said “one of the smallest seeds” or “a very small seed”.
In any case, if one wants to say Jesus lies to assist making theological points, I have an issue with that. If you don’t have an issue with that, as it appears you don’t, so be it, but that is no reason to accuse me of ignorance because I point out what you advocate.
If one wanted to use the mustard seed verse as an example of a verse that could lead to false scientific conclusions, I don’t have a problem with that. But to say it is false is different entirely. Either there was a problem with what Jesus said, or there is a problem with our interpretation. Saying it is “false” is to state the former.
Now if people were being careless in their wording, a retraction is welcome. But if they are sticking by the claim it is false, then I stand by my observation.
Like or Dislike:
0
John,
What is said in regards to the mustard seed is false in the context of what we know now. However, in the cultural context God was speaking in it was not false. I have no problem with the idea that God used cultural norms and beliefs to communicate theological Truths even when those norms and beliefs were false in and of themselves. I just don’t see this as God lying, but simply meeting people at their level of understanding (in which the mustard seed was the smallest seed) and using that understanding to make His point. Ultimately what God said was the truth in the culture he was speaking too.
I honestly think that if you see this as God lying you are going to have a whole lot of problems with other parts of the Bible. By way of example under the Old Testament Law it was permissible for a husband to divorce his wife if he gave her a certificate of divorce. However, in the New Testament Jesus comes along he tells his audience that it is a sin to divorce your wife. Now was God lying when he told the Israelites that they could divorce their wifes??? Or perhaps the eternal Law of God somehow changed??? Neither of these!!! The Bible in fact explicitly tells us why God gave a law in the Old Testament that was different from God’s eternal law revealed in the New Testament. He was meeting the culture where they were at and because of the corruptness of the culture he gave them a law which was designed not to tell them what was necessary to fully conform to His standards, but was rather designed to curb the evilness of men. Ultimately God gave a law which if followed to the letter would still result in sin.
Also just think about things logically. If you are trying to tell a story to a group of people by way of using analogies and have to stop to explain your analogies by giving all sorts of scientific background your not going to be very effective. In the same way if Jesus had to stop and explain that thousands of miles away there was this seed called an orchid which was smaller then a mustard seed and the Kingdom of God was like this orchid seed the whole thing would be ridiculous to the audience he was speaking too. So he just met them where they were in their culture and there level of knowledge.
Like or Dislike:
0
Also according to some sources orchids have been cultivated in China since 550 BC!!!
Like or Dislike:
0
Only cultural statements are true or false depending on culture. The reason this statement is not false is because the context is the cultural farming practices of 1st century Palestinians. Had the context not been 1st century Palestinian farming, the statement about seeds would be a lie regardless of the ignorance of 1st century Palestinians. Interpreting a statement in context and concluding it is true is a vastly different proposition to saying the statement is false, but excusable in light of ignorance. I for one would not make false statements to ignorant people and claim it is truth. Arguments about whether Jesus might have gone onto a discourse about orchids are irrelevant, as if Jesus had only the 2 options, to lie or to speak to things his listeners knew.
I don’t see any relevance to divorce rules, as if changes in commands are equivilent to factual untruths.
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael,
You said:
“I’m really uncomfortable with your statement that non-humans gave birth to humans because I think it not only mischaracterizes what I have said, but mischaracterizes what a human is….
The only way your statement could be accurate is all that composed humans was physical. Since all Christians believe that humans are greater then just what physically composes us (soul and spirit) this argument loses it’s force. No non-human could ever give birth to a human because creating a human requires a supernatural intervention of God in giving humans a eternal soul. Now the idea that God gave this soul to a preexisting creatures does not mean that a non-human gave birth to a human, rather that God gave birth to humans. Oh yeah and God guided the process from the beginning with the intent of that happening all along.”
I’m glad that you are uncomfortable with the statement, not because it mis-characterizes what you’ve said, but because it shows you where your belief in creation via evolution ultimately takes you. Yes, of course there are different types of “births”; everyone (except Adam and Eve, I would argue) was born via the normal process of procreation; others are born again when they become Christians. My physical father impregnated my mother and I was physically born. My spiritual Father opened my mind to his love through Christ and I was born as a Christian.
But let’s not equivocate here, Michael. I’m speaking of the act of procreation. I’m speaking about what it was that had a womb in which the first man began as a fertilized egg, which then gradually grew into a fetus to ultimately be born as a baby. Your view requires that what gave physical birth to the first man was non-human. You can deny this if you’d like, but just know that you can only do so by rejecting the scientific method, which, via testable, observable, measurable experimentation tells us that apes beget apes and humans beget humans, etc.
As for God “giving” the first ape-man (or whatever you would call it) a soul and thereby making him the first hu-man, EricW is correct that the biblical account doesn’t say that God gave a non-man a soul thus making him a man. It says that God breathed into Adam the breath of life and he _became_ a living soul. The Bible teaches that man _is_ a soul, and modern science supports this.
~Kaz
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael,
You said:
“I’m really uncomfortable with your statement that non-humans gave birth to humans because I think it not only mischaracterizes what I have said, but mischaracterizes what a human is…The only way your statement could be accurate is all that composed humans was physical. Since all Christians believe that humans are greater then just what physically composes us (soul and spirit) this argument loses it’s force. No non-human could ever give birth to a human because creating a human requires a supernatural intervention of God in giving humans a eternal soul. Now the idea that God gave this soul to a preexisting creatures does not mean that a non-human gave birth to a human, rather that God gave birth to humans. Oh yeah and God guided the process from the beginning with the intent of that happening all along.”
I’m glad that my statement made you uncomfortable, not because it mis-characterizes what you’ve said, but because it shows you where your belief that God created via evolution ultimately takes you. Yes, there are different types of “births”. My earthly father impregnated my mother and I was physically born a human male child; my heavenly Father placed the seed of his love for me through Christ in my heart and I was born a Christian. But let’s not equivocate here, Michael. I’m speaking of the act of physical procreation. I’m talking about what it was that had a womb in which the an egg was fertilized that would grow into a fetus and ultimately be born as a baby which would later grow into an adult human being. What was that thing that had that womb in which the first baby grew that would ultimately grow to be the first human adult? Was it human or was it something else? You tell me.
~Kaz
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael,
By the way, ErikW is correct when he notes that the Bible doesn’t teach that God _gave_ man a soul. It says that God breathed into man the breath of life and he _became_ a living soul. Modern science supports this notion, and this has been discussed by Nancy Murphy, Joel B. Green, and others.
~Kaz
Like or Dislike:
0
re 215
D. Venema wrote, “re: Romans 1:20 – no one here is arguing that the natural world allows one to escape the natural conclusion that God is behind it all.”
Romans 1:20 only works as the writer intended if a person can look at the natural world and determine that it must be the result of the work of a god. It does not work if it means only that every person should assume that the natural world is the creation of a God, that is if as Venema writes, “TEs/ECs argue that everything – what we call natural, and what we call supernatural – is part of God’s domain. God works through direct causes, and secondary causes . . . Why can’t God use evolution as a secondary cause?”
God, being omnipotent, could use evolution as a secondary cause. But if he did then there would be no evidence that He created anything. The evidence would only suggest that entirely material, random and undirected processes are capable of forming all life as we observe it. Hence Romans 1:20 would lose all of its argumentative force.
re post 216
Whether the age of the earth can be “conclusively” proved depends on what is meant by “conclusively” and one’s epistomology. Assuming that one accepts the legitmacy of math and the hard sciences, the age of the earth is about as conclusive as one can get, though it’s a step short of those things that are directly experienced such as gravity or the warmth of the sun.
The hard sciences are categorically different from evolutionary biology, which remains unconfirmed both experimentally and observationally and which cannot be falsified (again, unlike hard sciences such as (most) physics.
the mustard seed and other “false” statements
It is factually false for Jesus to state that the mustard seed is the smallest. There are several ways of dealing with that fact. Jesus could be intending to say something else. Jesus may not be making a factual statement. Jesus, as human, could be mistaken (not a stretch, he didn’t know the time of his second coming). He could be using cultural knowledge, etc.
The same principles of interpretation get used every time we come across a factual error in the Bible, such as the sun rising, the four corners of the earth, the existence of a firmanent, God being described as breathing or having nostrils, etc. It is not entirely dissimilar to the way we have to deal with prophecies that did not come true as predicted (Ninevah not destroyed, Tyre not destroyed as predicted, etc.). That is, something else is intended by the writer of text than the accuracy or correctness of the apparent factual content of the statement.
regards,
#John
Like or Dislike:
0
You know, it seems to me that there is a fundamental difference between what Jesus did with the mustard seed parable and what we see in Genesis. At least with the mustard seed, the fact remains that for the people he was talking to IT WAS the smallest seed. It was culturally correct and accurate.
In the Genesis story, if the creation of Adam and Eve are not to be taken literally in any sence or the cosmology there taken literally in any sence there is not an ounce of truth to it anywhere! Therefore, it seems to me it is not the same things as the mustard seed story at all.
In the Genesis story God would of been using an outright untruth in all times, places, and cultures to convey His truth. And telling it as if it were absolute fact. I’m sorry, but I have a problem with that idea.
And someone here has likened taking Revelation literally as the same thing as taking Genesis literally. I don’t think that is accurate either. We all can see that there is a lot of symbolism in Revelation that we may not understand at this point. But the idea discussed above isn’t even calling Genesis symbolism, it is simply saying that God used a total untruth that was believed at the time and told it as truth Himself to get his point across.
Like or Dislike:
0
#John,
“God, being omnipotent, could use evolution as a secondary cause. But if he did then there would be no evidence that He created anything. The evidence would only suggest that entirely material, random and undirected processes are capable of forming all life as we observe it.”
I do not know of a single Christian who accepts evolution who would agree with that last statement. You clearly do not understand Christians who accept evolution. I think it would take an hour or so of face-to-face conversation (which I think I would very much enjoy with you) for you to understand how Christians like myself think about origins.
Like or Dislike:
0
re post 253
Given that Genesis was written using cultural truths about cosmology, it would be just as true as the cultural truths about mustard seeds.
That is partly what Walton argues in his recently released book.
regards,
#John
Like or Dislike:
0
#John,
Re post 255
I still don’t think it is the same. There is no basis in fact at all in the Genesis story–it is a totally false product of people’s imaginations without an iota of truth to it if the folks that are speaking here about it are correct. At least in the culture of Jesus day that He was speaking to, the mustard seed was literally the smallest known seed.
There seems to me to be quite a gap between that idea and telling a completely imagined story as if it were absolute fact.
Like or Dislike:
0
Cherylu,
We see what we want to see in Genesis, I suppose.
Even when I was an avowed YEC, I still felt like Genesis 1 read like it was more poetic, and more mythic, than literal, historical, and scientific. You say that Revelation gives obvious clues of symbolism. Are you suggesting that Genesis 2 and 3 do not? Talking snakes? Magical trees? Woman formed out of a rib of man? Now I understand how a person could take these things literally. But come on! There is at least a hint that the story might be allegorical, don’t you think?
Like or Dislike:
0
Cliff,
Allergories that I have read generally have a pretty close correspondence to what they are actually portraying. I don’t see that in the Genesis account if evolution is correct. A woman being formed from a man’t rib is, for instance, an allegory for what? I keep asking that and no one can come up with an answer.
And some of us have been in religious circles all of our lives where these things were taken very literally. There are a whole lot of what you call “magical” things described in the Bible. I would call them supernatural.
Like or Dislike:
0
re post 254
What evidence is there that God was/is involved in evolution?
I’ll give a hint: none. And no one has ever postulated any.
Theistic evolution is merely a parallel belief in a God that is grounded in other evidences (i.e., apart from the observable nature). Theistic evolutionists bring their beliefs about God to their theory of evolution, they do not derive beliefs about God from evolution.
They cannot do the latter, because nothing in evolution suggests the existence of any kind of God at all. Indeed, under evolutionary theory it is more likely that a belief in God evolved.
They do the former because, believing in God, and then being convinced of the accuracy of evolution, they must believe that God used evolution. However, no theistic evolutionist can point to any trace of anything in evolution that would indicate a non-material cause for any aspect of evolution. Consequently, the meaning of Romans 1:20 is vitiated except in regard to the fine tuning of the universe / cosmos.
One of the grounds for stating that belief in evolution is a compromise of Christian faith is that atheism is, and has been, a conscious and intended purpose of the research program that is evolution in general. Evolution is the intentional search for a material cause for the origin and development of life in all its forms. It is not a value neutral subject, though it cloaks itself in scientific methodology and technique (which themselves may or may not be value neutral).
regards,
#John
Like or Dislike:
0
re mustard seeds
It’s unlikely that the farmers in Jesus day did not know about poppies, which have smaller seeds than the mustard plant. The history of the cultivation of the poppy plant, Paper somniferums history begins with the ancient Sumerians. The ancient Sumerians referred to the flower as “hul gil” or plant of joy. The Sumerians passed their knowledge of the plant to the Assyrians. The Assyrians gave their knowledge of poppy cultivation to the Babylonians who passed their understanding to the Egyptians. inThe opium trade flourished during the reign of the Egyptian Pharaohs. The Egyptian civilization promoted use of opium as a sleep aid. Even Egyptian Pharaohs were buried with opium artifacts. All prior to Jesus.
So the saying was factually false and known to be so in Jesus’ day.
As to ancient cosmologies, the ancient Hebrews had no concept of “outer space” and believed in a solid firmanent in which the stars and planets were embedded and which held up water on the outer side. Factually untrue, of course.
Furthermore, the first chapter of Genesis is not a historical literature genre, but more likely the origin of the cosmos retold using the structure of a temple building narrative, in which God builds his temple / dwelling. Given that genre and structure, the points of contact are not with some “real historical time periods” but with the significant aspects of temples and worship. The narrative is “true” in so far as it relates “true” things about temples and worship and the dwellings of gods. The other aspects of the narrative are fictionalized details, in the same way as the details in Jesus’ parables are fictionalized details that are not germaine to the truth being taught, and which are not intended to be taught as truths.
regards,
#John
Like or Dislike:
0
#John1453 pointed out in comment #252:
“The hard sciences are categorically different from evolutionary biology, which remains unconfirmed both experimentally and observationally and which cannot be falsified (again, unlike hard sciences such as (most) physics.”
This is a point I think needs to be more clearly delineated by evolutionists, of where they do draw the line. It appears they are attempting to fit man into the picture vis a vis the hard sciences, such as archeology, and geology, when there is no way to really determine at what point, if any (and it’s the if any that’s the big question) man became a thinking, individual species, separate from his primate ancestors.
As I have already pointed out there is a huge difference in the adaptive behavior of man and animals which causes us to progress, or regress, or become extinct because of having to survive in the ever changing world around us. So certainly our awareness and progress would be greater than that of early man. That does not mean however that we evolved from a species similar to us however, only that our behavior is different because of the knowledge and wisdom the generations before us have learned and passed on to us, and how we will do the same for future generations.
This doesn’t take God out of the picture, or compromise Christianity like Darwinism does, it just makes it clearer that we are created in His image, and even after the fall are designed to continue to be able to survive in the physical world on our own. We are also given the opportunity to be born again spiritually, something that apes are not.
Now, using reason alone, one would think if apes through no fault of their own were not human beings and then at some point became human, one would have thought that Christ would have included them in the salvation process, not because of their sin, but because of their innocence.
Like or Dislike:
0
John:
There IS experimental evidence verifying evolution.
More than one scientist has observed/induced evolution in micro-organisms. These organisms grow quickly, and hundreds, thousands of generations can be observed in a relatively short time. In this case, experimental science observed them developing into significantly different organisms, due to stress factors in the environment.
Thus verifying Evolution experimentally, observationally.
Like or Dislike:
0
YEC votes
I note that the votes for YEC continue to increase. It could, perhaps, be one person voting from 80+ different computers, or it could be a number of people voting from one computer each. Nevertheless, even if it is only one person, I have a question.
Given that a young earth is not a tenable belief based upon what God has enabled us to learn about His creation, (a) why do you voter(s) still believe in a young earth? and (b) do you believe that it is a compromise to hold to anything other than a young earth?
mbaker’s question in #261 re the salvation of animals
Interesting and perceptive point you raise. Some people do believe that the second coming will involve not only a resurrection of humans and a renewal of the earth, but also the same for animals.
In addition, one might speculate as to whether human language, intellect and morality are or came about like a light switch–either fully on or fully off–or if the emerged very slowly. If the former, it makes your question answerable, if the latter, then there would not be a genetically significant difference between those humanids whom God holds morally accountable as people because they are deemed “humans” and those whom he does not because they are “beasts”.
regards,
#John
Like or Dislike:
0
re post 262 and experimental evidence for evolution
I wasn’t clear that I’m using experimental confirmation in a restrictive sense. There is evidence of mutations in the genetic code of organisms, and there is evidence that these mutations do have effects on the organisms.
However, there is no evidence that such changes can lead to the increase in informational content of the genetic code, to new structures, to new functions for old structures, or to a new organism that is sufficiently different from the previous so as to constitute something more than a different species.
Lenski’s work in observing 10s of thousands of generations of bacteria pretty much destroys hope in the possibility of genetic mutation as the key factor in the evolutionary development of all life. He has observed more generations in that one species than would be available for the development of whales from land animals, different types of sauropod dinosaurs, the development of horses, etc. He’s observed harmful mutations and mutations that lead to loss of information (but a corresponding useful effects), etc. But he has not observed the formation of new structures or of organisms that are less bacteria-like and more like some kind of new organism.
Hence the offerings of evolutionary biology are to meagre to justify Christian belief in them as a viable explanation for all life as we see it, especially in light of the fact that a Christian is not limited to solely material causes. Christians get sucked into researching evolutionary biology because it is the dominant paradigm for universities, for teaching jobs, for academic credibility and for research grants. Nevertheless, because the underlying ideology and purpose of the research program is to establish an explanation for life that excludes God, participation in the research program is a compromise of Christianity. Of course, not all research that might be later used by an evolutionist to support that theory is a compromise, for example research in cell development or genetics.
regards,
#John
Like or Dislike:
0
Renton,
We already know that normal cells can mutate and grow rapidly because of the disease of cancer, and other diseases such as viruses mutating into other forms , as in the case of H1N1. That does not fail to make them viruses, however.
So while you could possibly deduce from the experiment you talked about that that was a evolutionary process which pointed to the origins of life, I would argue that you would need much more proof than that, since all cells divide. Most of us learned that in high school biology. I could put frog cells into a petrie dish and watch them grow into different forms over time the further way they got from the original cell, but couldn’t make them into human beings. Probably would have gotten a better grade if I could have!
Further, if you are going base your case on this crude experiment, how would you explain the differences in children from the same mother and father? While each child is different in some respect, in looks and personality they still originated from the same species. And are we not discussing the origins of our species?
Furthermore, if we going to go on the basis of cell division creating differences, let’s discuss cloning. Dolly, the cloned sheep and other animals which have been produced in a test tube don’t look exactly the same either, although they came from the same cells of their own species originally.
I think you are proving my point in #261 above when you say:
“In this case, experimental science observed them developing into significantly different organisms, due to stress factors in the environment.”
For that matter, men and women are significantly different creatures, on that I think we can all agree. However, despite the tongue in cheek book about one of us being from Mars and the other from Venus, we are still the same species.
We have not evolved, only been created differently for different purposes. Evolution, although it cannot prove its own theory absolutely insists that animals became man. Why then can’t men become animals if we can jump species due to ‘stress factors in the environment’?
Like or Dislike:
0
John1453:
It seems to me that you are guilty of the same mistake that you accuse YECs of making. You apparently don’t realise that many of them regard an old earth to be as unjustified according to scripture, and antithetical to the gospel, as you apparently think evolutionary theory is. The precise same question could be posed to you: since separate ancestries for humans and chimps is not a tenable belief based upon what God has enabled us to learn about His creation, why do you still (apparently) maintain a belief in it?.
Like or Dislike:
0
To continue #265 so it ties to the original subject of the post: Saying that stress factors in the environment were the causal factor in the evolution of man from an ape, based on crude experiments is quite a compromise with the Bible, IMO, from the get go.
Adaptive behavior, on the other hand, doesn’t necessitate a belief or a knowledge in the scientific method behind it in order for it to take place among both the educated and uneducated alike. Nor, if all present knowledge should cease to exist due to some causal factor in the environment, would that stop man from continually seeking something higher than himself simply because we are created in the image of God, not Godzilla.
Like or Dislike:
0
Related blog threads and upcoming conferences
I have directly copied most of the below from Scot McKnight’s blog, where a conversation similar to this thread is also ongoing.
“Biologos has planned a working group symposium (exclusive and invitation only or I would have it on my calendar as a must) to look at just this issue. The workshop will bring together 15 leading scientists, 15 leading pastors and 15 leading theologians to explore this issue. Tim Keller, Francis Collins, and Alister McGrath are among the “names” involved. . . .
As part of the preparation for this workshop Bruce Waltke (or here), Old Testament scholar, author of a Genesis commentary and other books, was commissioned to write a white paper identifying barriers for the typical evangelical theologians to accepting the possibility of creation by means of an evolutionary process. The results of his research are available here: Waltke Scholarly Essay.”
Waltke’s essay is at this address:
http://biologos.org/uploads/projects/Waltke_scholarly_essay.pdf
The lead post from McKnight is here:
http://blog.beliefnet.com/jesuscreed/
The conversation McKnight’s blog is happening here:
http://blog.beliefnet.com/jesuscreed/2009/10/evolution-and-evangelicals-wha_comments.html
regards,
#John
Like or Dislike:
0
John and others, regarding the empirical proofs of evolution:
Scientists have shown bacteria evolving due to stress, into significantly different organisms. And we hear every day for example, about one flu bug, evolving into a significantly different – and more powerful one: N1H1.
How much evidence do you want? More than that … combined with the geological and archeological and anthropological records?
And massive evidence against all miracles in general?
There is therefore, massive evidence for evolution. Asking for more evidence than that, you set the bar for what constitutes evidence, unreasonably high. Much, much, higher than you set for yourself, when Christians assert that they themselves can walk on water and so forth. (See Patton asserting that mere “probability” is good enough to consider something proven.
Be consistent?
Though in any case, too, evolution can easily be phrased in ways consistent with the Bible; the “great” universe God made and so forth.
God told us in Rom. 1.20 that the material universe, evidences the nature of God. And so, then the universe clearly evidences evolution. So that clearly God must essentially have chosen evolution, as the means by which he created things. That was his nature, and the nature of his creation. As say, the Catholic CHurch allows.
Like or Dislike:
0
It is not necessary to show an organism evolving into another, entirely different kind of animal; it is enough for now (combined with other evidence) to show that one organism evolved into another subspecies or another species, to adequately conclude that in effect, evolution seems highly indicated as the way that God chose to create different animals.
And that has been sufficiently demonstrated, by dozens of different verifications systems, all cross-triangulating at the same intersection and conclusion: the existence of Evolution.
To ask for more than that, is to ask for infinitely more evidence that you ask for your own beliefs; for which only “faith” and no evidence at all is required.
Like or Dislike:
0
John1453,
Since you are still talking about evolution, why don’t you talk about it with Dennis?
Like or Dislike:
0
re incorrect statements respecting evolution
1. There is not a single peer reviewed paper in which any one has shown bacteria evolving due to stress, into significantly different organisms.
2. Is is inaccurate to state that one flu bug evolves into a significantly different one. A more apt, though simplified analogy, might be to think of different flus as different kinds of dogs. I copy the below from a website on viruses:
“The quick answer is that there is no basic difference. All influenza viruses come from the same family of viruses (Orthomyxoviridae), and furthermore both swine flu and bird flu are caused by the same species of virus, known as influenzavirus A or the influenza A virus. However, just as there are genetic differences among humans, who are all of one species, so are there genetic differences among the influenza A virus. And just as genetic differences may make some people more susceptible to certain illnesses or create certain physical differences, so can the genetic differences in the virus create various characteristics.”
I note also that H1N1 (not N1H1) is not significantly more powerful than many other flus. The differences between it and other flu viruses is that H1N1 (1) tends to be a spring-summer epidemic rather than fall-winter, (2) in addition to being more prevalent in the spring-summer than other flus, it can and does occur throughout the year while more “typical” flus are largely seasonal, and (3) it can affect individuals of all age groups, rather than predominantly the ederly or very young (though it has more serious effects for women, and though the Spanish flu did kill healthy males). Though these facts are beside the point, that Renton makes these simple errors detracts from his credibility on other points.
3. I set the evidentiary bar no higher than one finds in the “hard” sciences, where falsifiability and experimental repeatability are cornerstones of advancing knowledge. (For those into the philosophy of science and into the debates following Kuhn’s work, yes, I know that “science” is very hard to define). Evolutionary biology and evolutionary science cannot meet the standards that are basic and common fare in the other sciences.
4. Evolution of organisms from one kind to a significantly different kind (e.g., say land dwelling pig to aquatic pig) is not observed in the present day nor has it been observed it experimentally. Consequently, evolution is a not a theory of science per se, but rather a historical theory or, better stated, a particular narrative of history that lacks many key aspects of verification.
5. Renton gets Romans 1:20 completely backwards. He argues that since God created the universe he must have used evolution. The opposite, however, is what is meant by Paul (and God): from looking at nature we can determine that God did it.
Like or Dislike:
0
Renton,
It is possible to have the same evidence and come to different conclusions. In the end, like two lawyers working with the same evidence from two different perspectives, it comes down to what the judge and the jury believes is the most true that ultimately decides the case.
We both agree cells divide and mutate as I pointed out to you in my comment above, and you have agreed with. But whether they jump species in doing so is the question. I don’t think evolutionists have provided clear cut evidence at all that the randomness of that cell division process translates into the order of all creation that we see now, each animal and human acting and reacting according to its own kind in the species.
This is a basic fact of life, as we know it, which does not necessitate that I prove the existence of God or miracles, since it is science is based on empirical evidence. Yet many evolutionists are drawing spiritual conclusions that God began man from apes, simply on very skimpy empirical evidence provided by the discovery of ancient bones. Yet at the same time they are telling creationists to disbelieve a literal interpretation of Genesis because it is ancient history!
So how can we not question what someone else here called the apparent schizophrenia of that?
Like or Dislike:
0
re post 266
Not sure from his post whether Tom is a YEC or not. He writes, “The precise same question could be posed to you: since separate ancestries for humans and chimps is not a tenable belief based upon what God has enabled us to learn about His creation, why do you still (apparently) maintain a belief in it?.”
Separate ancestries for humans and chimps is a very tenable belief for many reasons, some of which I have outlined above. Given certain initial premises regarding epistomology (how we know what we know) and God’s interaction with humans, a young earth is not.
BTW, I would use the same initial starting point for examining both beliefs, so it is not the case that I come to different conclusions on the two issues because I start from different premises for each.
regards,
#John
Like or Dislike:
0
John 1453,
I’m really tired of having my views represented by forcing meanings on what I said that I don’t agree with. It is really no different then me saying all Calvinists believe God is evil since they believe all things are ordained by God even though they state catagorically that they do not. Simply because I can not personally reconcile a God who is in total control with a God who is good does not prevent someone else with greater insight then me from doing so. Thus it borders on slander to accuse all Calvinists believe in a evil God even though I would personally have to believe in an evil God if I accepted Calvinism
You stated “God, being omnipotent, could use evolution as a secondary cause. But if he did then there would be no evidence that He created anything. The evidence would only suggest that entirely material, random and undirected processes are capable of forming all life as we observe it” as a response to questions about Romans undermining Romans 1:20. No Christian theistic evolutionist that I have ever met would agree with this statement. They believe, as I do, that the existence of the universe itself and the evolutionary process are nearly irrefutable evidence of the existence of a god. The odds of the universe just springing into existence from nothing with no cause whatsoever is so ridiculously small without a god behind it as to be absurd. The same goes for evolution. I think it was posted in a newer post on this blog that the odds of evolution evolving bacteria to humans in 10 billion years is like 10 to the 24 millionth power. To me accepting that this bacteria evolved eventually into humans almost necessitates believing in a god because without someone guiding the process it just wouldn’t happen. In the end game for a person who accepts a naturalistic evolution without a god is trying to win the cosmic lottery in which an almost infinite number of tickets say “God” while only one says “No God”. They are betting against the house.
Like or Dislike:
0
#John1453:
Concerning your remarks about humans and chimps and considering earlier comments about concordance. How do you explain the basic fact that independent methods of determining ape/primate phylogenies converge upon the same tree?
Here is one based on SINEs – http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/4825/sinesxl7.jpg
Here is one based on cytochrome c sequence – http://www.pnas.org/content/100/10/5873/F4.large.jpg
Here are two more that are both independent, the one on the left comes from ERVs, and the one on the right from the cytochrome B sequence – http://nondiscovery.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/tree-ervs-and-cytochrome1.jpg
Here is another based on olfactory pseudogenes – http://www.pnas.org/content/100/6/3324/F2.large.jpg
Irrespective of whether you consider each one to be evidence for common descent, does the convergence of independent methods upon the same tree not make the case really quite compelling? If not, what else is going on here?
Like or Dislike:
0
John 1453,
It is evident that you still are unable to separate the science of evolution from the philosophy of naturalism which includes evolution as a part of it. You continually claim that evolution is by definition a random, unguided process. This is philosophy, not science. The science simply shows that higher life forms came from lesser life forms through genetic mutations. The idea that these mutations were completely random and unguided with no rhyme or reason to them is not science, but philosophy. Now don’t get me wrong a lot of noisy people claim otherwise to try to give credibility to their position by calling it science, but simply saying that ones views are science does not make it so.
Like or Dislike:
0
re post 274
Not all theistic evolutionists believe as Michael T does, to wit, that the statistical improbability of evolution either (a) occuring in the first place and/or (b) resulting in humans is so high that it necessitates God as a causal influence on the process.
The Biologos website, a project of geneticist Francis Collins et al., does not make the inference that Michael T does, nor do many other theistic evolutionists.
Some theistic evolutionists believe that the very laws that God built into the universe at the big bang make evolution inevitable. Or they believe that there is some yet undetected component of life that makes the unfolding of initial life into the many varied forms today inevitable.
The Biologos site itself states, “BioLogos requires no miraculous events in its account of God’s creative process, except for the origins of the natural laws guiding the process. Instead, BioLogos states that “once life arose, the process of evolution and natural selection permitted the development of biological diversity and complexity,” and “humans are part of this process.” Moreover, “once evolution got under way, no special supernatural intervention was required.””
Biologos clearly is not bothered by statistical improbabilities.
Interestingly, the Biologos does not provide a direct answer to the question, “what role could God have in evolution?”. It provides only the following speculation about what could, but may not be:
“It is thus perfectly possible that God might influence the creation in subtle ways that are unrecognizable to scientific observation. In this way, modern science opens the door to divine action without the need for law breaking miracles. Given the impossibility of absolute prediction or explanation, the laws of nature no longer preclude God’s action in the world. Our perception of the world opens once again to the possibility of divine interaction.”
What is that but an attempt at a (more ?) sophisticated God of the gaps argument or a retelling of the invisible gardener story with God as the gardener?
So, it is not the case that I misrepresent theistic evolutionists.
Furthermore, Michael T does not address the fundamental problem with theistic evolution: it provides no means for the detection of god, and is inherently indisposed to such detection. Most evolutionists are not scared off by the statistical improbability of evolution, and typically offer the stock response, “well we’re here, aren’t we? so we must have beaten the odds”.
So my conclusion remains: it is a compromise for Christians to believe in or support evolution, even of the theistic variety.
regards,
#John
Like or Dislike:
0
re post 276
Michael T, in his post 276 writes, “The science simply shows that higher life forms came from lesser life forms through genetic mutations.”
The science “simply shows” nothing of the kind. There is not a single example in existence of a so-called higher life form coming from a so-called lower one. Lenski has grown tens of thousands (IIRC, I believe over 40,000) without ever observing the “lower” life form of bacteria evolve into anything higher. That is more generations than are available for the change of landdweller into a modern whale.
Morphological differences and similarities among fossils prove nothing in relation to whether one form evolved into the next because there is no existent DNA that can be examined to trace the genetic linkages between them. The relationship of “evolution” between the two is merely an inferred hypothesis based on time of occurance of morphological similarities. Lenski’s experiments would not only indicate that there is no experimental evidence to support that inferred hypothesis, but that such a development on the basis of genetic mutation alone is unlikely. And of course, if we leave genetic mutation as an operative aspect of evolution, then we leave evolution altogether and get into some other sort of speculation.
Furthermore, If we restrict ourselves only to facts, the fossil record provides a wide spectrum of data which are not consistent with evolution and which, moreover, have falsified several fundamental predictions of evolution.
As to the difference between philosophy and science, Michael T misconstrues the problem and fails to grasp its depth. It is not possible to practice science apart from a philosophy of science, whether that science is explicitly voiced or not. Science is not mere technique; if it were then evolution would certainly fail because there is no technique available that shows or detects evolution occurring.
Furthermore, the concepts of “random”, “undirected” and “materialist” are not just philosophical concepts but foundation stones to the theory of evolution. That evolution is materialist goes without saying, because that is what science is. Whether science is merely methodologically materialist is a moot point, because a methodological practice of materialism has the same result regardless of one’s alleged philosophy: it can only detect material entities and relationships (such as the relationship of cause and effect) between material entities. Consequenlty it can only hypothesize and test for material entities and the relationships between them.
Although Darwin was not the first to put forth an evolutionary theory, he was situated at its very beginnings and was certainly responsible for its popularization and development. For Darwin “undirected” was a key component of evolution. Criticizing those who believed that evolution was somehow guided, Darwin wrote:
[to be continued]
Like or Dislike:
0
“Morphological differences and similarities among fossils prove nothing in relation to whether one form evolved into the next because there is no existent DNA that can be examined to trace the genetic linkages between them.”
We are not looking for ‘proof’, we are looking for converging lines of evidence. Moreover, when proposing a series of transitional fossils nobody is proposing that they represent a series of direct ancestors and descendents, the likelihood of finding such a sequence is precluded by the fact that evolution is a branching process. Expecting to find such a direct line would be the equivalent of taking a random walk through a graveyard and expecting to find your direct ancestors. Instead what you are much more likely to find are people who are related to you to varying degrees. It’s the same thing when we look at the fossil record, and just one reason why so many people absolutely deplore the term ‘missing link’.
“the fossil record provides a wide spectrum of data which are not consistent with evolution and which, moreover, have falsified several fundamental predictions of evolution.”
Such as?
Like or Dislike:
0
John1453,
it provides no means for the detection of god, and is inherently indisposed to such detection.
What other science provides a means to detect God? Can you list them for me?
I’m personally a theistic gravitationalist. I’m also a firm supporter of theistic meteorology. Yet for the life of me I do not see those sciences pointing to, or even allowing for God to be the cause of them all.
My insistence that God be behind gravity and the weather is simply a theologically influenced choice. Nothing about those sciences, or any science for that matter, calls for or necessitates a belief in God. And there’s certainly no requirement it be the God of Christianity either.
In my opinion, stop pontificating around and start a discussion with Dennis already. You’re like a major leaguer getting his rocks off by striking out little leaguers.
Like or Dislike:
0
Re post 280
The thrust of CMP’s post was the issue of compromise, which I am going to stick to as much as possible. If he writes a lede (newspaper term) on theistic evolution, or plain vanilla evolution, then I’ll get into it. Here I’m not going to hijact the thread and so, in so far as I am able, I will digress only to address comments in posts but keep coming back to the issue of compromise. In which vein I will now continue my post 278.
continuing #John’s post 278
Although Darwin was not the first to put forth an evolutionary theory, he was situated at its very beginnings and was certainly responsible for its popularization and development. For Darwin “undirected” was a key component of evolution. Criticizing those who believed that evolution was somehow guided, Darwin wrote:
“. . . no shadow of reason can be assigned for the belief that variations… which have been the groundwork through natural selection of the formation of the most perfectly adapted animals in the world, man included, were intentionally and specially guided. However much we may wish it, we can hardly follow Professor Asa Gray in his belief “that variation has been led along certain beneficial lines,” like a stream “along definite and useful lines of irrigation.” [Charles Darwin, The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication, second edition (New York: D. Appleton & Co., 1883), vol. II, pp. 428-429]”
Darwin’s view has been consistently maintained to the present day, and as examples I cite:
(1) paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson, “Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind.” [Simpson, The Meaning of Evolution: A Study of the History of Life and of Its Significance for Man, revised edition (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1967), p. 345]
(2) college biology text “A View of Life” (1981), [evolution is] “a natural process without purpose or inherent direction.” [pp. 586-587]
(3) “Evolutionary Biology” (1998), “[b]y coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous.” [p. 5]
(4) “According to Life: The Science of Biology” (2001), accepting “the Darwinian view… means accepting not only the processes of evolution, but also the view that… evolutionary change occurs without any ‘goals.’ The idea that evolutionary change is not directed toward a final goal or state has been more difficult for many people to accept than the process of evolution itself.” [p. 3]
(5) In 2006, 38 Nobel laureates sent an open letter to the Kansas Board of Education insisting that evolution is “the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection.”
regards,
#John
Like or Dislike:
0
Before I address post 279
With respect to the fact that evolution appears to be unguided an undirected for both atheists and theists, but must have for theists some hidden and secret direction / guidance, I note that Stephen Barr agrees with Francis Collins that although evolution looks like “a random and undirected process,” it nevertheless could have been guided by God. “Evolution could appear to us to be driven by chance, but from God’s perspective the outcome would be entirely specified.” [Collins, The Language of God, p. 205.]
I agree with N.T. Wright, who has helpfully exposed the cultural and philosophical underpinnings of evolution. He wrote, “Darwin, Wright suggests, “was as much a symptom as a cause of the deism or epicureanism which then came to be associated with him.”
If you’re an epicurean, Wright explains, then while there may be god or gods somewhere, they are a long way away and the key is that “this world has its own processes which are rumbling along, and so evolution is basically an epicurean idea–read Lucretius.”
Evolution is a rationalist research program, because of which it uses rationalist concepts for its driving forces. For example, organisms are not optimally fit. That rationalist conclusion inherently excludes design. Wright’s discussion of deism helps understand the traction that rationalism has in evolutionary theory:
“Once god gets pushed out of the process, then of course what happens must happen from within rather than from outside. Then you can caricature the idea of divine intervention. Because if you’re a deist or an epicurean you’ve got this distant god, who if he’s going to do anything in the world would have to reach down and rather incongruously mess around, and then go away again.”
In Darwin’s day such messing around was believed to be beneath god’s dignity, and so exclusively naturalistic explanations were proposed.
But back to the logical possibility, espoused by theistic evolutionists, that God could have created a process that looks random and undirected even though He actually directs it and specifies its outcomes. John West has discussed this possibility in his book “Darwin’s Conservatives”. West rejects this possibility and draws our attention to the fact that the relevant question for a Christian is whether God did use that logical possibility, or is it more likely that he did it in some other way, given what He has revealed to us about His character and own self-explanations regarding His creation, what He has done, and how He interacts with His created world? West’s answer is clear:
[to be continued after some one else posts something]
Like or Dislike:
0
John, I take it you are a fan of the Discovery Institute, the organisation which advocates Intelligent Design, since all your references come from one of their articles – http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/06/god_and_evolution_a_response_t.html .
Have you had a look at the Biologic Institute to see how much ground-breaking science they are producing there? If you have some time, say during a commercial break of your favourite TV program, you could read through their entire literature of published articles.
Like or Dislike:
0
re post 283
Yes, I am a fan of the Discovery Institute, regardless of whether they prove that design exists in nature. They certainly are good at poking holes in the overinflated claims of evolutionists.
However, I don’t read their material exclusively, but visit talkorigins, PZ Myers, Coyne, Biologos, Behe’s blog, various books, etc. I find that in the blog world people often copy material without attribution (which is fine, it’s blogging, not the writing of scholarly papers, and it’s the argument, not the attribution that is important). Sometimes I use stuff from one author, only to find it has been used elsewhere (before or after). I digest the stuff I read until I understand it and come to a position of agreement or disagreement on it. Then I use the material in formulating my own thoughts.
So, for example, I have long known about randomness, materialism and undirectedness in evolution. When Michael T. denied that such concepts were inherent and foundational concepts in evolution, I searched on line for material that I knew existed and which supported my contention. The Evolution News and Views article had the best short summary, so I used it.
re post 279 and morphology and links
It was, and is, a contention of evolution that it is gradual. Changes to reproductive DNA occur randomly and infrequently and then are propogated throughout the organism and the organisms group over time. Hence, it was a prediction of evolution that fossils should also show this gradualism. As a small morphological change progress through an species, we should find the same species with both morphologies being fossilized together, and then, gradually we should see one of the morphologies win out and be solely represented. And so on. However, this prediction was falsified. What we observe is the sudden appearance of a species, then species stability for an extended period of time, and then disappearance (for many). We have never observed any gradualism at all. Ever. Anywhere.
Consequently, some evolutionists discarded gradualism for hopeful monsters or punctuated equilibrium. The result is the rather obvious fact that theistic evolutionists, like atheist ones, overstate the evidence for common descent (a cornerstone of evolution), particularly in regards to both morphological and molecular (i.e., DNA or protein) phylogenies. The devised trees disagree not only between morphology and molecular approaches, but even molecular trees disagree with each other (depends on what protein or DNA one starts with).
Of course, this problem has not dampened the enthusiams of either atheists or theists for evolution and their concomitant belief that there is a tree out there somewhere. I suggest, though, that atheistic and theistic evolutionists might more profitably spend their time with Linus in the pumpkin patch and wait for the Great Pumpkin to arrive with a valid evolutionary tree.
regards,
#John
Like or Dislike:
0
re post 283
Or instead of wasting my entire commercial reading that literature, I could read all the literature providing examples of evolution (note, “examples of” and not “examples of processes from which evolution might be inferred and extrapolated until we are breathing nothing but speculative ether”) and still have time to get up and make myself a snack.
Since I have a satisfactory theory of origins (direct creation) with a long history of support by orthodox believers, I’m not waiting with bated breath for the Discovery Institute, Biologic Institute, Biologos foundation or any one else to come up with another theory. Given that evolutionary theory does not pose a significant challenge to that belief, and given that evolution is inherently a compromise of Christian faith and belief, I’m not overly troubled by huffing and puffing evolutionists, even of the theistic kind.
Given that Romans 1:20 demands that unbelievers be left with no excuse for their unbelief when they look at what God has made, any theory that posits the origin and development of nature by means of entirely random, undirected, material processes in which the hand of God is not detectible is wrong.
Of course, if evolution is true, my interpretation of Romans 1:20 must be wrong. Perhaps it only refers to the things that God made at a cosmological scale (e.g., the fine tuning of the universe). The emphasis of the Old Testament is on the heavens declaring the handiwork of God, rather than the trees (though the latter is not an absent concept). As it stands, however, there is no reason to question my current interpretation of the verse.
re post 270
It’s not entirely clear what Renton is claiming in respect of the nature of faith, but I would argue that it is not true that faith is only faith if it has no evidence, or that there is no evidence for the Christian faith. My faith, for example, is not without evidence. As stated in a previous post, I am not asking for a higher standard of evidence for evolution than is expected in other branches of science, nor are my standards infinitely high.
re post 280
Somewhere along the way Greg either missed the boat I was on or jumped out, because none of his comments are germaine to the discussion I was engaging in.
I’m not arguing that one necessarily uses science to detect God. Though if Greg wants examples I would point to evidence for design, evidence for purpose, and evidence for the fine tuning of the universe, all of which can be and are investigated using “science”. That is, we investigate the fine tuning of the universe by using math and physics to determine that the universe is finely tuned. The ramifications of that fine tuning do, of course, go beyond science.
What I’m arguing is that evolution inherently rejects God and that rejection is integral to the entire project.
Plus, I find it far too difficult to believe in an invisible, undetectable gardener…
Like or Dislike:
0
John 1453,
Again I will state that all the evolutionists in the world stating that evolution is an unguided process and claiming it was science could not make it so. I don’t give a rats rear end about what Darwin said or what Dawkins said or what anyone else says. They are all talking philosophy, not science even if they claim otherwise. You can explain how something could have happened without divine intervention from science (i.e. why when I throw a ball in the air it comes back down), but you can’t prove that there was in fact no divine intervention because science can’t test or prove that. Furthermore science can’t prove where all the physical laws came from in the first place. The very fact that everything can be explained in such a mathematical manner is itself evidence of design.
I also think if your way off base when you start complaining that God can’t be detected if evolution is true. God can’t be detected no matter what. I don’t care if your a YEC, OEC, Gap theorist, or TE, you can’t scientifically and experimentally prove the existence of God. You can look at the evidence of design around you and postulate that the most logical conclusion is the existence of a designer, you can formulate philosophical proofs of the existence of God, you can look at the historicity of the Gospel accounts, but you can’t experimentally prove He exists. If you could we would have no use for faith. Doing this only becomes a problem when you are talking to someone who accepts the philosophy of naturalism, but that isn’t science, but rather a philosophy which says the only things that are real are those which can be proven by the scientific method. Of course that philosophy can’t itself be scientifically be proven anymore then Christian philosophy can be and therefore is self-contradictory.
Also evolution doesn’t reject God. Your definition of evolution is incorrect because it assumes philosophical implications – and again I don’t give a rats rear end if people claim otherwise. Evolution doesn’t reject God, the philosophy of naturalism rejects God. They are separate ideas that have simply been merged in most peoples understandings.
Like or Dislike:
0
“It’s unlikely that the farmers in Jesus day did not know about poppies, which have smaller seeds than the mustard plant. ”
Both Poppies and White mustard of the kind grown in the Mediterranean have seeds between 1-1.5mm.
Like or Dislike:
0
Renton: “Scientists have shown bacteria evolving due to stress, into significantly different organisms. And we hear every day for example, about one flu bug, evolving into a significantly different – and more powerful one: N1H1.
How much evidence do you want? More than that … combined with the geological and archeological and anthropological records?”
You think creationists never heard of the flu?
Even the most hard-core creationist agrees that you can breed living creatures into quite different creatures. The test from a creationist’s viewpoint is creative power. Whether all this breeding can produce something that wasn’t already a potentiality within the existing gene pool. So the question is whether N1H1 has a “feature” that makes it different, and if this feature wasn’t already a regressive feature of the genes. Often viruses are dangerous not because they have special features, but simply because they are chemically a bit different and unknown to our immune systems.
Like or Dislike:
0
“Yes, I am a fan of the Discovery Institute, regardless of whether they prove that design exists in nature. They certainly are good at poking holes in the overinflated claims of evolutionists.”
Ummm… care to name some of these devastating critiques of theirs? Please cite the relevant peer reviewed literature.
You are of course attacking a strawman in your arguments against ‘gradualism’. No scientist since (and including) Darwin has thought that all life evolved at a perfectly uniform rate throughout the entire history of its existence on our planet. There have of course been periods where evolutionary change occurs much faster than others, radiations after exinction events would be a prime example. You also severely misunderstand how speciation is thought to occur. It begins when a group of organisms becomes geographically isolated from its ancestral species. The smaller gene pool is then much easier to influence. As a result what you usually get are more significant changes emerging in smaller colonies that have been genetically isolated from the main population. So in this sense evolutionary change can occur quite rapidly, and when/if the new species encounters the original one the differences between them can be considerable.
You also appear to misunderstand the difference between phyletic gradualism and punctuated equilibrium. Punctuated equilibrium is itself a form of gradualism, Gould and Eldredge most certainly were not advocating any form of saltation theory or notions of “hopeful monsters.” You are simply terribly confused about the basics.
The most important question to ask about the fossil record
is: are there fossils that provide links between higher taxonomic groups? The answer here is a resounding ‘YES!’ In recent years the fossil record has become wonderfully complete. We have discovered lots of magnificient transitional fossils in many lineages where anti-evolutionists insisted they would never be found, and in doing so provided powerful evidence for common descent.
There is a remarkable convergence among phylogenies determined by different methods. That is not to say that there aren’t anomalies, but pointing to such instances as evidence against common descent is no more convincing than YECs presenting erroneous radiometric dating results as evidence against its validity. When looked at on the whole, both of these methods yield results that for the most part agree and provide more than enough evidence for their reliability.
Like or Dislike:
0
John1453,
I’m not arguing that one necessarily uses science to detect God. Though if Greg wants examples I would point to evidence for design, evidence for purpose, and evidence for the fine tuning of the universe, all of which can be and are investigated using “science”.
These examples are inconclusive. Nothing here, as I said previously, necessitates a belief in God as the only logical conclusion, and certainly nothing requires this God be the Christian God.
Any jumps you make using science are only possible because of your faith in Christian theism. And that always comes back to an issue of faith.
I think you are evading having a real discussion with a biologist, if he wanted to have it with you. You repeatedly make broad assertions that evolution has no evidence, as if your stern pronouncements are sufficient to make it so, then you refuse to engage with any evidence that may be brought to the table. I know you are just being a good lawyer, but if you can say there is no evidence in this blog on compromise, you can certainly tell that to a biologist.
But if you wish to discuss compromise, your posts are a good example of them. I said this earlier, but any model where either science or theology can influence each other compromises at least one, if not both.
You’ve demonstrated a cold reliance to your theology by letting it set the ground rules when you look at scientific issues. Romans 1:20 is a perfect example of this. How a given science stands up next to one’s theology is no indication of that science’s truthfulness. It may just as well be an indication that your theology is weak.
Science and theology are very limited in what they can tell each other. You have gone beyond those limitations and compromised science with your theology. All of your conclusions and pronouncements are cast into doubt now.
Like or Dislike:
0
Tom: “You also severely misunderstand how speciation is thought to occur. It begins when a group of organisms becomes geographically isolated from its ancestral species. The smaller gene pool is then much easier to influence. As a result what you usually get are more significant changes emerging in smaller colonies that have been genetically isolated from the main population. So in this sense evolutionary change can occur quite rapidly”
A small population might be “easier to influence” as you put it, but it has a very small pool of mutations from which to draw upon.
Since the current human population is probably 500,000 times as large as it was in some hypothetical period when we were splitting off from apes, we should be able to see in our lifetimes the equivalent of 1.5 million years worth of random mutations cropping up. But I haven’t heard any reports of people being born with new useful features. Nobody with extra limbs or poisonous fangs, or the beginnings of feathers for some future flighted humans.
Like or Dislike:
0
Actually John genetics works the complete opposite way of what you just stated and if you had read the earlier posts you would have read that. Mutations are more likely to occur and survive in small populations of geographically isolated individuals. Since the human population is large and mobile we are less likely to see mutations. This is one of the reasons there are laws against inbreeding (which interestingly enough is in my opinion another argument for design in evolution – typically mutations are not advantageous to survival, and the concept that there were so many that were in an unguided process seems unlikely). When people inbreed (think royal families) it increases the likelihood of genetic mutations because they artificially limit their breeding population and recessive genetic mutations thrive.
Like or Dislike:
0
FYI, about posts 249, 250, and 251, sorry for the duplicated comments. I had tried to submit the first post and my computer told me that the server wasn’t responding, so closed the browser, re-opened it and tried to re-create the first post while also rushing to get to work. The 2nd and 3rd posts appeared right away, and then the first one that I thought didn’t take appeared hours later!
~Kaz
Like or Dislike:
0
“Mutations are more likely to occur and survive in small populations of geographically isolated individuals.”
Survive – granted. But occur? Why?
“This is one of the reasons there are laws against inbreeding”
Inbreeding increases the chance that recessive genes will become active. But it doesn’t induce any creative force to suddenly make you grow feathers or sprout a dorsal fin. That’s going to require luck, and luck requires you to roll the dice as many times as possible. You can’t roll the dice many times in a small population.
Furthermore, a small population limits the variety in the gene pool. How are you going to have hope that the gene you need to evolve is going to pop up if the whole population has homogeneous genes? Why wouldn’t a foreigner coming into the gene pool be just the stimulous needed to prompt the next wave of evolution?
What you’re saying makes no sense to me.
Like or Dislike:
0
re Michael T’s post 287 and Greg’s posts 291, etc.
Sigh. As I’ve indicated several times the lead post is not directly about the scientific evidence for evolution, it is primarily about whether it is a compromise for a Christian to believe in evolution. In that vein I’ve indicated several times I’m not going to take any bait that heads in the direction of a discussion focussed primarily on the evidence for evolution and thus hijacks the original intent of this thread. Consequently, it is not that I am (as alleged) evading a discussion with evolutionists, nor am I engaging in pointless or irrelevant blathering. The basis of evolution as it is currently researched, taught and used, etc. is an important one and one that is directly relevant to the thread. It’s not merely a matter of fun (I eschew using Greg’s phrase, which at least in my neck of the woods, is both crude and lewd).
As to philosophy, it seems that MT is quite steamed up about it, though a little reflection and familiarity with the relevant and extant literature reveals that his steam is nought but a tempest in a teapot.
First, philosophy is not some esoteric discipline with no relevance to real life. Philosophy is about thinking, and given that humans are thinking beings everything we do is grounded in philosophy. It is not possible to escape philosophy, nor possible to define science exclusive of philosophy. If MT wants to do so, he can go ahead, but it would be like standing on the ocean shore and commanding the tide not to come in.
Second, it is notoriously difficult to define science, so much so that some discuss the existence of various sciences rather than one overarching “science”. Because we are both philosophical and social beings, and because language is inherently and inescapably contextual, the definition and scoping of any human activity is a social, linguistic and philosophical activity. If the practitioners of evolutionary biology believe that evolutionary science entails randomness, nondirection, and materialism, and act on that basis, then that is a de facto definition of what science is in that field. For MT to deem evolutionary science not to be so is like MT declaring that the earth is cubical in shape. He can say it, and get passionate and upset about it, but it does not make it so.
Third, it has nothing to do with using science to prove the existence of God (and for Greg’s enlightenment, note that I never claimed the evidences I referred to were “proofs”, conclusive or otherwise, of God’s existence). It is about excluding God either a priori or as a result of the investigation. The aim of the evolutionary research project was originally and remains to provide a materialist explanation for nature that is sufficient apart from any supernatural being and thus able to excludes God. It is not for nothing that atheist’s have claimed that evolution makes it possible for them to be “fulfilled”.
regards,
#John
Like or Dislike:
0
John:
1) Does it compromise a Christian, to believe in Evolution? I believe it does not. We are asked to “observe” the wonderfulness of GOd’s creation; and even to deduce from it, the greatness – and nature – of God.
2) Is Evolution a fully scientific fact? Probably. Though for purposes of discussion, let’s recall that it is more typically, in science, called the “theory” of evolution; thus the standards for it are higher than blind faith; but not quite as high as full, scientifically proven facts.
3) We are not therefore being “schizophrenic” and inconsistent here in our demand for facts. But Christians are. One moment they ask for firmly proven things … and then say they themselves however don’t have to produce any facts, but only have “faith.”
Faith by the way, John, was apparently defined by Paul – and is commonly thought by Christians – to be belief without any physical evidence; “things not seen.” In that definition, it is very significantly different – the opposite of – asking for evidence.
4) John misinterprets Romans 1.20; HE gets the wrong way around. There are indeed, many ways to read the BIble; consider this new reading.
5) The only thing we really need to prove, here, is not a totally different organism – a bird from a germ say – but the evolution of a significantly different organism. And those are all around.
N1H1 might be a bad choice to be sure; but consider widespread concern over the likelihood of another, very, very different organism … one so different, that our vaccines would not cover it, unless we are careful.
That concern is real; and the consequences of failure to to see that, is the height of irresponsiblity; millions of lives are at risk, if we do not believe that a significantly different organism can appear any day. So your remarks here are highly irresponsible.
6) CLearly, moreover, it does not take an infinite universe to see evolution; we see that even in a rather small, not infinite universe, genetic drift etc. can produce significantly different organisms. Indeed, merely a biblical, “Great” universe, would be enough to do that, presumably.
7) Do you claim that the Universe really seem to say “God” made it? Then a) why so much unintelligent, bad, fatal design in it? So many things that are fatal to man, even on this earth? And b) why have so many other cultures read some other God into it?
When c) I look at the sky, I don’t see “Eat at God’s Cafe” spelled out in stars; do you have the photos that prove otherwise?
8) Creationists indeed, are strikingly uninformed; and typically DO ignore obvious examples, like the flu.
9) Let us therefore ask Christians, to follow their God; and be honest; do not “bear false witness.” Learn the last virtue that Christians ever learn: learn to be intellectually honest; and actually fair to the evidence. Do not be ” sophists.”
“Come, let us reason together.”
Like or Dislike:
0
I also disagree that science and theology are very limited in what they can tell each other. They can, and should, tell each other a lot. To keep them on parallel tracks is to buy into several (compromising and incorrect) assumptions respecting the two.
Theistic evolution is somewhat of a misnomer because there is no real intersection of the two, such that “theistic” could be an adjective describing a particular approach to evolution. From the human side of looking at evolution, there is no difference at all in the approach of theistic evolutionists and atheistic evolutionists. The only difference between the two is that the theists tack on a variety of unfounded speculations about how God might be undetectably involved in evolution. That is, the theistic evolutionist produce a number of entertaining but unelightening invisible gardener stories.
The syllogism behing theistic evolution looks like this:
1. One cannot detect God in evolution.
2. The Bible says nothing about evolution.
(a.k.a. “science and God don’t mix”)
3. a theistic evolutionist believes in God
4. a theistic evolutionist believes in evolution
from 3 & 4 we derive
5. God used evolution to produce nature as we see it
from 5 & 1 we get
6. God’s hand in evolution is invisible
adding
7. quantum physics currently sets limits for what we can detect (e.g., we cannot know both the location and vector of a subatomic particle)
from 7 and 6 we derive
8. God’s hand in evolution could be occurring at the quantum level where we can’t detect it.
Alternately, we could substitute
7A. there exists a vitality principle / relation that we have not yet discovered.
from 6 and 7A we derive
8A. the vitality principle has caused life to unfold and develop over time into what we see.
There also exist other substitutes for 7 and 7A, in all of which there is no interaction of significance between evolution and a belief in God. Rather thin gruel for the feeding of a Christian life.
****
I note that it is admitted in this thread that a belief in evolution is not “proved” but is the result of believing that several lines of “converging” evidence allegedly point in the direction of, and thus support, evolution. True, quite true. Which is why I remain comfortable in saying that it has not been proved in the manner of physical phenomena such as gravity, the speed of light, nuclear fission, etc.
Moreover, the lines of evidence are open to other explanations. Evolution is merely one explanation that is partially consistent with the evidence. The fact that an explanation is consistent with the evidence does not make the explanation true at all, only possibly true. Of course one could illegitimately persuade oneself or others of its truth by engaging in various logical fallacies like affirming the consequent, but let’s leave that aside as an unproductive approach.
regards,
#John
Like or Dislike:
0
#John,
Everything you’ve said about evolution also applies to gravity (or any other scientific theory, for that matter):
It’s not mentioned in the Bible; God’s hand in it is not detectable; Theistic gravitationists do not differ from atheistic gravitationists with respect to the science, etc, etc.
You could also argue that gravitation was an attempt to remove God from celestial mechanics – certainly many Christians thought this back in the day.
Do also think that the theory of gravitation is also “thin gruel” for the Christian life? If no, why not? Does gravitation remove God from the picture? If no, why not?
You’re also wrong about gravitation as having been “proved.” Gravity has been described, yes- but what actually causes gravity is an open area of research in physics. Basically we have no idea how objects at a distance exert force on each other through space/time.
Aside from all that, it’s pretty clear that you’ve made up your mind on these things, despite several folks attempting to show the logical inconsistencies of your approach. You’ve also said that the evidence for evolution is open to other interpretations (but only provided an ad hoc response that, as far as I can see, imagines God as a sort of lazy programmer who doesn’t clean up his code when he cuts and pastes for various separate creations). While I agree this is a formal possibility, I think it more likely that God ordained and sustained a process that appears to us as natural – just like for gravity.
Like or Dislike:
0
John & MikeT:
OK. In defense of Mike T, let’s use some logic and semantics here.
Mutations, new organisms, are more like to occur and survive in small populations, as noted above. John objected that they do not occur more often … while conceding however, that they were more likely to “survive.”
Did the phrase John objects to, SAY that they would “occur” more often? The phrase, more properly, was “Occur AND survive.” Which could mean after all, a) NOT that mutations etc. occur more often, but that b) those mutations that do occur, are more likely to survive.
As indeed they do.
So that we do not really, even need such a large universe at all, to get evolution.
Thus evolution is plausible, conforming to “Reason”ing together; and a Christian can believe in it, without compromising his or her religious beliefs.
Like or Dislike:
0
re D. Venema’s post #99
1. Evolution is significantly different from matters such as gravity because evolution is an alternate story of origins. In addition, other areas of science have been described and researched in ways that are falsifiable. Evolution is not falsifiable; indeed, it thrives on just so stories, ad hoc explanations, etc.
2. Venema’s assertion regarding the “proof” for gravity is not about proof but about explanation. Anyone can drop a pencil: there, you’ve just proved gravity. In any event, gravity has been described to a greater degree of confidence and accuracy than evolution. Examples of things that are better understood would include nuclear fission or fusion.
3. I’ve made up my mind not despite the evidence, but on the basis of evidence. I’m quite open to being convinced otherwise, it’s just that no one has yet been able to (convince me).
4. In reviewing this thread, I don’t find any examples of people showing the logical inconsistences of my approach. People have disagreed with me, yes, but not shown that I’m illogical or inconsistent or “logically inconsistent” (though that last phrase doesn’t have any conjoint meaning, perhaps its just meant to say “poor reasoning”).
5. On Paul Copan’s thread in this blogsite regarding design Adam A posted a Lewontin quote that I also have used before, and which bears posting on this thread as well:
“Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), is a renowned champion of neo-Darwinism, and certainly one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology. He wrote this very revealing comment (the italics were in the original). It illustrates the implicit philosophical bias against Genesis creation—regardless of whether or not the facts support it.
‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.’
Richard Lewontin, Billions and billions of demons, The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997.”
regards,
#John
Like or Dislike:
0
Here we have another problem that compromises Christianity:
In their rush to dismiss creationism, by frequently declaring evolution as an already done deal, some scientists have already based some of their so called ‘discoveries’ on a well known ruse, which went on for 40 years.
For those of you who don’t know the Piltdown man was a hailed as the great discovery of a missing link in 1912, by a scientist who put ape and human bones together. It was not until 1953 that the hoax was discovered.
Nowadays, after all their media hype, some of the same scientists that hailed Ardi and Ida, their most recent discoveries, as the ‘missing links’ are backing off as well, and saying they aren’t so sure, and much more study is needed to validate the missing link claim.
So, as Christians, why we are supposed to take these people seriously, who claim creationism is myth, when they can’t even validate their own claims?
Seems to me a case of the evolutionary pot calling the Christian kettle
black.
Like or Dislike:
0
I’m sure you’ll enjoy watching these videos:
Richard Dawkins interviews creationist Wendy Wright (Part 1/7)
Part 2/7
Part 3/7
Part 4/7
Part 5/7
Part 6/7
Part 7/7
Like or Dislike:
0
I’m sure you’ll enjoy watching these videos:
Richard Dawkins interviews creationist Wendy Wright (Part 1/7)
Part 2/7
Like or Dislike:
0
Part 3/7
Part 4/7
Like or Dislike:
0
Part 5/7
Part 6/7
Like or Dislike:
0
Part 7/7
Like or Dislike:
0
John 1453,
“1. One cannot detect God in evolution.
2. The Bible says nothing about evolution.
(a.k.a. “science and God don’t mix”)
3. a theistic evolutionist believes in God
4. a theistic evolutionist believes in evolution
from 3 & 4 we derive
5. God used evolution to produce nature as we see it
from 5 & 1 we get
6. God’s hand in evolution is invisible
adding
7. quantum physics currently sets limits for what we can detect (e.g., we cannot know both the location and vector of a subatomic particle)
from 7 and 6 we derive
8. God’s hand in evolution could be occurring at the quantum level where we can’t detect it.”
Ahh logic games. Now you’ve entered my world.
Your syllogism is incomplete and as a result fails because it fails to explain why the theistic evolutionist believes in God and why they believe in evolution, both of which could defeat your the first step.
Step 1 is only right insofar as God is not SCIENTIFICALLY detectable in evolution, but since you’ve already said you don’t believe God is scientifically detectable regardless of origins this is irrelevant. Since you are not a naturalist I’m going to assume that you would agree that science isn’t the only way to know truth and that intuition, reason, and experience are also ways to know truth. I look at evolution and very much see the logical inference of design from the process. Thus it could be said that I believe that God is detectable in evolution, just not scientifically, thereby falsifying your first step.
Like or Dislike:
0
Mike T:
Careful. I’m not sure John meant to SUPPORT Theistic Evolution. He merely describes it.
So ironically, the two of you might even agree. That indeed, the whole idea of a Theistic Evolution is false or contradictory, right from the very first premise.
Like or Dislike:
0
John 1453,
Response to 296
“If the practitioners of evolutionary biology believe that evolutionary science entails randomness, nondirection, and materialism, and act on that basis, then that is a de facto definition of what science is in that field”
Sooo the definition of science is now decided by majority vote??? Maybe we should do theology this way too. Not all practitioners of evolutionary biology would agree with the statement above. Most may, but not all. Just because naturalists want to define things a certain way to fit their agenda doesn’t make their definition true or even logical. As stated earlier the hypothesis that all that is real is the material is a hypothesis that can’t be proven by science or any other manner. It is simply the faith of the faithless.
I think you need to study more people who believe TE because I think you would find that not all of them arrive at their conclusion in the way you think they do and they certainly arrive at their conclusion in a different way then a naturalist does.
Like or Dislike:
0
Renton,
I think there are a number of different types of approaches through which one comes to believe in a God creating through a process of evolution. Some may look similar to the atheistic approach and some may not. John paints with very broad strokes when he attack theistic evolutionists, but in some ways creates a straw man because many don’t necessarily come to the beliefs in the same manner in which he assumes. The point of my post was to simply point out other possibilities.
In the end game a more accurate description of my view may be “evolutionary intelligent design”. I believe that the evidence and process of the formation of the universe and formation of life on Earth leads to a logical inference of design. Now that isn’t science strictly speaking – it’s philosophy, but as I’ve pointed out the assumptions on the other side are also philosophy.
Like or Dislike:
0
Attacking the premises of an argument is certainly one of the best ways to undermine it. Your point is fairly taken. However, the most vocal and prominent theistic evolutionists seem to be the ones that deny that God can be detected in evolution. But maybe I should just get out more.
If we don’t start with the atheist premises of materilism and undirectedness, where then does a theistic approach to science take us? particularly with respect to pieces of evidence that could support either common ancestry or common design, such as commonalities between the DNA of different organisms? For example Behe, who regularly attacks the Darwinist or neo-Darwinist models of evolution, still believes in common descent.
A side note on definitions. I wasn’t suggesting defining science by majority vote, but looking at it from a sociological or anthropological perspective, wherein science is what scientists do (as a group). It’s a looking at existing practice and what that practice tells us about the underlying philosophy at work (and also looking at over words from the scientists themselves) in order to derive at a definition that captures what they are doing. There’s as many ways to define science as there are ways to skin a (halloween black) cat.
regards,
#John
Like or Dislike:
0
On a funny side note me and my friends back in high school used to have a running gag where we would talk about our exploits in skinning cats and the various methods we used to do it in front of people who were new to our group and what not. Kinda an initiation if you will. “So Bob, how’s the new Skinner 3500 working for you??”
Like or Dislike:
0
John1453:
Behe as you say is certainly no friend of Darwinian evolution and I take it you would agree with his ideas about irreducible complexity. However, why do you think that he is so wrong about common descent? He essentially says that the evidence for human-chimp common ancestry couldn’t be any more compelling. I know you don’t want to get into a debate about the actual specifics regarding the evidence, but what makes you so confident that he is so right in one area (the inability of natural evolutionary mechanisms to produce complexity) and yet so wrong in another (common descent)?
Like or Dislike:
0
John 1453,
I think maybe the question of this blog should be rephrased. Evolution as a word just carries so much baggage with it that it is almost impossible to have a fair discussion about it. What if the question were this, “Does accepting common descent compromise Christianity”??? As you’ve pointed out many vocal critics of naturalistic evolution still accept common descent.
Like or Dislike:
0
Got a laugh outta your post 213, MT. Reminds me of what my college buddy and I used to call “Relative Anecdote Sobotage”, which was also an inside joke.
People at the (e.g.) cafeteria lunch table would be telling one anecdote after another, all with vague, relative connections to each other. You know, “I had a dog that . . . . fire hydrant . . .”, then the next person goes “we had a fire hydrant in front of our old house that exploded” then the next “our house was so old that . . .” Either my buddy or I would chime in with a story vaguely related to the last one that would then kill the conversation dead (sabotage). For example, “yeah, I had a dog, too. It had a bladder infection. [full stop]” Quite hilarious for those of us on the inside who’d then watch the uncomfortable reactions around the table. [yes, odd, but those of you curious to know what in my childhood led to this oddness and ultimately to becoming a lawyer (whereupon relatives of my mother asked her, "but how can your son be a lawyer? I thought he went to church?" But I digress) can flip over to the Halloween thread where I bare my soul]
BTW, Michael T., glad to see neither you nor I are getting too bent out of shape. I never had a position on evolution and compromise until I read CMP’s post (I never knew sin until I knew the law). The compromise position seemed reasonable, but no one was taking up that mantle, so I did. It’s helped me figure out where I stand and forced the rest of you to actually come up with some cogent thinking. Not that I’m convinced yet (either way).
I just finished a big trial / hearing. So I’ve (obviously) got some time on my hands. It was either post or finish reading “The Art of Using Expert Evidence”. Guess what I chose.
regards,
#John
Like or Dislike:
0
Well I will be joining you in being a lawyer when I’m admitted to the Bar on Friday which means that this post could go on forever with long winded posts…….
Like or Dislike:
0
Welcome to the bar, Michael. You know that misery loves company. What area of law are you going to be practicing in?
Like or Dislike:
0
Further to the importance of discussing evolution and the possibility of compromise, I quote below from a post by David Klinghoeffer who has been participating in a bit of a road show with a new film about the Cambrian explosion:
“Monday and Tuesday were taken up by meetings with Jews and Christians — including rabbis, headmasters of Jewish high schools, and a very different group at the Lighthouse Church in Santa Monica. Held at a synagogue and at L.A. Museum of Tolerance, our meetings with the rabbis left me with a strong sense of breaking through in a way I hadn’t before with the Jewish audience. The speakers were again Berlinski and Wells, along with myself, representing three quite different approaches to the Darwin debate. I’d like to share with you my remarks later. We again took our three-way presentation on the road at the Lighthouse Church. Dr. Wells does a particularly effective and concise Powerpoint presentation on the basics of intelligent design.
One lesson I took away with me is that out there in the real world, the evolution debate matters to people for reasons that may not be quite the same as the reasons it matters to many of us who are involved with it professionally. For them, it’s not about the scientific issue per se or about academic freedom. It’s about their children.”
Like or Dislike:
0
Last post for today. I’m a Beavers leader and have to go do my work among the impressionable 5 – 8 year olds of our fine country.
Wassup with the more than a dozen new votes for YEC? Did someone go to the local library and vote from each computer? Has no one read the 1,000+ post on the 6 views of evolution that was accomplished this spring/summer? Do YEC’s not know that CMP reads comic books and lets his kid dress up as a ghost and so should be avoided like the plague? Does Dennis Venema not have any friends that he can get to vote on this blog? Can he not make voting a requirement of passing his course? In case you’re wondering why I don’t get my friends to vote, I’m a lawyer. Married. With three kids. And I’m still finishing rebuilding the front porch that I started this past June when my father came out for the first time in 18 years to visit me and which may not be finished until Christmas but at least now the postman won’t fall through the rotting boards and my wife has finished giving me change orders except for the last one that now requires me to source out a custom cut sheet of tempered glass which I hope to get and install before she figures out something else to do differently though I do love her dearly and so on Christmas eve when I hope to have it finally completed I may just put a ribbon on it for her for Christmas this year and be done with it though on second thought that might turn me into a divorce statistic and a rereader of CMP’s fine post on remarriage. ’nuff said.
Like or Dislike:
0
#John,
You just said, “I never had a position on evolution and compromise until I read CMP’s post (I never knew sin until I knew the law). The compromise position seemed reasonable, but no one was taking up that mantle, so I did. It’s helped me figure out where I stand and forced the rest of you to actually come up with some cogent thinking. Not that I’m convinced yet (either way).”
You have been arguing for days that you believed it was a compromise for a Christian to believe in evolution. Have stated it repeatedly. And now you are telling us that all of this time you have just been playing lawyer??!?? And that you still don’t know what you believe on the issue one way or the other??
Frankly, I’m disappointed and a bit shocked. Just how do you expect us to believe any stand you are taking from now on is what you truly believe?
Like or Dislike:
0
Tom: “He essentially says that the evidence for human-chimp common ancestry couldn’t be any more compelling. I know you don’t want to get into a debate about the actual specifics regarding the evidence, but what makes you so confident that he is so right in one area (the inability of natural evolutionary mechanisms to produce complexity) and yet so wrong in another (common descent)?”
So what does he propose? Mini episodes of special creation?
If God is going thrust mini-creation into the stream of descent, how would you differentiate that situation scientifically from God simply creating a brand new creature, but reusing his existing pool of DNA material as a basis?
It sounds like Behe hasn’t thought through what he proposes. You can’t argue for irreducible complexity without calling into question common descent.
Like or Dislike:
0
Renton: “The phrase, more properly, was “Occur AND survive.” Which could mean after all, a) NOT that mutations etc. occur more often, but that b) those mutations that do occur, are more likely to survive.”
To occur and survive, they first need the occur!
I granted that if humans suddenly started sprouted wings, that trait could better survive in a small community. My point was that there are no reports of humans sprouting feathers, or dorsal fins, or poisonous fangs. And that is with a population 500,000 times as big as it would have been in ages past. I granted that these feathers might not survive in the large gene pool, but my point was that they are not cropping up in the first place.
Like or Dislike:
0
re post 221. I have not “just been playing lawyer”, nor have I been arguing simply for the sake of arguing, nor arguing about something that is moot. Though I poke fun at lawyers, I take what I do seriously, and I when I contribute here I think seriously about what I write. Compromise is a serious issue, and one which I have been treating seriously. I do not believe evolution is true, though I wouldn’t give up my faith even if it were. Modern evolution is, as I have demonstrated, inherently based on atheist premises and an intentional rejection of God. However, I in no way have a closed mind about science and evolution and am open to being convinced about evolution and to being convinced that theistic evolution is not a compromise. It is true that I have not had to think about the issue until CMP raised it, and it is true that I am still on the fence about it until I have more fully thought it through, but that does not mean that I don’t have leanings one way or can’t take a position on it. Mature people, people who have grown up beyond schoolyard forms of arguing and discussion, don’t have to fully or “truly” believe something or have to be fully commited to it and take a “stand” on it in order to discuss it and argue about it and think and learn. One should be passionate about many things, but one should be dispassionate about one’s arguments or else one erects or falls into unnecessary blind spots. It is incorrect and inappropriate to bind one’s “stance” so tightly to one’s arguments as cherylu does, and it is neither intentionally nor unintentionally offensive to argue as I have done. And if someone thinks my arguments are poor, or weak, let them point it out. No one should have an unwavering precommitment to only one, and only a certain, outcome at the outset of a discussion (well, except for faith in Jesus, but that’s a special case). And no, I’m not personally put off by what cherylu wrote (though it is an offensive approach to cast aspersions, i.e. the “playing lawyer” comment), but it seems useful to set forth my approach in case there are others who think or approach discussions as she appears to do.
And now I’ve finished my last work related call and do have to leave.
regards,
#John
Like or Dislike:
0
# John,
Well, I guess I am just naive enough to figure that when someone on a Christian blog says they think or believe something and then argue the point for days that they really do believe what they say. It is one thing to become convinced of something else in a disucussion as it progresses, but I am sorry, to say that you believe something and then tell us later that your mind is not made up is something that just does not set well with me at all.
And that is what I call “‘playing lawyer”–arguing something as though you believe it when maybe you do not or are not sure of your position at all.
Like or Dislike:
0
Why don’t we see lots of evolution today, even with lots of people around? Population size is not the only factor in evolution; environmental stress is as well.
We see less evolution, when the environment is not immediately eliminating those who do not fit the environment, by natural selection. In our kinder gentler, prosperous age, there is less stress.
Like or Dislike:
0
John:
Of course, mutations must occur first, to survive later.
But You seemed to imply that Mike T was saying that there were more occurrences of mutation in a smaller population; which was not necessarily implied in the semantics of more mutations “occur and survive” in smaller environs.
Like or Dislike:
0
Sigh, I had another call at work and am still here and now late.
cherlyu, the implication of your use of the word “christian” to modify “blog” is that it would be particularly unexpected for someone to lie or mislead others when posting to it, which further implies that some posters to this blog have. I have not said I believed in something that I do not actually believe in. The strength of my belief varies with the nature, number and quality of arguments (using that word loosely to refer to both evidences and the reasoning about the evidence) I have to support my belief. I can believe in something even with only one weak argument in its favour, though obviously it’s much easier to convince me that I’m wrong, and I’m likely not to be very passionate about my conclusion, or incredibly committed to the potential implications of the belief.
I also happen to believe that the Shroud of Turin may be Jesus’ burial cloth. But that belief is not strong enough for it to play a role in my reasons for believing in Jesus or for me to use it in apologetics arguments or for evangelism, or even for water cooler discussion. And that belief has been greatly weakened by the recently released results of yet another study. Moreover, I’m not greatly committed to that belief nor passionate about it and I would take less of a stand on it than I do about compromises to one’s faith. Does that mean I’m misleading when I argue in favour of it being Jesus’? No.
I spent 11 years of my life in university, 8 of those year round. One learns to argue differently, and better, there and not to get too hung up about one’s arguments and stances, or those of other people. Nevetheless, the university experience affects different people in different ways, and I’m not naive enough to believe that all people come out of it arguing like me, nor that people who didn’t go only argue in one way and never like me.
Arguing is not “playing lawyer”, and lawyering is about far far more than just arguing. Moreover no other profession has a standard of ethics and behaviour that is higher or more comprehensive than that of lawyers who (in most places) have to swear an oath to uphold them and abide by them both inside and outside the courtroom.
Finally, this is a blog. Blogs are a particular type of forum and it is not part of blogging to require full disclosure of one’s position before jumping in and making comments or participating in the discussion. That being said, I reiterate that I have not written anything that misrepresents what I believe.
If you think otherwise than what I’ve written above, which you seem to, then we’ll just have to agree to disagree. That does not mean, however, that we can’t have fruitful discussion in the future.
regards,
#John
Like or Dislike:
0
John: (regarding Behe)
“So what does he propose? Mini episodes of special creation?
If God is going thrust mini-creation into the stream of descent, how would you differentiate that situation scientifically from God simply creating a brand new creature, but reusing his existing pool of DNA material as a basis?
It sounds like Behe hasn’t thought through what he proposes. You can’t argue for irreducible complexity without calling into question common descent.”
I think most people would agree that Behe’s ideas are rather bizarre in many respects, but heh… that’s what he believes. He lays out several pieces of genomic evidence for human-chimp common ancestry in ‘The Edge of Evolution’ and then writes;
“It’s hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans.
That strong evidence from the pseudogene points well beyond the ancestry of humans. Despite some remaining puzzles, there’s no reason to doubt that Darwin had this point right, that all creatures on earth are biological relatives.”
So he accepts universal common ancestry, but believes that as opposed to random mutations being the cause of variations, God instead had to somehow guide the process with precise, targeted mutations – specifically to produce humans after our divergence from our common ancestor with chimps.
Furthermore he writes;
“Suppose that nearly four billion years ago the designer made the first cell, already containing all of the incredibly complex biochemical systems discussed here and many others. (One can postulate that the design for systems that were to be used later, such as blood clotting, were present but not `turned on.’ In present-day organisms plenty of genes are turned off for a while, sometimes for generations, to be turned on at a later time).”
To me, this is rather at odds with what he claims to believe elsewhere; why would God frontload the first cell with all this and then still have to provide targeted mutations? But this is what Behe tells us his opinions are.
Anyway, various scientists are not impressed by Behe’s claims. In The Making of the Fittest, Sean Carroll says;
“This is utter nonsense that disregards fundamentals of genetics. Dr. Ken Miller of Brown University has described this scenario as `an absolutely hopeless genetic fantasy of pre-formed genes waiting for the organisms that might need them to gradually appear.’ As we saw in chapter 5, the rule of DNA code is use it or lose it. The constant bombardment of mutation will erode the text of genes that are not used, as it has in icefish, yeast, humans, and virtually every other species. There is no mechanism for genes to be preserved while awaiting the need for them to arise.”
Like or Dislike:
0
Almost everyone starts out with some sort of preconceived notion, otherwise we would be totally mindless, and prone to go back and forth between every different opinion we hear.
The best learning experience comes, in my opinion, when we are most willing to listen to both sides. and then contribute something new to the discussion, rather than merely trying to argue someone down. All that does is kill a good discussion for everyone else.
I think we have to honestly admit that we’re all guilty of that from time to time.
Just my own 2 1/12 cents for the day.
Like or Dislike:
0
#John,
Maybe the thing is here that I thought when you spent days and many blog comments arguing a point that you were really convinced and didn’t just hold your belief weakly or to whatever degree you hold this particular belief.
To have you state after all of the time and energy you put into arguing for this position that you were not really convinced one way or the other, really took me by surprise. That and your comment that you decided to argue it because no one else was and it sounded reasonable. Usually, as far as I know, you have argued points that you have been convinced of. I just thought you came across as a whole lot more convinced than you obviously were.
If I have misunderstood you, I am sorry.
Like or Dislike:
0
“Why don’t we see lots of evolution today, even with lots of people around? Population size is not the only factor in evolution; environmental stress is as well.”
No, the discussion was not “why don’t we see evolution today”, the discussion was “why don’t we see beneficial random mutations today”.
Nobody, not even hard core creationists have any problem whatsoever with natural selection. That’s not an issue.
The issue is always beneficial random mutations. Environmental stress has nothing to do with random mutations. The genes know zilch about the stress of the environment.
Like or Dislike:
0
Tom,
My post @330 was not in response to your comment in @329, but a general observation about how this discussion has being going the last few comments preceding yours. If you notice the times you will see they crossed in the mail. Just so you know.
Like or Dislike:
0
Hi John,
we do observe beneficial random mutations today: Lenski’s work with E Coli is one (well documented) example of many beneficial mutations; also, the nylonase enzyme example (bacteria that evolved the ability to digest nylon via a mutation); in humans, there is strong evidence for mutations in lactase allowing for adult milk consumption (mammals are lactose-intolerant as adults, humans are the exception, selected for since we are farmers with access to milk as adults), etc.
The evidence is there – this is just a quick sample.
Like or Dislike:
0
Wow, guess I haven’t totally ‘evolved’ yet, since I’m lactose intolerant, but hopefully still human.
Like or Dislike:
0
Dennis: Where is the evidence that humans universally were lactose intollerant? Does it rely on assuming what you wish to prove that we evolved from mammals? In any case, this would hardly be a case of evolution creating something brand new since mammals clearly have the genes for consuming milk.
As for nylonase enzyme, as I understand it, if this evolved from what it is proposed to have evolved from, it required 140 point mutations, and the odds of this happening in the 30 years proposed are 3 x 10^-35. Which raises the question of whether a bacteria already existed possessing a regressive ability to metabolise another similar substance that has not yet been established.
Which is why the challenge was expressed in terms of human beings (or at least creatures of some size). Firstly, abilities of a purely chemical nature are quite different to evolution of major structural features. Secondly, with bacteria you have trillions of them, and at least you get to roll the dice a lot. But with complex creatures you don’t get to roll the dice very much nor comparitively very often, especially since it is proposed that evolution only takes place in small communities. And there are plenty of isolated human communities, as well as for other mammals.
Like or Dislike:
0
John,
I think the what Dennis was saying is that (most) humans have a gene that allows us to process lactose as adults. All other mammals do not have this gene.
Like or Dislike:
0
I read somewhere that 1000 or 1500 years ago, humans were 90% lactose intolerant, 10% tolerant; and that those numbers have been reversed today. This says nothing about a beneficial mutation (though it would support the theory), but it is an interesting example of natural selection at work.
Like or Dislike:
0
“I read somewhere that 1000 or 1500 years ago, humans were 90% lactose intolerant, 10% tolerant; and that those numbers have been reversed today. This says nothing about a beneficial mutation (though it would support the theory), but it is an interesting example of natural selection at work.”
Again, nobody disputes natural selection.
However… this would have to mean that large numbers of people in the last 1000 years were not surviving to child-bearing age because they couldn’t drink milk. That seems extremely unlikely to me. I think someone in history would mention some great famine where only milk drinkers survived.
Like or Dislike:
0
I’ve been briefly in and then out of this comment thread over its course, and have read fewer than half the comments. But I got the idea early on that #John was open-minded, and not strongly committed one way or the other on the issues being discussed. For whatever its worth, #John did not misrepresent himself from my standpoint.
Like or Dislike:
0
John,
Childhood deaths through the last 10+ centuries have been very high. And those deaths were typically from unknown causes. It is theorized that many of them were the result of lactose intolerance long before the phenomenon was understood. The number of childhood deaths is plenty high enough to account for the shift in lactose tolerance within our race.
Yes, I know that natural selection is not the issue. I offered the comment because I thought it was interesting, not to win some point.
Like or Dislike:
0
Hi John,
The nylonase mutation arose through a frameshift mutation, not a series of point mutations. I can find the research paper for you if you wish.
Re: adult lactase: I don’t know quite what you mean about “evolved from mammals” – humans ARE mammals. Even creationists don’t dispute that (as far as I know). More to your point, the evidence from all other mammals suggests that adult intolerance is the wild-type state, yes.
As for the rest of your comment, you asked about beneficial mutations. Nylonase certainly is one, the Lenski expts give numerous examples, and the evidence strongly suggests that adult lactose tolerance is another. If you now want to argue that those types of mutations don’t accrue to “major changes” you’re moving the goal posts, it seems.
The easiest answer here is comparing whole genomes to each other: for example, humans and chimps. There you have it – those are the sum changes required for the differences in our biology (note: I said BIOLOGY). What we see is that very, very little difference between the genomes – yet these small changes, expressed through development, give us the biological differences we see. Is the level of change we see accessible through known evolutionary rates and mechanisms? Absolutely.
Like or Dislike:
0
Wrong. The metabolism requires two enzymes, only one of which is frame shift. Both enzymes are required for metabolism. The other enzyme, 6-eminohexanoic-acid-cyclic-dimer hydrolase is apparently seemingly only the product of point mutations. Furthermore, even the first enzyme is not only the product of frame shift, but probably requires point mutations also. (See Okada 1983, and Ohno 1984).
When I said evolved from mammals, clearly I was talking about evolved from _other_ mammals.
And I never said anything about whether they were major. I only said that these kind of changes are very disputable for the reasons stated, unlike structural changes.
Like or Dislike:
0
John,
Are you using the primary scientific literature or Wikipedia / other web sites? I fully admit I might be out of date on nylonase (such as the case in any area outside one’s narrow specialization) but I’d like to know where you are drawing your conclusions from.
Also, please define “structural” – how is a change in an enzyme not a “structural” change?
Also, what do you see in comparing the human and chimp genomes that you think mutation and natural selection cannot accomplish?
Like or Dislike:
0
# John,
After I read Cliff’s comment # 40 just above, I went back and skimmed through this thread again. As I did, I do think more than I did before that I over reacted in what I said to you. I had forgotten that you did change your mind on the compromise issue mid stream through this conversation. I was thinking that you had taken the same stand on it all of the way through. Which for me would of spoken of a much stronger belief than what you probably had. So again, I apologize for misunderstanding you.
Maybe very long threads can easily bring about misunderstandings as it can be very easy to get people’s positions on things confused at times. At least it seems true for me at this point.
Like or Dislike:
0
Cheryl,
Now don’t take this as me in any way disavowing everything I’ve written because I do believe and feel at least somewhat strongly (call it a 6.5/10) about my opinion on this issue. However, I personally sometimes engage in debate because for me it is a good method of learning about a topic and thereby solidifying my stance on that topic. I often take a position in a debate that I may not feel completely sure of to see what arguments others formulate against it. I then look for any flaws that may exist in their arguments and call them out on it and present evidence for my side. This back and forth is and incredibly efficient way to learn. You either end up walking away stronger in your stance and having a better understanding of its strengths and weaknesses, or even, in rare cases, studying further and changing your stance based on arguments you can’t refute. In addition regardless of how it affects your personal view you inevitably learn an incredible amount about both sides.
In other words what I’m saying is that I don’t think that debate is a bad thing, even if someone takes a side purely for the sake of playing devil’s advocate. The best law school class I had was with a former Bush administration official who co-wrote one of the memos regarding Geneva Convention rights for those captured in the War on Terror. That he was a Conservative was without question, but he would often take the side of whichever side was lacking support in class just to make the rest of us think and come up with better arguments.
Like or Dislike:
0
First off: I was public school educated. My second year in Bible college a “Creation Scientist” came and for three days showed his theory. The first thing he would admit to was that it was just a theory. But, he said, “Well, thats all they (evolutionist) have: A theory.
I didn’t swallow EVERYTHING he said in those three days and I don’t think anybody there, or the man himself, did believe 100% of everything he said.
With that being said, I think that 90% of what he had to say was real. I don’t believe in evolution. I am ignorant (or faith’d) enough to believe God could have taken something out of nothing and made it seem as mature (old) as he wished.
I am very careful while watching the Science channel or the Discovery channel with the kids in the room. When they start blithering “Millions and millions of years….” I mute it, DVR the thing, and wait for the kids to go to bed.
I do remember this: I went to college in a little college in the burbs of Knoxville, TN. On the Sunday night the guy was doing his seminar, a Department Head from UTenn was sitting RIGHT beside me with three of his buddies.
He groaned through most of the “show.” At the end he stood up with a three ring binder with “Paleo Readings” written on the front. I imagine Paleo was for “Paleontology.” This guy came armed. He started blithering his stuff at the speaker and the speaker didn’t even flinch. He started talking scientific right along with that Professor and frustrated the guy to the point he and his friends, embarrassed, walked out of the auditorium.
IMHO, there are too many jumps in evolution. There are too many fake’d skeletons. There are too many huge questions to be asked and explained. On top of all of that, evolutionist change their mind about almost all of their story every generation.
Right now, I’ll stick with the way it was written, verbatim.
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] ran across this post called “John Macarthur on the “Lie of Evolution.” It is at “Parchment and Pen” and I highly respect Michael, his blog and what [...]
Like or Dislike:
0
Dennis,
I think that for many people the idea of common ancestry is quite easy to grasp and understand. That we share a recent common ancestor with chimps, a slightly more distant one with gorillas, then slightly more distant with orangutans, then other primates, other mammals, reptiles… etc, is not a particularly challenging notion to imagine. The evidence for this is also not hard to examine and understand, not only the genetics but there are some very good fossils documenting many of the transitions involved.
However, I think that where non-specialists have problems is in understanding the evidence behind the claim that natural selection acting on random variation can produce real novelty and complexity. At rock bottom, it just seems difficult to imagine. And this I think is where the ID guys come in; they show all these fancy images of the complex inner workings of cells, and calculations of the odds of these things being produced by mutations and selection, and it sounds convincing. When you listen to Meyer give interviews about his new book it appears that what he is saying is that even if common ancestry is correct (I suspect he doesn’t think it is, but just doesn’t want to discuss it) his thesis is that the mechanisms behind it couldn’t have been purely naturalistic, they had to be somehow guided, with new injections of information along the way, for example in the Cambrian explosion.
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael T,
Thanks. I have done similar things in the past when I have been probably 90-95% sure of something and really needed to solidify my stance. They have been things that have made a huge difference in the way I have believed about something regarding the Christian faith at a very practical level that would effect everything I thought and did from there on out. The biggest one I can think of was when I came out of the hypercharismatic movement a few years ago. I had to rethink a huge share of my beliefs at that time and with huge peer pressure not to. I was actually told, “Be careful or you might be blaspheming the Holy Spirit.” Needless to say, it was a very difficult time.
I guess what happened yesterday just seemed like something else to me and I think at least a good share of it was because I had forgotten that #John changed his mind part ways through the discussion. I was thinking that he started out with a belief and held the same one all the way through. So I was really shocked when he said he took it up withought having thought about it before and that he still didn’t know what he believed about it after seeming to for quite some time.
I do appreciate your fuller explanation of debate as a way of learning and solidifying what you believe. I find however, that for me, it is difficult to talk to people even online in any depth when I don’t know what they are really thinking or where they are coming from. It would throw me too many curves if someone were to eventually state that they don’t really believe what they have been arguing! I guess part of it is my age–I’m giving myself away!–and the type of church culture I have always been in. We figured when someone stated they believed something that they really did. So the whole “playing devil’s advocate” kind of thing is something that is hard for me to deal with I guess.
And to # John and all of you other lawyers, and soon to be lawyers out there, when I said “playing lawyer” I meant taking a side that you really didn’t believe in and arguing it as true anyway as lawyers sometimes do, (at least in my understanding, please correct me if I am wrong), when they are trying to defend someone that they really don’t believe is innocent for instance. And that is what it seemed to me happened. Although I now realize I misunderstood.
I hope all of this helps clear the air here.
Like or Dislike:
0
Further, and final, explanation of my participation in discussions on this blog.
First, on lawyers and court and the absolute wrongness of the expression “playing lawyer”. In order for the justice system to work and actually find truth and achieve justice, the people in the system (either civil or criminal) have to be able to put their best foot (case) forward. To do that they need help (lawyers). The lawyer’s beliefs are irrelevant, what we do is help the client put forward their case in the best way possible. Moreover, lawyers do not establish truth and it is wrong for them to act as gatekeepers (both wrong according to their oath, and also it would make the system unworkable). It is the judges and the juries who determine what truth is. So what a lawyer believes is irrelevant to both his duties to the client and to the court (and to the final determination of truth and justice). A lawyer does not argue for what he does not believe, but for what his client believes or for what the court system requires him to argue (i.e., force the prosecutor to prove his/her case beyond a reasonable doubt). With respect to criminals, our system is intentionally set up so that guilty people go free and lawyers are to help achieve this end. Only those that are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt are to be convicted, so as to maximally protect the innocent. Everyone else (both the factually innocent and guilty) is declared “not guilty” (“not guilty” is not equivalent to “innocent”).
Discussions on the blog often become vigorous debates. In debating, it is not improper to argue one side or the other, regardless of what one believes. The point is to test the strength of arguments.
As to my personal position, I had not previously thought about the concepts of “compromise” and “evolution” together. I don’t spend enough time at AIG or CRI, or I would have realized its a big point for them, but I do now after having researched their web sites during this blog exchange. My initial thought over the first few comments was that there was no compromise. Then some bloggers brought up some good points. So I changed my mind. Then only the pro-evolution side was being argued forcefully, so I took up the compromise mantle. Since then I have wavered back and forth (on the compromise issue, not on the is evolution the best explanation issue).
When I replied to Michael T (with whom I had exchanged so hrd knocks), the concept in my mind was in the area where “convinced” and “settled” overlap in meaning. I can see how “convinced” can be interpreted in different ways. A more specific expression would have been “fully convinced” or “settled” as I did lean to one side but not with any sense of finality.
In any event, the strength of one’s arguments and the attacks on the weaknesses of others, bears no correlation to one’s beliefs or the strength thereof, and so it is unwarranted to form settled opinions about the beliefs of others…
Like or Dislike:
0
[continuation of my post 249]
It is unwarranted to form settled opinions about the beliefs of others based upon how they argue in a blog. The disruption of settled opinions can be disappointing or shocking, which is unfortunate.
That being said, I expect no apologies and don’t feel any are needed. What happened is all part of participating in a blog. I bear only good will toward cherylu and any others who had formed specific opinions about my beliefs, and I look forward to further interesting discussions and debates with them (whether they share my beliefs on a topic or not). I have enjoyed, and learned from, their comments in the past.
As to my extended discussion of lawyers, I thought that since the topic came up (even though off topic to this thread), it was an opportunity to address some misconceptions that I regularly encounter.
Now, back to evolution and compromise. I do have a busy day today, so am not likely to post much, unless I’m sitting on hold, or eating lunch.
regards,
#John
Like or Dislike:
0
re post 235
mbaker, is there any history of alien abduction in your family background? Aliens are universally lactose intolerant. I’m just askin’ . . . .
Like or Dislike:
0
Thanks for your further explanation, # John.
Like or Dislike:
0
Another way I think evolution may compromise Christianity is that it sometimes condescends to those of us who have no background in science by inferring that if we were just more educated we would see the light.
I don’t think one has to be a PHD to understand or to study the core theories, even if we may not understand all the terms and methodologies used.
As a photojournalist, for example, I know a lot about nature and habitat, because it was my specialty, but that doesn’t mean that I would disqualify someone’s honest critique of one of my photos because they know nothing about cameras, or reject a critique on one of the conclusions in my written pieces because they aren’t journalists.
Yet all too often, I see a certain smugness in some of the theistic evolutionists toward creationists because they do not hold degrees in science. However when the theistic evolutionists speak on theology, they are not called down by creationists because they are not professional theologians.
I think this a double standard that shows in almost every one of the creation/evolution debates I’ve participated in, or watched in recent years.
Like or Dislike:
0
# John,
I posted my last comment before your last one came through.
You said, “That being said, I expect no apologies and don’t feel any are needed. What happened is all part of participating in a blog. I bear only good will toward cherylu and any others who had formed specific opinions about my beliefs, and I look forward to further interesting discussions and debates with them (whether they share my beliefs on a topic or not). I have enjoyed, and learned from, their comments in the past.”
Thank you. And I have also enjoyed and learned from your comments in the past. I too am looking forward to more. And thanks for your extended discussion on lawyers. It certainly does help to know the things you discuss.
Like or Dislike:
0
RE: #351,
It could have happened one halloween, when I was drinking milk while dressed as a monkey. No, maybe that was the time when I went as Cinderella and got turned from lactose tolerant to intolerant at midnight.
Sorry folks, not trying to be snarky, but just couldn’t resist a little Irish humor. That’s how we evolved you know.
Like or Dislike:
0
re mbaker’s post 255 and 257
Is there a reason you are avoiding the alien abduction issue in your subsequent comments?
BTW your midnight spell comment has given me pause for thought. I became lactose intolerant in the space of about a month when I was 34. Mysteriously sudden, don’t you think?
Like or Dislike:
0
“Is there a reason you are avoiding the alien abduction issue in your subsequent comments?”
Absolutely. Just between us, I didn’t want to let anyone know, but some folks say we Irish actually evolved from leprechauns.
How’s that for genetic code?
Like or Dislike:
0
To keep on track here, after my brief lapse ( and hopefully not deliberately insulting to anyone here) into evolution humor, it seems to me that evolution is also in one sense a salvation issue.
To wit: Even if we accept that evolution and theology can co-exist without leaving God out of the equation entirely, why wouldn’t Jesus have addressed such an important issue, especially when God gave men dominion over animals in Genesis? If we have dominion over animals wouldn’t we get to decide whether they go to heaven or not? And, how could man fall, and bring condemnation to the entire human race, if he wasn’t a man to begin with?
Also, if we simply physically evolved in the beginning why couldn’t we, as humans with a bigger brain, simply become so advanced in our spiritual state that we could evolve into heaven in the end?
Like or Dislike:
0
If the YECs won’t pipe up, I’ll have to do their work for them.
There is a conference coming up in which conventional dates for sedimentary rock layers will be challenged. One of the participants has this to say,
“Ce qui mesure le temps, ce sont les durées de sédimentation, sur lesquelles tout le monde est plus ou moins d’accord, et non celles des orogenèses et des « révolutions » biologiques. »
(Translation: Time is measured by the time taken for sediments to deposit, a fact upon which everybody is more or less agreed, and not by orogenesis or “biological “revolutions”)
Prof. Gohau mentioned in his work how Charles Lyell was influenced in the construction of the geological time scale by his belief in biological « revolutions» occurring over 240 millions of years. . . . [surely many of you bloggers are familiar with the old chestnut of dating rocks by the fossils and dating fossils by the rocks?]
The problem of exaggerated time scales resulted from the work of Nicolas Stenon, originator of geological principles in the seventeenth century. Stenon did not take into account the effect of a turbulent water current on the formation of strata. His principles were based upon his observations but since no hydraulic laboratories existed at the time his principles were not tested experimentally.
Our experiments on the formation of strata are fundamental because they demonstrate, ‘inter alia’, that in a continuous turbulent current many superposed strata form simultaneously and progress together in the direction of the current; they do not form successively as believed originally. These experiments explain a mechanism of strata building, showing empirically the rapid formation of strata.
The important advances in sequence stratigraphy that have been taking place during the period of our research harmonise with our experiments. For instance, systems tracts composed of several strata are considered isochronous by sequential stratigraphy; a fact that we have demonstrated in the laboratory. Recent paleohydraulic analyses undertaken by our colleagues in Russia confirm the limited time required for rock formations to deposit (Lalomov, Lithological and Mineral Resources, 2007).”
So perhaps it did not take hundreds of millions to form sedimentary rock, though we’re still past 6,000 years.
regards,
#John
Like or Dislike:
0
We may have lost the ET’s (no pun intended this time) from the thread here too.
Just when we were all having so much fun.
Like or Dislike:
0
mbaker,
Not sure I understand the bit about dominion over animals. But I can say for me, I have no trouble at all with the idea that Adam (whether literal or not) stands in for the entire human race in our unanimous rebellion. Whether he was a literal stand in (which is entirely possible in my view) or an allegorical one, the story of the fall of Adam (whose name, of course, means simply, “man”) accurately represents the fall of the race of humans. A parable, or an allegory, can convey truth accurately even if not literally.
Is it possible that we are evolving spiritually? A nice Post-millennial thought. I don’t know the answer. Some Scriptures suggest to me that it could be. But it makes little practical difference for me in my life and how I interact with God and with the Bible. (Wow, did just open a new Pandora’s box?)
Like or Dislike:
0
Actually, the idea of evolving spiritually is certainly not a new concept to those that are involved in the new age movement.
And it seems to me that it isn’t that much different from what the Manifest Sons of God folks believe. But that IS opening another whole pandora’s box and certainly would take us far afield from the topic of this thread.
And I’d better not get started on that one. It is too close to home on some of the hyper charismatic stuff I came out of.
Like or Dislike:
0
Cliff,
Let me rephrase the question about dominion so hopefully it will be more clear. I meant that if we evolved from animals, then were given dominion over them, and then we as sinners fell, why wouldn’t Jesus have died for our common ‘ancestors’ as well, who were simply acting on instinct, but had no choice? It’s always been my understanding that animals do not get to participate in the afterlife.
So, if God was the guiding factor in evolution, what happens according to theistic evolutionism to those primates who by accident(?) just happened to fall on the other side of the time line, and didn’t knowingly sin as Adam did, but simply innocently followed their natural instincts?
And if we now have dominion over them, why can’t we be responsible for their salvation?
Like or Dislike:
0
re post 65 by mbaker
Now that was puttin’ yer thinkin’ cap on!
Very thought provoking.
regards,
#John
Like or Dislike:
0
I’m still lost. Sorry.
I presume that when and however God “breathed” his spirit into “man” (Adam), that an entirely new being came into existence: a highly developed primate now imbued with a spirit. Whether that happened to one individual, or to an entire species, I do not know. But a line in the sand was drawn. This new spirit endowed race became responsible to its Creator in a way no previous beings ever were.
Does this help?
Like or Dislike:
0
In figured that mbaker was also referring to earlier discussion in which one blogger argued that there was no additional breathing in of spirit to humankind, that all living things got the same breath.
If that is so (that is, no distinctive additional breath giving humans a soul or otherwise distinguishing humans from animals), then the difference between modern humans and animals lies in the complexity of the brain. Going back in time we would have various points in the past where a change in genes increased brain complexity.
Under this scenario, at what point would humanoids become morally responsible? And if there is common descent, isn’t there a vicarious and federal headship in which the first sinner, Adam, is responsible for the introduction of all sin into the world and his salvation linked to that of all other animals?
regards,
#John
Like or Dislike:
0
That helps. But I do not believe that all TE or EC people would agree that God breathed his spirit into all living things. In fact, I have never heard of that view.
I have no idea how someone with such a view would answer your questions, so of course I will not try.
These are issues that necessarily involve a great deal of speculation. In the end, we must say that we do not know.
Like or Dislike:
0
True, Cliff (your post #269), but I’ve actually read similar arguments from people who were discussing whether or not there are animals in heaven and whether or not they correspond to animals that were previously alive (will my puppy be in heaven?).
I was actually a little surprised that the Old Testament was not more clear.
Calling CMP, we have another potential lede post for you.
For the word mavens out there:
Q: The word is lede, and it refers to the opening lines of a newspaper article, also called the “lead.” It is used in alerting the printer to them but distinguishes them from the word “lead” (Pb), since that metal was used in the printing of the ink. The two homophones needed to be distinguished, and hence the variant spelling lede was invented. I’m a little hazy on all of this, but it seems that the word has survived into the computer age and is still used by some journalists.
A: This explanation of lede as it’s used in modern journalism is correct–it’s “lead” (rhymes with greed)–the first, or leading, paragraph–spelled phonetically to avoid confusion with “lead” (rhymes with led), which is more or less what type was made of once it replaced wooden type in the 19th century. A “lead” (hear led) was also a thin strip of metal used to put space between lines of type, an act referred to as “leading” (sometimes spelled “ledding”). That last word persists today even though metal type is long gone in most places. In modern times, “leading” refers to the spacing between lines of type in phototypeset or computer-generated typeset material. “Leading out” refers to the insertion of extra spacing between lines.
In journalistic use, the “lead” is the first sentence or the first paragraph of a magazine or newspaper article. It can summarize the article, set the scene, or establish the mood of the story. The term is also used in broadcasting. For example, a “segue lead” is a transition to a related story, and a “quote lead” is a quotation.
The “lead” can also be the main or “lead(ing) article,” usually appearing on the first page of a magazine.
The spelling “lede” was not invented by journalists. This spelling (and several other variants) was used for all meanings of the noun and verb up through the 1500s; the spelling “leade” or “lead” starts appearing at this time.
Like or Dislike:
0
Thanks, #John. You seemed to know what I meant. We leperchaun journalists also call that kind of query a ledeing/ leading question, even though it can occur at the end of a piece, because most of the time it gets a thoughtful discussion going.
Thanks for being up front, Cliff, that you don’t know. Our other EC/TE friends must be napping. Not one argument out of them in hours.
Like or Dislike:
0
Not napping, there just hasn’t been a lot of new material to debate. For the most part were chasing our tails at this point rehashing things that have already been discussed.
Like or Dislike:
0
Then how about taking stab at my question in #365? Any thoughts?
Like or Dislike:
0
John1453: “Under this scenario, at what point would humanoids become morally responsible?”
More to the point, how is there moral responsibility in the Darwinist world? Slaughtering your brother is good for you propogating your genes over and above his. And in the Darwinist world, that’s why we have male aggression, so we can defend our genetic turf. Human behaviour is simply what the dead hand of evolution dictates was best for our survival. Neither so meek as to cause the loss of our own genetic line, nor so aggressive as it does the same. There is no meek inheriting the earth here, nor is there any perfection of the garden of Eden from which we fall. It’s all very well to say Genesis is allegorical, but what then is the underlying meaning? And why does God give a few ancient Hebrews a believable creation story, but he doesn’t give 6 billion modern men the same dignity? And if goodness and truth need to be reinterpreted in light of science, then the goodness that God decreed is to get as many women pregnant as possible to take part in God’s great evolutionary plan where he who spreads his genes wins.
Like or Dislike:
0
John,
Several good thought provoking questions there as well. Wonder if our TE friends are willing to debate them on anything else but physical evidence?
Like or Dislike:
0
mbaker, et al,
One thing that I’d like to stress is that I do not know of any TE or EC people who chose that position because they preferred it, or they thought it fit theology better, or it was more comfortable, etc. We can provide you with the answers we have worked out to your many questions and objections. But I doubt you will ever find them satisfying unless and until your entire paradigm shifts, as ours have.
I am an evolutionist out of necessity, not choice. It is evidence, not preference, that defines my understanding of origins. I (and most TE and EC people I know) was for years (over 30, to be exact) avidly YEC. I know the YEC arguments. I used them for years. I subscribed to ICR, delighted to read The Genesis Flood and other Young Earth Books, went to the seminars, etc. etc. But when I learned of the evidence for evolution (The Language of God, Relics of Eden, Paradigms on Pilgrimage, Only a Theory, The Design Matrix, Beyond the Firmament, Random Designer, to name a few books … have you read them?) I became convinced. It has meant much redefining of my understanding of the Bible, of my theology, etc. But I have discovered, beyond just finding evolution compatible with Christianity, that the findings of science greatly enhance theology, helping the big picture to make more sense to me than it ever has in my Christian experience.
Yours is a position defined by choice, not evidence. Here I am speaking my opinion, obvioiusly, but consider this: How many secularists, or non-fundamentalist Christians have you met who are persuaded of special creation or young earth, by the evidence? I’ve met none. Zero. All YEC people I know believe YEC because they are first of all committed to a given set of beliefs. Theirs is thus a position of choice, not evidence.
Rather than debating every little question you raise here, it would be far more useful (if you are sincerely interested) for you to journey to my website (click on my name) and read the posts that pique your interest.
Like or Dislike:
0
While I appreciate your attempts to explain your position to me, based upon scientific evidence, from which most ET’s obviously start, (rather than a theological or philosophical level if that’s how you choose to delineate the two), I have read most of the arguments on both sides.
The problem is I think some of you automatically assume we who question ET are coming from a naive, uninformed perspective on the evidence, when in truth we are not.
I believe I have said on several occasions, as have others here, but perhaps it bears repeating, that some of us of here lean more toward the OEC perspective. I fail to see how continuing to engage in a debate based strictly on the physical evidence answers our questions from a theological perspective, since the entire theology of ET seems to be primarily based upon the known existing physical evidence.
Like or Dislike:
0
Like Cliff, I didn’t adopt my current paradigm as a result of peer pressure. I adopted it as a result of (1) coming to understand Genesis from a completely different perspective (ANE) than I was brought up to believe (thanks to Prof. John Walton), (2) recognizing the limitations of both theology and science (thanks to Prof. Howard J. Van Till), and (3) after considerable self-exposure to the “apologetics” of evolutionary biology, accepting it as superior the explanations from ICR and AIG, into which I was heavily “indoctrinated” (for lack of a better word, and no negative connotation meant) for most of my nearly 40 years. Evolution was actually the last thing to fall into place, not the first. (Feel free to visit my blog, which chronicles my journey from Point A to Point GATTACA.)
I will freely admit that my theology has changed somewhat as a result of accepting a theistic evolutionary/evolutionary creationist paradigm. But, again like Cliff, I find my theology enriched, not depleted.
Like or Dislike:
0
So give us a reason here other than influence from other writers, as to why you believe as you do, theologically, and quit dodging the questions. I went back and reread all the posts on this thread, and it seems most of them have to do with the physical evidence, and very few in return answered our direct theological questions.
Like or Dislike:
0
mbaker,
My last comment was intended to demonstrate the meaninglessness of pursuing the discussion you seek. But you apparently missed the point. Let’s try another tack …
Do you know of anyone who changed their minds about geocentricity because of theological considerations? I don’t. It was physical evidence, and physical evidence alone. It was physical evidence that flew in the face of accepted theological and bibliological understandings. It necessitated a huge paradigm shift both in terms of how people understood their world, and how they read their Bibles. And it took hundreds of years for the church to adjust.
You have asked some theological questions which would be very difficult to give satisfactory (to you) answers unless you were able to step out of your paradigm and look at the world, and theology, through a lens that understands and accepts evolution. Rather than answer your questions one by one (and here I repeat myself … but apparently you didn’t catch it the first time) it would be far more useful for you to get the big picture by reading Mike’s step by step account of the shift in his thinking, or by reading my many posts on the convergence of evolution and Christian theology.
I understand your position. If you want to understand mine, it will require more than satisfying a few of your theological curiosities. Do you want to understand? Or do you just want to argue?
Like or Dislike:
0
I clicked on Cliff’s name and looked at his blog…
“What if the correct view of Scripture is that it is not the inerrant, verbally inspired “Word of God”. What if the orthodox, correct view, is that it is an accurate journal of an historic people of faith, written by human beings, subject to their errors and misconceptions, but recording for our benefit their quest to know the Living God? If that is the case, then we should expect to find within its pages a rich heritage of growing, developing understandings about God; but we should also expect to find mistakes, discrepancies, contradictions, and a variety of other inaccuracies. And this is exactly what we do find!”
There you go.
Like or Dislike:
0
mbaker,
I don’t appreciate the accusative nature of your last post. Keep throwing things out like “you’re dodging the question,” and I’ll refuse to interact with you. I welcome discussing my theology with someone who’s willing to listen and is open to my point of view, not someone who’s waiting to throw stones.
Like or Dislike:
0
Thank you Cadis.
Did you read the entire blog? Or did you stop as soon as your senses were offended? Do you have answers to the issues I raise? Or will you just bury your head in the comfortable illusion that the Bible is a flawless, inerrant book?
Do you know that I read the Bible, teach the Bible, love the Bible? Did you include in your summary my words that we “find within its pages a rich heritage of growing, developing understandings about God”? Or are you satisfied at taking a pot-shot?
Like or Dislike:
0
Mike, and others
I think if you go back to my previous recent posts, you will see that I am not deliberately throwing things out to bait EC’s but trying to get some valid questions answered honestly regarding the theology of the EC position. If you can’t honestly respond to that, then I agree, you probably shouldn’t bother.
Like or Dislike:
0
No Cliff, I’m not content with what I said and I’m not content with your quote, but you are the one who not only said it, but drew attention to it. I don’t agree with it and yes I stopped right there.
Like or Dislike:
0
Cliff, your blog seems to be saying that we’re all too smart and well educated to any more accept biblical inerrancy.
And then you trot out the old canard about rabbits chewing the cud, which has been explained many times, as if you are completely unaware of what the other side is saying.
If all the TE side has to say theologically is that we need to abandon belief in the bible when it contradicts modern man knowing better, then I think that really summarises the entire discussion.
Like or Dislike:
0
John,
Did you actually read the entire post? Did you read down to where I specifically say that my view does not mean we should abandon the Bible? Did you read that such a founding fundamentalist of the stature of James Orr objected to the notion of inerrancy? Are you aware that inerrancy, as such, has been around for less than 200 years? Do you really think that what Rabbits do can seriously be called “chewing the cud”? And of the five examples I cited, why did you choose this one (which is the least damaging to inerrancy) and ignore the others? Do you have a response to John Pipers admission that the Bible contains “hundreds and hundreds of disparities”? Can a book which contains multiple errors and contradictions be called “inerrant”? If so, does “inerrancy” mean anything at all?
Again, let me emphasize: I do not abandon the Bible. I love the Bible … I read it and study it. I do not plan to stop! But the Bible itself declares that nature is another source of revelation of God. And I also look there to learn what I might about the very attributes of the Creator. Christians should be more interested in science (the careful and close-up study of Creation) than anyone!
Like or Dislike:
0
“Did you read down to where I specifically say that my view does not mean we should abandon the Bible? ”
I didn’t say you said we should abandon the bible. I said you said we should abandon the bible when it contradicts what modern man thinks.
“Did you read that such a founding fundamentalist of the stature of James Orr objected to the notion of inerrancy?”
I don’t consider myself in the line of tradition of protestant fundamentalism, so this doesn’t mean a great deal to me.
“Are you aware that inerrancy, as such, has been around for less than 200 years?
Puhlease. “the authors were completely free from error.” – Augustine to Jerome 82.3. “it cannot be remotely possible that the authority of the Scriptures should be fallacious at any point. Augustine Letters, 147. “We however, who extend the accuracy of the Spirit to the merest stroke and tittle, will never admit the impious assertion that even the smallest matters were dealt with haphazard by those who have recorded them” – Gregory Nazianzen. “Therefore they [the followers of Artemon's heresy] have laid their hands boldly upon the Divine Scriptures, alleging that they have corrected them…But how daring this offense is, it is not likely that they themselves are ignorant. For either they do not believe that the Divine Scriptures were spoken by the Holy Spirit, and thus are unbelievers, or else they think themselves wiser than the Holy Spirit, and in that case what else are they than demoniacs?” Hippolytus of Rome “I am not, I repeat, so ignorant as to suppose that any of the Lord’s words is either in need of correction or is not divinely inspired.”
Jerome,To Marcellus,27:1
“Do you really think that what Rabbits do can seriously be called “chewing the cud”?
And have you REALLY read the verse in the Hebrew, that it speaks of “chewing again”?
“And of the five examples I cited, why did you choose this one (which is the least damaging to inerrancy) and ignore the others? ”
Because it is the only objective one. The others are your attempt to criticise the morals of the bible. Of course once morality is up for grabs, then impregnating the maximum number of women based on Darwinianism becomes viable Christian doctrine. Why not, since the bible is ignorant of biology and morals.
“Do you have a response to John Pipers admission that the Bible contains “hundreds and hundreds of disparities”? ”
Apparent disparities is what Piper said.
Like or Dislike:
0
mbaker,
Reply 365
You asked me to take a stab at this question and I think Cliff answered it well. There has been three historical views on the composition of mankind. Since I don’t accept the view that mans bodies and spirit are indivisible your question doesn’t post a problem for me (believe me that this is an interesting debate, but it is wayyyyy offtopic). I believe that God gave human ancestors a spirit when he breathed into them and that it was at this point they became human and the image bearers of God. So there was really no dividing line other than that which God made. As far as eternity is concerned I have no issue believing that human ancestors before the ensoulment would be treated the same as any other animal.
Like or Dislike:
0
Guys no offense, but I think the whole inerrantist, infalibalist, etc. thing gets off of topic quite a bit. While this certainly can influence the direction one takes and makes it easier for one to accept things such as evolution, it is not conclusive. One can accept evolution, or that the world is round, etc. simply by understanding the meaning of scripture differently (i.e. understanding “The sun stood still” as figurative”) while still holding to inerrantism. For this reason it gets off topic.
However, let me ask a practical question here. Some of you have defended the position that Christianity and evolution (however you define this) are incompatible. If with further evidence it became certain (or at least nearly certain) that common descent was in fact true how would this affect you??? Would it destroy your faith???
You see this is one of the problems I have with arguments about this kind of stuff. I think the issue is ultimately peripheral. Whether evolution is right or wrong or partially right would not have any drastic effect on my theology or my faith as that is all centered on the work and person of Jesus Christ. You guys are right that evolution will require a lot of rethinking how we understand various Christian concepts and many verses will have to be interpreted differently, but is this really so bad as to destroy Christianity???
I am of the opinion that building house of cards theologies is a bad idea. Too often people have this whole system set up of how God and the universe work and if just one card is pulled out the whole thing comes crashing down and they are ruined. I think we must be careful to build theologies that are robust enough for us to be wrong on some issue, even a major issue, and not have our faith destroyed. If there was no literal Adam and Eve (I tend to believe there was btw) I would have to come to a different understanding of original sin and the manner in which humanity is fallen (there are a number of people who have done work on this btw), but it would not destroy my faith.
I would go so far as to say that we should have theologians asking alot of “what if” questions. What if evolution is true? What if we discover intelligent life on other planets? What if there is a near apocalypse tomorrow and the world ends up in a post-apocalyptic state, but Jesus hasn’t returned??? How would these things affect the faith??? Would they destroy it??? I hope not. Would they require us to rethink somethings? Absolutely
Like or Dislike:
0
Cont.
Honestly I think our theologies should be strong enough that the only thing that would completely destroy the faith is proof beyond the shadow of a doubt that the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ was a hoax. You can take away a lot of things, but if you still have Jesus rising from the dead on Easter Sunday you still have the Christian faith. There is a reason Paul passed this on as something of “first importance”.
Like or Dislike:
0
“if you still have Jesus rising from the dead on Easter Sunday you still have the Christian faith”
In theory, yes. But if God didn’t do what Genesis says in creation, and if He didn’t promulgate the Levitical laws, because the author was ignorant of rabbits, and he didn’t communicate with the Israelites as the bible says, because those dealings are sub-moral, and so on and so forth, is it really rational to pick out this one thing to believe, as if was the only true, yet isolated instance of God intervening in history? That’s like being the founder of the national sceptics association, but believing in the tooth fairy. Or perhaps more concretely, like believing Isis resurrected Osiris from the dead. It becomes a claim without sufficient historical context to make it worthy of belief.
Like or Dislike:
0
John,
What would you do? What would you do if evolution became undeniable? If irrefutable proof became known, the likes that actually silence AIG, ICR, and any other anti-evolutionists, what would you do? What would you do to your theology? How would you incorporate that into your belief system?
That’s what Michael T was asking, and that’s the only answer I’m interested in.
Like or Dislike:
0
Much apologies for the long post!
mbaker, Re Posts 379 & 384
So give us a reason here other than influence from other writers, as to why you believe as you do, theologically, and quit dodging the questions. I went back and reread all the posts on this thread, and it seems most of them have to do with the physical evidence, and very few in return answered our direct theological questions.
I think if you go back to my previous recent posts, you will see that I am not deliberately throwing things out to bait EC’s but trying to get some valid questions answered honestly regarding the theology of the EC position. If you can’t honestly respond to that, then I agree, you probably shouldn’t bother.
I went into a lot of detail concerning my theological beliefs and how I came to them, but most of those posts garnered barely a reply from you.
Posts 114-15 may be of interest to you. I challenge your basic assumptions for even questioning evolutionary biology. Or, in posts 140-41 I explain my terms and theorize on how God and evolution can exist without any conflict.
In post 142 I give what I think is a wonderful example of ANE cosmology in the Bible. With that said, I’d be interested in hearing how you integrate that into your theology, assuming you hold to the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible. (This is a topic that hasn’t really been touched on yet, but is really important, I think)
In post 153, I gave you some links that you later dismissed in post 181 because the hosting site wasn’t good enough (Ad hominem?). Even with that, you never commented on the TalkOrigin links. These links are relevant to the discussion because they claim to provide the very evidence for evolution that you said didn’t exist in post 148. If evolution is demonstrably true, then any objection about our theology you may make is rendered moot. You could object to our theology all you want, but that wouldn’t change the fact of evolution.
Speaking of which, in post 156 I specifically remind you that your theological objections aren’t sufficient enough to disprove actual physical evidence for evolution. I also had to respond to a lot of straw-man arguments you posed about evolution. That means you either intentionally or unintentionally misrepresented the theory of evolution. Both aren’t good for your overall stance. Basing your objections off of a misunderstanding isn’t a good way to go about this discussion.
[To Be Continued]
Like or Dislike:
0
[Continued]
In post 171 you asked me questions that I answered in post 173, namely, where, when, and how I believe the indwelling of the soul took place along our evolutionary timeline. I explained that Genesis itself was somewhat lacking in those details for certain reasons, and since science only deals with the material, its fruitless to try and get an answer from there. You briefly responded in post 181 without any details explaining how my theology was “weak” in your opinion.
The rest of your reply implied that your theology was much stronger in this area. In my reply to that, post 197, I challenged you to answer your own question, which I repeated in post 237, and which you still have not given me an answer to. In the same post I went further into my theology and declared that even you cannot answer the very question you posed to me and later chided me for being “weak” in.
Until you provide an answer that is stronger than mine, I call major foul on your declarations. Our common source, the Bible, doesn’t even provide the details you asked for. Further, EricW in posts #184-185 and DaveZ in #190 made a few good posts about the soul in Hebrew that cast a large shadow of doubt on even the usefulness of your question. Even though that post was directed towards you, you still haven’t responded to it, as far as I know.
In post 198 I repeat my stance that Genesis contains ancient science and shouldn’t be used to make pronouncements on modern science. This goes back to posts 114-15 where I make the case that you only dislike evolution because of some perceived theological offense. If my thesis that Genesis has no bearing on modern science is true, then any objection based off of Genesis is rendered incredibly suspect at the very least.
Finally, in posts 237-39, I give a detailed response to your post 223 that attacks my hermeneutic, demonstrating that how you described it is nothing of what it actually is. I go on to explain my underlying philosophy, the reasoning that guides my theological and scientific choices. I make the argument that any model where either science or theology has a firm influence on the other is an issue of compromise where one of the two loses various degrees of freedom over what it can say and do.
My conclusion, that we have to do each independent of each other, is a necessary one if we want to avoid compromise. This makes sense because they are two absolutely different ways of discovering knowledge: one through faith, the other through material discovery. One is about the operation of the physical world, while the other is about God’s declarations to us in this physical world.
[To Be Concluded]
Like or Dislike:
0
[Conclusion]
Since the main purpose of both methods do not tread on each other, we do violence to and compromise either if we try to squish them together. If you constrain science by theology you get a view of the world that’s significantly outdated. If you constrain theology by science, your faith becomes bound to whatever science of the day is popular. I for one like my modern view of the world and do not care to have my faith proven and then disproven by the Scientific Theory of the Week.
It’s relevant to note also that you never responded to that post.
If you want to reread all of these I’ll be happy to wait a little longer for a response. In the meantime I wouldn’t press others to answer you when you haven’t answered me yet.
I’ll be happy to give an answer to your more recent theological questions to the best of my ability, only if you agree to give your own answer from your own frame of thinking.
In fact, what are you anyway? What species of OEC are you, if you don’t mind me asking? I can give more meaningful answers if I know where you are coming from.
I’ll also echo Michael T’s question in post 390: If the evidence for evolution became undeniable, how would that affect your theology and beliefs?
Now, when that happens, remember those brave pioneers who went before you and forged a new theological path for you to walk on!
Like or Dislike:
0
However, let me ask a practical question here. Some of you have defended the position that Christianity and evolution (however you define this) are incompatible. If with further evidence it became certain (or at least nearly certain) that common descent was in fact true how would this affect you??? Would it destroy your faith???
It depends on what one’s faith is in. If one’s faith is that Paul’s Christology and soteriology are absolutely correct and inerrant, and therefore his apparent basing of these things on a literal singular Adam and Eve and a literal fall according to Genesis 3 (not just Paul; John the Revelator refers to satan as the serpent) is the absolutely correct and only right Christology and soteriology, then the disproving of these things as one understands Paul to have understood them is a hard blow to one’s Christian faith, perhaps a fatal one.
But if one allows that even Paul saw things through a glass darkly, and he, too, only knew in part and prophesied in part, and that his and everyone’s understanding of the resurrection might be colored by their cultural and religious understanding, then it may be possible for the actuality of the resurrection to overshadow and overcome what turn out to be errors in Paul’s understanding, including those things that he felt he had the Spirit of the Lord in saying and writing.
How much of what Jesus is recorded as saying and doing is dependent on common descent being untrue? After all, He was misunderstood even by those closest to him, to those to whom he revealed the secrets of the Kingdom of God.
If common descent is proven, what that might leave of one’s faith, or the way one might have to reframe one’s faith, might not fit the Evangelical Protestant mindset and framework, but does that therefore mean that it’s not Christian? Does that therefore mean it is not Christ-formed and Christ-centered and salvific?
Just posing some thoughts (before I’ve had my coffee, so they may be foggy thoughts).
Gotta…go.
Like or Dislike:
0
“But if one allows that even Paul saw things through a glass darkly, and he, too, only knew in part and prophesied in part, and that his and everyone’s understanding of the resurrection might be colored by their cultural and religious understanding, then it may be possible for the actuality of the resurrection to overshadow and overcome what turn out to be errors in Paul’s understanding, including those things that he felt he had the Spirit of the Lord in saying and writing.
How much of what Jesus is recorded as saying and doing is dependent on common descent being untrue?”
There you go.
MacArthur doesn’t seem so over-the-top.
Like or Dislike:
0
re Greg’s #392 & resurrection
Greg’s conclusion is incorrect because it is misplaced.
The lack of historicity in the Old Testament would only affect one’s belief that the Bible is inerrant and infallible, and the level of suspicion we would have regarding the historicity of other events recorded there. Even then, because the Bible was written by different people over hundreds of years, different writers might be more or less trustworthy.
Thus, for the New Testament documents, the lack of historical trustworthiness of some OT documents does not affect our judgment of the historical trustworthiness of these documents. Furthermore, even assuming that the documents are merely and only human documents (like other historical works of the time), they would provide and adequate foundation for an argument that Jesus really did rise from the dead. One must remain cognizant of the fact that inerrancy and infallibility are concepts that are only relevant to people who are already Christians. When talking to nonChristians, we can only refer to the Scriptures as historical documents to them, as they don’t believe that they are anything else. That does not, of course, stop us from telling them that we believe that the Bible is God’s word, or that there are good reasons for believing that it is God’s word.
regards,
#John
Like or Dislike:
0
There you go.
MacArthur doesn’t seem so over-the-top.
That depends on where the “top” is.
Like or Dislike:
0
Cadis,
Your manner of dismissing people because when they fail to pass your litmus tests for fundamental Christianity is of little value to the discussion. If Eric, or I, or anyone makes a substantive statement with which you disagree, respond to the underlying reasoning or evidence. Show us where our thinking went astray. Present a more compelling logic, or present better evidence.
To merely dismiss people as you do accomplishes nothing. You merely evidence a refusal to engage in the process of thinking through hard questions.
Like or Dislike:
0
EricW,
Re comment # 97:
Okay, supposing your scenario posed here should be proven correct, how could you have any faith left at all? You say it could still be Christ formed and centered and salvific. But how in the world would we know those things and what would we base that faith on if you had to admit that the Bible was really not all that reliable in any aspect? Wouldn’t that just become a leap in the dark, “I hope this is true,” kind of thing if we had nothing at all to base it on that we believed to be reliable? Or do you think there may be other sources that would make it still trustworthy to believe?
Like or Dislike:
0
cherylu:
Since I don’t (or don’t yet) hold the view I posited (as I said, it was an early morning pre-coffee hypothetical), I’ll have to leave the answers to your questions to those here who might hold or adopt or think of adopting such a point of view in order to keep their faith in the light of proof of common descent.
Like or Dislike:
0
Cliff,
There is not too much to say that hasn’t been said but the argument is that losing the battle in Genesis is important because it will eventually permeate the rest of scripture. The mindset that is required to except the evolution of man will weave it’s way to the foot of the cross then to the grave and on to the resurrection. Can you believe in evolution and the inerrancy and inspiration of scripture, probably, but I don’t think it is consistent. If your trying to work those two things out your going to be juggling. This conversation is now hovering around the cross and already saying… welll maybe it is not quite what was recorded? I don’t find the question of evolution difficult, I do believe you can be saved and believe in evolution but I think your compromising to do it and I was simply highlighting where your road trip and your own thoughts had landed you. I already ran that itinerary down and saw what it would eventually compromise. If Adam was not a real person ,If his body that God created was evolved and really not as important as the spiritual message and truth we glean from the Genesis story then the difficulty of the resurrection of Christ is not so needed .., the bodily resurrection not so necessary seeing Adam was but a body evolved from apes..
Sincerely Yours
Kim
Like or Dislike:
0
Cadis wrote:
…then the difficulty of the resurrection of Christ is not so needed .., the bodily resurrection not so necessary seeing Adam was but a body evolved from apes..
How so?
The resurrection is connected with reversing the curse/impact of death, esp. death to those who bear the image and likeness of God (however and at what time/point in the scheme of creation that became part and parcel of the creature we call “man”), and salvation includes being saved from the wrath of God that will some day face or come against those who bear his image and likeness but fall short of his glory and intended purpose for them and/or who deliberately resist his will.
How does whether or not man and other hominids/anthropoids share a common descent impact the above? As I’ve pointed out, the Scriptures do not teach that man has or gets from God something called a “soul” that distinguishes him from apes or other non-human animals who are “but a body.”
Just askin’…
Disclaimer: The opinions and comments expressed in this post do not necessarily represent the opinions of the producers of this blog or of the person who posted them. (borrowed from a DVD screen)
Like or Dislike:
0
John:
“Why don’t we see many beneficial mutations today?”
Many might be there in fact; but many beneficial random mutations, are not noticed, or not known to be beneficial, until a stress situation reveals them.
1) Many mutations for example, are only functional in stress situations we don’t currently see.
For example: suppose someone right now, has a massively useful mutation, that makes him immune to a future virus: M2H2 or some such. There is no way of knowing right now, or immediately identifying even in an experimental situation, this useful mutation. It is a defence against a situation that does not even exist as yet, in the environment.
2) While then too, and more commonly, useful mutations are happening all the time, that we can see: now and then, individuals say with various useful traits – greater endurance, or intelligence – are appearing all the time, thanks to a unique gene mix.
To be sure, for various reasons, these genes have not yet taken over the entire population. THe reasons are environmental.
Like or Dislike:
0
EricW,
“How does whether or not man and other hominids/anthropoids share a common descent impact the above? As I’ve pointed out, the Scriptures do not teach that man has or gets from God something called a “soul” that distinguishes him from apes or other non-human animals who are “but a body.””
On the premise of that statement I don’t know how, and I probably don’t have an answer for you. If there is nothing unique about the body and there is no soul and millions/billions of years of death was present to get to “Adam and Eve” why even bother with reviving the physical? Why resurrect the body, this body? Just give us a new one. Why my very bones and my very body? What is so good about it? am I so different than the present day ape? Once my body has decayed why would God resurrect it,me, specifically?
Like or Dislike:
0
Cadis wrote: Why resurrect the body, this body? Just give us a new one. Why my very bones and my very body? What is so good about it? am I so different than the present day ape? Once my body has decayed why would God resurrect it,me, specifically?
That which is sown is not what is raised. What is sown is only a bare kernel, like a seed. We don’t know what the “spiritual/resurrection” body looks like or what relationship it has to our present body. We know how the NT says Jesus manifested himself to his followers after his resurrection, but that’s not to say that is what he or his body was in actuality at those occurrences. Paul said:
1 Corinthians 15: 35 But someone will say, “How are the dead raised? And with what kind of body do they come?” 36 You fool! That which you sow does not come to life unless it dies; 37 and that which you sow, you do not sow the body which is to be, but a bare grain, perhaps of wheat or of something else. 38 But God gives it a body just as He wished, and to each of the seeds a body of its own. 39 All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fish. 40 There are also heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is one, and the glory of the earthly is another. 41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory. 42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So also it is written, “The first MAN, Adam, BECAME A LIVING SOUL ” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual. 47 The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven. 48 As is the earthy, so also are those who are earthy; and as is the heavenly, so also are those who are heavenly. 49 Just as we have borne the image of the earthy, we will also bear the image of the heavenly. 50 Now I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53 For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality.