click here to tweet this post
click here to share with your friends
subscribe to this feed
Creation and Evolution: Keeping the Main Thing the Main Thing
by Paul CopanDecember 23rd, 2011
328 Comments
(Paul Copan)
The former Chrysler CEO Lee Iacocca once said: “The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing.” This simple advice has wide-ranging application—whether we’re settling personal disagreements, planning our schedules, or trying to build bridges with non-Christians.
One area of bridge-building has to do with the creation-evolution “debate.” In my book “That’s Just Your Interpretation” (Baker, 2001), I deal with a variety of philosophical and apologetical questions such as the Trinity, the Incarnation, Eastern monism and reincarnation, foreknowledge and free will, predestination, and the like. One question I address has to do with the Genesis-science issue. I note that the fundamental question is not how old the earth is (although I do believe it is billions of years old); nor is the issue how long God took to create the universe (if we insist that God’s creating in six 24-hour days as more miraculous than a process of billions of years, this still wouldn’t be as miraculous as God’s creating in six nanoseconds…or just one!). I also mention in the book that the fundamental issue to discuss with scientifically-minded non-Christians—the main thing—is not “creation vs. evolution”; rather, it is the question of “God vs. no God.” There are, after all, evangelical theistic evolutionists such as theologian Henri Blocher and the late Christian statesman John Stott, and the theologian J.I. Packer seems quite open to theistic evolution (consider his endorsement of theistic evolutionist Denis Alexander’s book Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose?).
Now I have my questions about evolution, but then again, a number of naturalists do too! For example, the biochemist Franklin Harold writes: “We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity….but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”[1] Hmmm…interesting. At any rate, if evolution turns out to be true, then the Christian should embrace it as one dedicated to following the truth wherever it leads. This might mean reworking his interpretation of Genesis on the subject—much like Christians have had to rework their interpretation of biblical passages referring to the sun rising and setting, the earth not moving, or the earth resting on foundations.[2]
As I speak to secular audiences on university campuses and elsewhere, I don’t raise the creation vs. evolution issue. Rather, for the sake of argument, I grant evolution and begin the discussion there. I don’t want people turned off to the gospel because I’ve lost sight of the main thing—the centrality of Jesus; unfortunately, a lot of well-meaning Christians do just that and end up running down this or that rabbit trail and never getting back to the main thing. Evolution is a secondary concern; we Christians should remember this when engaging with unbelievers rather than getting side-tracked. Keep the main thing the main thing.
I typically highlight the following two points when speaking with naturalists.
1. If humans evolved from a single-celled organism over hundreds of millions of years, this is a remarkable argument from design! Indeed, a lot of naturalists themselves utilize design language when referring to biological organisms—“machines,” “computer-like,” “appears designed” (a point I’ll address in a future blog posting). As believers, we shouldn’t be surprised to see God’s sustaining and providential hand operating through natural processes—though unfortunately even some believing scientists are reluctant to acknowledge this. Alvin Plantinga’s recent book on God and science, Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism (Oxford), points out that the conflict is between naturalism and science, not God and science, even if this involves guided (not unguided) evolution.
Now, the atheist Richard Dawkins has claimed that Darwin made it possible to be a fulfilled atheist. Well, that’s not quite right. For one thing, Darwin himself didn’t see God and evolution in conflict with each other. Darwin wrote in The Origin of Species (1859), “To my mind, it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes . . . .” And again: “There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one . . . from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.”[3] But there’s more for the atheist to consider.
2. Several significant steps or hurdles must be overcome before evolution can get going: Many naturalists claim that “evolution can explain it all.” For example, Daniel Dennett asserts that Darwinistic evolution is a “universal acid” that eats through everything it comes into contact with. The problem, however, is that a number of massive hurdles must be overcome before self-replicating life can even get a running start. Here are the key hurdles:
- The origin of the universe from nothing: evolution’s no good without a universe in which it can unfold, and the universe began a finite time ago; it hasn’t always been around.
- The delicately-balanced, knife-edge universe requires many very specific conditions for life;
- The emergence of first life (and eventually consciousness): how life could emerge from non-life (or consciousness from non-conscious matter) continues to stump scientists; moreover, if humans could somehow produce life from non-life, this would simply show that this takes a lot of intelligent planning! Just because we have a life-permitting universe, this is no guarantee that it will be a life-producing universe.
- The continuation of life in harsh early conditions: even if life could come have into existence on its own from non-living matter, there would have been immense obstacles to initial life’s continuation, development, and flourishing.
When we’re looking at the odds in terms of probabilities, this is what we have:
|
STAGES TO CONSIDER |
CALCULATED ODDS |
| 1. A UNIVERSE (OR, PRODUCING SOMETHING FROM NOTHING IN THE BIG BANG): | Exactly 0. (Something cannot come into existence from literally nothing; there isn’t even the potentiality to produce anything.) |
| 2. A LIFE-PERMITTING UNIVERSE | Roger Penrose (non-theistic physicist/mathematician) notes that the odds of a life-permitting universe: “the ‘Creator’s aim must have been [precise] to an accuracy of one part in 1010(123).”[4] What number are we talking about? It “would be 1 followed by 10/123 successive ‘0’s! Even if we were to write a ‘0’ on each separate proton and on each separate neutron in the entire universe—and we could throw in all the other particles as well for good measure—we should fall far short of writing down the figure needed. [This is] the precision needed to set the universe on its course.”[5] Astronomer Donald Page (a theist) calculates the odds of the formation of our universe at 1 in 10,000,000,000124.[6] |
| 3. A LIFE-PRODUCING UNIVERSE (LIFE FROM NON-LIFE) | Stephen Meyer (a theistic philosopher of science) calculates the odds for the necessary 250 proteins to sustain life coming about by change as being 1 in 1041,000.[7] |
| 4. A LIFE-SUSTAINING UNIVERSE (MOVING FROM THE BACTERIUM TO HOMO SAPIENS | Frank Tipler and John Barrow (astrophysicists, the latter accepting the Gaia hypothesis) calculated that the chances of moving from a bacterium to homo sapiens in 10 billion years or less is 10-24,000,000 (a decimal with 24 million zeroes).[8] Francisco Ayala (naturalistic evolutionary biologist) independently calculated the odds of humans arising just once in the universe to be 10-1,000,000.[9] |
Many naturalists will simply deny design at every stage (and for all of them). It seems that no matter how much the odds are ramped up, design would never be acknowledged—an indication that the issue isn’t scientific after all. This is a theological and philosophical issue. At any rate, from the literal outset (the beginning of the universe) the falsity and folly of an “evolution did it all” explanation is apparent.
So the main thing is to keep the main thing: God vs. no God—not creation vs. evolution. And if evolution turns out to be true, why couldn’t this be one of the means by which God brings about his purposes on earth? Indeed, God has revealed himself and his nature through two “books”—God’s Word and God’s world—and Christians should view them as ultimately in concord with one another.
[1] Franklin Harold, The Way of the Cell (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), 205.
[2] See Gen 19:23; Deut 16:6; Ps 19:6; 93:1; Ps. 104:5.
[3] Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, orig. pub. 1859 (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, n.d., corr. ed.). Quotations from pp. 459 and 460.
[4] Roger Penrose, The Emperor’s New Mind (New York: Bantam., 1991), 344.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Noted in L. Stafford Betty and Bruce Coredell, “The Anthropic Teleological Argument,” Michael Peterson, et al. (eds.), Philosophy of Religion: Selected Readings, 3rd edn.(New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), 239.
[7] Mentioned in Stephen Meyer, Signature in the Cell (New York: HarperOne, 2009). For documentation of other biologists’ calculations, see Meyer’s peer-reviewed essay, “Intelligent Design: The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories,” in Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington (2004) 117/2: 213-239.
For a brief video on the intricacies of the cell, see “Journey Inside the Cell”: http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/more-on-id-at-justin-brierleys-unbelievable/.
[8]John Barrow and Frank Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986), 557-66.
[9] Noted in Frank J. Tipler, “Intelligent Life in Cosmology,” International Journal of Astrobiology 2 (2003): 142.
Similar Posts:
- Expelled: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design – A Review
- Inferring Design from Anti-Design Scientists
- The Creation-Evolution Debate in a Nutshell
- The Language of God: Some Reflections on Francis Collins’s Perspectives on God and Science
- Six Views on the Creation/Evolution Debate
328 Comments
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
4
Thanks for this Paul. As an orthodox Christian who also did his doctoral dissertation in biology on population genetics, I find I’m often explaining these same points with my well-meaning fellow brothers in Christ. The mechanisms are ultimately secondary and could be any of a number of ways without denying the faith, inerrancy, or any of the main doctrines. The real question is whether God is the author of it all or conversely everything has a purely naturalistic explanation, and that is a metaphysical question not a scientific one at its root. I highly recommend Goetz and Teliaferro’s book Naturalism to anyone interested in understanding the weaknesses of naturalism/scientism.
Like or Dislike:
0
The “Two Books” or Dual Revelation model is a late Middle Ages innovation, it is not Apostolic in the sense that the visible works of creation that demonstrate the Divine Power and Eternity, cannot, are not and should not be equated to lending support to pagan suppositions about origins. There is nothing in the supposed processes of evolution consistent with the character and holiness of Almighty God.
This is very disappointing.
The “Two Books” model has been taken to absurd lengths by Evolutionary Creationists”, equating certain scientific interpretations with the Word of God.
Like or Dislike:
0
You gentlemen are both disappointing in arrogating to yourselves the epistemological high ground here, referring to your “well meaning” brothers. Are you not making your claims as to the central issue (science vs. scientism) and the “God could have done it that way…” as absolute as those of any convinced and fully materialist Darwinist?
Like or Dislike:
2
Good thoughts, Paul. I was hit with this “main thing” idea myself as I was studying Gen. 1&2. God is mentioned or referenced something like 60 times. Kinda puts the focus on HIM and not how long the 6 days were. In another 40-50 places He is naming things and stating their purpose or limitations or functions. Yet I can’t find a verse that gives a date or a single explanation of HOW God created it all. Yet we spend all our time focusing on these minor things or things the text is silent on.
One argument I shy away from though is cosmology used as an argument against evolution. Evolution is a biological argument of genetics and change AFTER the planet came to be and life existed. Pre-evolution arguments are great against the N0-GOD arguments, but don’t really address evolution itself – especially since even YEC’s like Ken Ham accept evolution of different species from a common ancestor “kind” as long as you are talking about post-ark activity and don’t CALL it that.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
8
Of course keeping the main thing the main thing is essential.
Taking care with other important things is also well worth our time and attention however.
The Bible tells a story, a true story, and it involves a beginning and an end. We should tell that same story. But if we begin with a different beginning than the Bible does, we’re telling a different story. No matter how much we tell ourselves “it doesn’t matter,” I’m concerned that it will matter.
Our faith is to a large degree a text-based faith. How we deal with texts is going to make a big difference. Your suggestion that we can just tailor our understanding of the text based on what we decide otherwise to be true is… disturbing. Trying to knead evolution into Genesis one would be serious eisegesis. It isn’t what the text says and it is unlikely in the extreme that the author intended his readers to understand such a thing from the text. Better simply to disbelieve it, imho–if one can’t believe it–than to adulterate ones interpretation so one can make fit what one wants to in it. There is a pernicious trend afoot in this regard. And frankly, I don’t thing evangelicals are on their guard here as they should.
As far as the “sunrise” and especially “foundation” argument you use goes… Forgive me, but that is really a fatuous argument. No one had to “rework their interpretation of biblical passages” along these lines except to the degree that they may have taken manifestly figurative language as intended to express physical reality.
Some may have done that in their own attempt to concord the science of their day (e.g. the Ptolemaic system) with statements of Scripture. But they were only then making the same mistake that those today who try to find a place for evolution in the text make.
Like or Dislike:
1
Marv, EVERYONE tailors their understanding of the text based on what they decide/know otherwise to be true. It is key to our understanding of the text. If we know certain things about what is natural versus supernatural or how the universe works, that worldview shapes how we read and understand something. To suggest that one SHOULDN’T use any knowledge outside the text to help understand the text is to suggest that the text alone is the only source of truth. You really want to go there?
Like or Dislike:
1
Great article. I don’t know anyone who is suggesting that the six-day creation model, as spelled out in Genesis, is more “miraculous” than theistic evolution. I would contend it is more biblical.
Like or Dislike:
0
Eric, I’ve grown up hearing a LOT of teaching on this topic and it was done with a focus on just how miraculous and short and recent could it be interpreted. For example, many teach that everything was just spoken into existence each day. But that isn’t what the text says. We have a lot of references to God separating and forming and planting and such. Yet if you dare suggest that the *earth* :brought forth living things”, you are accused of doubting God or taking things away from Him or something.
Like or Dislike:
1
Spot on Paul.
The issue isn’t Science vs Religion but rather, Philosophy A vs Philosophy B.
Like or Dislike:
2
We’ve seen this before. No one is saying that the gospel and therefore the existance of God is not the main thing. Indeed it is. But to ignore or deny the truth as revealed in the Bible if it were to come out is to make it more palletable to people who will deny the very existance of God and even Jesus Christ.
The bible says in Ecclesiastics 3 vs 16 (I think) says that God has set eternity in the hearts of men and Rom 1 addresses the naysayers where creation is God’s fingerprint that they are without excuse. The heavens declare the glory of God
The key question is, do you believe that the Bible is God’s word? If yes, then why are you encouraging believers in adjusting God’s word to suit a secular teaching that cannot even be evidenced through testablr criteria…. one that requires drawings as its best form of justification. The Bible tells us to preach the gospel. We are not result based but truth and dedication based. It doesn’t matter if 1000 people believe or 1 person believing. We are entrusted to preach the gospel. Conviction is of the Holy Spirit.
What will you deny or sugar coat next? The devil because Richard dawkins, hitchens and every other public figure athiest riducules to laughter such belief?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
5
I’m wondering why Charles cares so much about the positions being put forth. Are we making the “main thing the main thing” as the editorial suggests?
I firmly believe that as flawed human beings we overestimate our ability to explain that which is unexplainable. The probability that we’ll be more than a few percent “right” about anything having to do with the details around origins, end times and controversial theology is probably pretty low. When we finally know the truth we’ll probably be ashamed about how much we claimed to know as fact that we got completely wrong.
The debate is interesting as long as we don’t hold others in contempt for their interpretations of events that are essentially unknowable at a level beyond a summary statement. Let’s engage by asking good questions, the answers to which will reveal the depth of thought and reason the individual has brought to the conversation.
The beautiful reality of “truth” is that it’s absolute regardless of what we believe it to be. Let’s not get wrapped around the axle in our desire to be right about it.
How is it again that they’ll know we’re Christians?
Like or Dislike:
0
I think it’s possible to maintain an Augustinian / Reformed view of Scripture and affirm the scientific viability of macro / micro evolution. This is exactly what I’ve done in my monograph dealing with this subject: http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/TynCat3/index.php?OPAC=&ListRow=0&RecordNo=37029&do=details
Like or Dislike:
1
Great article Paul. I am no theistic evolutionists, but we need to fight the battles that are the most meaningful and strategic.
@Carrie: nice. I like.
@Kevin: beautifully put. Can you start blogging with us? That is exactly where I stand on the origins issue. We wax elequent so often and I think we are going to have some red faces in glory.
Like or Dislike:
0
Thanks for the comments—especially the affirmative ones!
Mike L, the *Naturalism* book by Goetz/Taliaferro is top flight. I strongly recommend it as well. The conflict is typically philosophical rather than scientific (thanks, Carrie!).
Charles, the “Two Books” model is simply reflecting what Psalm 19 and other biblical texts say. Psalm 19 begins with general revelation and then moves to special revelation—both reveal God’s nature and existence. If you believe that science and Scripture don’t ultimately conflict, then you are (hitherto unbeknownst to you!) part of the “Two Books Club” as I am! Moreover, I hope you think I’M a “well-meaning brother” though you strongly disagree with me, which is okay. Mine isn’t a statement of condescension but acknowledgment of sincerity despite disagreement. (Remember you yourself are speaking in rather absolutist terms and seem to be taking your own epistemological high ground.)
Marv, I would agree with Daniel. Why do you think Galileo got into trouble with church authorities? Luther (in his “Tabletalk” comments) denounced Copernicus’ (who advocated heliocentrism) as a fool (“der Narr”). Why? Because it seemed to go against the apparent teaching of Scripture.
Eric, I concur with Daniel here too: I’ve heard the “shorter-is-more-miraculous” claims many many times.
To sum up, I think part of the problem is that we begin with Scripture (or a certain *interpretation* of Scripture) and assume that if scientists ever disagree with that interpretation, then it’s bad science. Yet this is a two-way street (the two-books view!). Science may actually shed light on how we have been misreading Scripture. As Galileo himself said in a letter to the Duchess Kristina (1615), when the Scriptures are properly understood, there will be no conflict between science and the Bible. Francis Schaeffer in his commentary on Joshua reminds us that we must be careful of assuming our *interpretations* of Scripture are infallible rather than Scripture itself.
Thanks for the helpful comments, Kevin and Michael P.
Advent blessings to you all!
Like or Dislike:
2
J. P. Moreland, in his book The Kingdom Triangle (Zondervan, 2007) makes the following observation regarding theistic evolution that may be of some interest in this thread:
“Theistic evolution is intellectual pacifism that lulls people to sleep while the barbarians are at the gates. In my experience, theistic evolutionists are usually trying to create a safe truce with science so Christians can be left alone to practice their privatized religion while retaining the respect of the dominant intellectual culture….While there are exceptions, many theistic evolutionists simply fail to provide a convincing response to the question of why one should adopt a theological layer of explanation for the origin and development of life in the first place. Given scientism, theistic evolution greases the skids toward placing nonscientific claims in a privatized, make-believe realm in which their factual, cognitive status is undermined.” (p. 46)
Like or Dislike:
0
Kevin, you say “Let’s engage by asking good questions, the answers to which will reveal the depth of thought and reason the individual has brought to the conversation.” I *love* that. I’ve often said that how one interprets Genesis 1 often says as much or more about THEM and how they think and what sources they see as true as anything else. It’s almost more of a reflection of beliefs as opposed to a source of beliefs.
Like or Dislike:
1
Richard, thanks for pointing this out. I would agree with JP to a significant extent.
Some theistic evolutionists can get rather sloppy in their theology and may even turn out to be rather anti- or non-supernatural or “non-interventionist” (I think of former Calvin physics professor Howard Van Till’s descent into deism). Others are simply misguided and even unfair in how they respond to “intelligent design” arguments, no matter how articulate the ID proponents are. (Remember: we’re not talking about unguided evolution but rather guided evolution, as Plantinga notes. So what’s inherently problematic with design?)
I appreciate the care taken by Blocher, Stott, and Packer here. I too am opposed to the watering down of theology/the gospel in an attempt to be “scientifically relevant.”
Like or Dislike:
0
It is all this extra stuff that we all bring to the text that does things like let us skip over all the references that reflect the ancient cosmologies of the day as being figurative or phenomenological language and not being the(literal) focus of the account and therefore not being what is actually being taught. If you are not familiar with all of that, check out http://biologos.org/uploads/projects/godawa_scholarly_paper_2.pdf. But when we recognize that the Genesis text is about the CREATOR, and that HE is the main thing, HE is being taught, and these other details which provide a backdrop or context for that just fade away as not being what is in focus.
Like or Dislike:
0
note that the fundamental question is not how old the earth is (although I do believe it is billions of years old); nor is the issue how long God took to create the universe (if we insist that God’s creating in six 24-hour days as more miraculous than a process of billions of years, this still wouldn’t be as miraculous as God’s creating in six nanoseconds…or just one!).
I have made this point many times – the question becomes then why does Genesis talk about seven days?
I mean, if your going to put time in, what is the point of doing so? What eternal truth did God communicate through that part of the story?
This will drive someone into apoplexy, but I think John Walton’s explanation of Gen 1 through to it’s type of literature is convincing.
Like or Dislike:
2
Where does the fall fit into this guided evolution concept? Evolution depends upon death for its functionality. The systems that don’t work die, and teh ones that do continue. That’s the essence of natural selection. Death has always existd in the evolutionary scheme, while it was a post creation change according to Genesis and Romans.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
10
Applying science to the creation ‘story, always make me chuckle. Can you imagine God telling Moses:
“Now Mo, I want you to pass on the following information to the uneducated, polytheistic slaves ok? Then they will understand that I am the Lord their God ok?
Ahem, so. In the beginning, about six billion years ago, was an infinite singularity. In it was all the matter in the universe see?”
Moses: “Whats a universe?”
God: “Ok, right now Moses, I’m trying to work with you here. Even if you don’t understand, just write this down. Thousands of years from now some people who call themselves ‘scientists’ will ask this question and the answer will have been written down by you ok? I can’t go into that now though it’s too complicated.
Where were we? Now, this infinite singularity sort of well exploded and..”
Moses: “Whats a singularity?”
God: “Moses, son of Amram! Please listen! Please don’t interrupt and try not to ask endless questions, just write! Ok?”
Moses: “Yeah sorry. Errm ok.”
God: “So this infinite singularity exploded, and withing a few billionths of a second, the groundwork for the laws of physics started to be laid down as all this matter expanded at a speed near that of light see? As the matter cooled down, subatomic elementary particles started to form such as quarks and gauge bosons.”
Moses: “God?”
God: “Yesss what is it now?”
Moses: “Is there a simpler version?”
God: “Sigh. Yes. In the beginning I created the heavens and the earth…”
Like or Dislike:
0
Did I say six? I meant twelve. lol,
haha
even God doesn’t know how old the universe is
Like or Dislike:
2
Delwyn, Romans said that MAN sins and death comes to MAN because of it. And the only death that came in the day they sinned was a spiritual one. If the death was a physical one, then why doesn’t accepting Christ give us physical immortality?
Like or Dislike:
0
To Kevin (post 11); The first two writers used the phrase “well-meaning brothers” to describe other Christians who present Christianity erroneously vs. the first two who do it right; and like so many who would prefer Christians be “open” to God “doing it” in different ways and time frames than the straightforward reading of Genesis suggest; that includes the possibility of theistic evolution if necessary to accommodate the data of science.
It’s fair enough to declare your selectivity and your biases; it is not fair to make these condescending remarks about the errors of “well-meaning brothers” who don’t share your views as ones who are inevitably wrong and turn people from the gospel because they don’t hold to your approach. This is a widely used accusation with precious little case-based evidence presented.
Like or Dislike:
0
Paul Copan (13)
the “Two Books” model is simply reflecting what Psalm 19 and other biblical texts say. Psalm 19 begins with general revelation and then moves to special revelation—both reveal God’s nature and existence. If you believe that science and Scripture don’t ultimately conflict,…”
This strikes me as the widely used “bait and switch”, in which the first section of Ps. 19 is alleged to be referring to the findings of science. Is this the case? It strikes me that this passage is referring to the creation as brought into being aby the Word of his power; he spoke and it was so. Where is the warrant for assuming that the interpretations of scientists based on their observations of this creation, comprise a “second” book equivalent in power and authority to the Word of God as expounded in the second portion of Ps. 19? Really, are you intending to equate “science” with the second book of Dual Revelation?
Like or Dislike:
0
Paul Copan (13)
You may declare that the “Two Books model simply explains whatever you want it to say. That does not change the fact that it is a very late innovation into theological thinking about creation. Nor does it give warrant to the notion that the activities and conclusions of science represent the revelation of God in creation.
It strikes me that the witness of creation clearly proceeds UNMEDIATED to each observer. I think Paul confirms this fact in Romans chapter one; God has revealed knowledge of his eternal power and divine nature, directly to and within each man. And accordingly each man his held guilty for suppressing the knowledge of God. This clearly can only only remedied by the power of the Gospel. There is no “book of God’s works”, the facts of scientific observation as mediated to men and equal in power and authority to the actual word of God. There is one mediator of the Word of God, that is the Holy Spirit. Observation of the heavens and the works of god
cannot save nor change the human heart, it actually brings guilt upon unregenerate man because of his suppression of the knowledge of God.
Like or Dislike:
0
I know my comment might sound terribly comical, but some time ago I realized that the classic evolution drawing that everyone saw in school, years ago, seems to be a deliberate removal of God’s existence…like a propaganda drawing. Think about it. From a monkey to a man, step by step the evolution from this ape looking creature to an ape man to a human that we see today. Where does a picture like that leave God…that God is or was a monkey? If we are in His Image? Thereby, God is removed from the evolution theory, and this new religion of evolution takes shape, without God and the big bang theory emerges. Propaganda? Darwinism? Wasn’t there a huge falling away in the 1800′s world wide because of all of this?
It makes me wonder.
The irony is that when I look at archeological discoveries -they simply ever prove the Bible.
I don’t think that evolution theories fit in the Bible.
But I do think that evolution is religion…not a science. But this religion gets heavily edited when it does not fit the theory. A good example is the carbon dating of the rocks from the moon. Only the ones that fit the evolution dates were chosen, but what about the others that varied by huge date differences? They were ignored.
Like or Dislike:
0
(13) What, really, does “sincerity” have to do with this argument? You Mr. Copan and the first respondent both used the phrase “well meaning” to refer to those (no names, no times, places, words, facts, actual responses, cases) who “turn people off the gospel”. Why? Because they are categorically wrong in their approach. You Mr. Copan are on other hand doing it right. You will set the “well-meaning” but erroneous brother straight. I do not care whether you are either well-meaning or sincere. I would rather that instead of saying I am “epistemologically absolute”, you respond to my questions about the validity of the “Two Books Model”. The premises that “science and scripture do not” (can not?) disagree; that science is equivalent to general revelation and therefore speaks for God. That therefore scientific speculations about evolutionary process in the unseen past, may in all seriousness be accommodated to be Christians who must also then accommodate responsible exegesis to these so-called facts.
Like or Dislike:
0
Paul Copan refers to the book, “That’s Just Your Interpretation”
” I also mention in the book that the fundamental issue to discuss with scientifically-minded non-Christians—the main thing—is not “creation vs. evolution”; rather, it is the question of “God vs. no God.” There are, after all, evangelical theistic evolutionists such as theologian Henri Blocher and the late Christian statesman John Stott, and the theologian J.I. Packer seems quite open to theistic evolution (consider his endorsement of theistic evolutionist Denis Alexander’s book Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose?).
That is your scholarly opinion Mr. Copan (nature of the fundamental issue) but you know of many well-qualified scholars who do not share your view that the issue is “God or No God”. And you mention Blocher, Stott and Packer’s (and Denis Alexander’s) openness to theistic evolution as a positive reason to not make it an issue; an argument to authority that is beneath you to make. Christian compromise with evolution is winning no converts, only contempt.
Like or Dislike:
0
@ Karen,
I do agree that many evolutionists (actually probably most!) will use evolution to try to cut out God.
I want to point out that using archaeology to provide an argument for the accuracy of the bible is useless unless you also accept scientific endeavour as valid. Archaeologists use many of the same dating procedures as scientists do. I know that the dating mechanisms scientists use to date old rocks go further back in time, but nevertheless, many procedures are the same.
Science too can provide arguments that the bible is correct – for example, modern day astronomy, as I read in a science magazine a few weeks back, has found astronomical events that coincide with Jesus’ birth, thus giving pretty good evidence that there was an unusually bright “star” at this time.
The moon rock thing you mention is interesting and doesn’t surprise me – they are trying to bolster their own view of the universe.
To be honest, the evolution thing doesn’t bother me as much as it used to. Whether it’s true or not, Jesus still rose from the grave, there is still a God, and however He did it, it was definitely Him. Pretty cool.
Saskia
Like or Dislike:
1
I thought Christ’s death was also about physical immortality. I mean, sure he died, but the same body that went into the grave got up immortal. Weird.
Like or Dislike:
3
I think the fact that so many folks are focusing on the meaning or intent of “well meaning brothers” just shows the need for more posts that discuss what is the main thing and what is NOT. LOL Seriously, this could not BE more ironic.
Like or Dislike:
2
This issue seems like a much bigger problem than it is in America. Opposition to evolution is confined to ‘energetic’ protestant circles, the type mainly found in America. We have been told (in America anyway) so many times that there is some kind of conflict that the shear repetition has turned this lie into a truth. There is no conflict, as the creation accounts aren’t written as history. Past generations had no trouble seeing things less literally when scientific discoveries showed that traditional view couldn’t be true (see Augustine and his point on the ‘four cornered earth’). This is a non-issue, and it is sad that in America it has become the issue it has.
Like or Dislike:
1
I think you make one good point in particular: that all of our views derive from unprovable philosophical assumptions. Intelligent deigns is nothing more than a fairly typical teleological argument. In it un-Christianized form it is purely philosophical. But any view on design is philosophical, even the view that there is no design. One thing that is unfortunate is that certain secular people think their views are only based on facts, without unprovable assumptions involved. The simple fact is that the way all people understand reality is by using many unprovable assumptions, and secular people are no more immune from this than religious people.
Like or Dislike:
0
But what about sin?
What about death entering the world through one man?
Do some xians feel “death” only applies to humans?
Or, in fact, is death, death; and before the fall there was no death?
Like or Dislike:
1
Yes, Jack, most old-earth Christians believe that since man alone can sin, it is man alone that suffers the separation from God caused by that. This spiritual separation, or death as it is sometimes called, is not passed on to animals. Physical death is not one of the things listed in the punishments that God placed on Adam, Eve, and the Serpent after the fall. Kind of a large oversight.
You see Adam being given a parade of animals to name so that he will see that he has no mate of his own, but you don’t see anyone having to explain to him with death is. If physical immortality existed for all life prior to the fall, what was the purpose of a tree of life in the garden? Why have a tree whose purpose was to give life that was unneeded before the fall and made unavailable after the fall? Makes no sense. And, if there was no physical death as part of the original plan, why the heavy emphasis on being fruitful and multiplying? Can you imagine a world where all living things multiplied like rabbits and nothing ever died? Makes no sense. And just what was supposed to happen when a dinosaur with a footprint the size of my sofa stepped on a grasshopper? Are we going to make everything defy physics as well? That too makes no sense. But because Romans says death came to all men, we try to say that is PHYSICAL death for the ants as well – even though the “life” we are promised in contrast to that ISN’T physical immortality. Makes no sense.
I think the idea that there was no physical death of any kind prior to the fall comes, in part, with this folk theology idea that prior to the fall everything was some paradise and if WE think it is bad, it couldn’t have happened. We picture this garden with no weeds – even though Adam was told to tend to it. But I don’t think God sees death as something that is evil. I think He sees that step that brings us from this sinful and painful world to Him and an eternity with Him just as joyous as we see that “birth” step that brings a newborn to us.
Like or Dislike:
0
Not much time here. Thanks for your comments.
Charles, I don’t have much more to add to the “well-meaning” comments. Sincerity isn’t the issue; I am offering arguments for my position, and my mention of Blocher and others is simply by way of example. We’ll all utilize authorities in certain ways, but I mention these only tangentially.
As for the two books view being a “medieval” model, this is irrelevant. The question is: does it articulate biblical truth? Absolultely! Various creeds and theological views (like various “solas” from the Reformation) are post-biblical but they express biblical truths—as does the two-books view. (The word “Trinity” isn’t mentioned in the Bible either!)
Saskia, nice to have your comments. (I like your classic Dutch name–the name of Rembrandt van Rijn’ss wife!—also the name of my niece.)
As for animal death, let me mention a few things. While Genesis 1 exclusively mentions the beauty of creation, other passages describe its bloodiness—a “Nature red in tooth and claw,” as Alfred Lord Tennyson put it. For example, in Psalm 104, a creation psalm, we read that the “lions roar for their prey and seek their food from God” (21). These animals also die: “When you hide your face, they are terrified; when you take away their breath, they die and return to the dust” (29). In the book of Job, God talks about His creation, which involves predatory activity. We read of the hawk spying out prey from the rocky crags (Job 39:28-29); its nestlings suck the blood of it, and “where the slain are, there is he.” God also created the “fierce” Leviathan (crocodile) with “fearsome teeth” (41:1,10,14). Note that there is not even a hint this being post-fall situation. It seems built in to creation from the outset. Also, Job 38:39-40 speaks of the prey of the lion and of lions crouching in wait in a thicket.
Animal death and the food chain are presupposed as part of God’s creation—without apology or qualification. The fall introduces human death (Rom. 5:12), not animal death. Carnivorosity existed before the fall in the animal kingdom. Just check out the teeth of the Tyrannosaurus Rex—not your average herbivore!
Okay, merry Christmas to you all. I won’t be checking in till after Christmas.
Like or Dislike:
0
Thanks for your comments too, Daniel. Nicely done.
Like or Dislike:
0
YPaul (35);
I did not mean to say that the “Two Books” idea is a ‘medieval’ idea; only to show the very late date of its origin.
You say this is irrelevant, on the basis that other Christian theological syntheses also developed well after the apostolic period.
Agreed as to the timing question. However each creed still is subject to the Scriptures.
You maintain that “Two Books” ‘absolutely’ expresses Biblical truth, but you do not show how or why other than the allusion to Ps. 19. Still unanswered: Are you maintaining that the findings of science equate to the general revelation of the first part of Ps. 19? Are you saying ‘absolutely’ that the ‘general revelation’ of science has equal authority to the written word of God, in the second section of Ps. You need to clarify this:
“Two Books” model is simply reflecting what Psalm 19 and other biblical texts say. Psalm 19 begins with general revelation and then moves to special revelation—both reveal God’s nature and existence. If you believe that science and Scripture don’t ultimately conflict, then you are (hitherto unbeknownst to you!) part of the “Two Books Club” as I am! ”
Are you saying here that science in the second sentence is replacing the antecedent term “general revelation”?
More, also unanswered is the proposition that general, per Romans, is not equivalent to science as the evolutionary creationists maintain (and as does Hugh Ross in ‘Fingerprint of God); but that it proceeds unmediated by human interpretation, directly to man, so that God reveals both TO and IN man the knowledge of his eternal power and divine nature.
Like or Dislike:
0
Paul (35)
It was you (and post # 1) who tabled “well meaning brothers” and “sincerity”. Clearly the context was that of erroneous brothers. If you are going to state as much, all I request is that you deal with the case. Which to me is; What are you claiming to be the relationship between science and general revelation? And, given that “Two Books” is absolutely Biblical and of course must be adopted by any right-thinking individual; in WHAT WAY is it ‘absolutely Biblical” other than by analogy to various theological syntheses?
You have a way to go if the Shorter Westminster Catechism is on that list. You have yet to show that even one scripture, Ps. 19, supports the “Two Books” model, other than restating your opinion.
Like or Dislike:
0
Paul (35) wrote:
“Animal death and the food chain are presupposed as part of God’s creation—without apology or qualification. The fall introduces human death (Rom. 5:12), not animal death. Carnivorosity existed before the fall in the animal kingdom. Just check out the teeth of the Tyrannosaurus Rex—not your average herbivore!”
The T-Rex teeth and their pre-fall provenance as proof of your animal death thesis; this is a “scientific fact”, no? Based on the scientific notions of deep time and the “proof” of deep time provided by the fossil “record”. The teeth, to you, provide unconditional proof, equal in truth and authority to any scriptural teachings on animal death and the fall; and so this scientific finding is equivalent to general revelation and is equal in authority to the written word of God.
Is this the case? Or not?
Like or Dislike:
0
Lest anyone take Paul’s silence at Charles’ challenges as a lack of a response, he DID say he was taking a break from this until after Christmas.
I, on the other hand, probably won’t. So if you’d like *me* to response to things like “is this the case or not”, I’d be glad to. 
It will have to wait until after the Christmas Eve service though. Headed out now.
Like or Dislike:
0
Mike (1) wrote:
” As an orthodox Christian who also did his doctoral dissertation in biology on population genetics, I find I’m often explaining these same points with my well-meaning fellow brothers in Christ. The mechanisms are ultimately secondary and could be any of a number of ways without denying the faith, inerrancy, or any of the main doctrines. ”
Mike, how do you know for certain that “the mechanisms are ultimately secondary?” Who told you that; and on what authority?
How do you know the mechanism could be “any number of ways”? Is there no “mechanism” that by its nature as conjectured by science, is contrary to the character of God?
What are these “any number of ways”; and why are they warranted? Because Darrel Falk or Francis Collins et. al., advance them?
When you say “the real point is whether God is the author of it all, it is nor purely naturalistic”. Are you advocating the acceptance of some form of theistic evolution/evolutionary creation based on interpreting Genesis according the the “general revelation” given by science; Ie., evolutionary speculation about data?
Like or Dislike:
0
Paul (35) wrote:
“Animal death and the food chain are presupposed as part of God’s creation—without apology or qualification. The fall introduces human death (Rom. 5:12), not animal death. Carnivorosity existed before the fall in the animal kingdom. Just check out the teeth of the Tyrannosaurus Rex—not your average herbivore!”
Presupposed: on what basis? without … qualification. Really? How do you know this for certain? How do you know that the T-Rex lived as a carnivore before the fall in the animal kingdom? How do you absolutely know that the animal food chain was part of the complete and “very good” creation in place at the end of Genesis Chapter one?
Like or Dislike:
0
Just wondering how comfortable everyone (not you Charles, I know where you stand) feels about Population Genetics?
I better clarify – this is a separate branch of Biology than evolutionary biology.
What it does is show that all the humans on earth today are NOT descended from one couple, but a population most likely around 10,000?
That, apart from evolution, is a huge stumbling block for Christians. (No Adam or Eve, or Adam and Eve and the others)
Like or Dislike:
0
Loo (45) wrote:
“Just wondering how comfortable everyone (not you Charles, I know where you stand) feels about Population Genetics?”
Now that is interesting. How did you acquire your data? , (Where I stand on PG)
Seriously, where does PG show that ‘all humans on earth..”? I.e. w hat is/are your sources for this statement? What studies? What authors? When?
And that population of 10,000: from whom were they descended? Did that population spontaneously appear
Who is one Christian for whom this is a stumbling block, and why? How does it prove that there were no Adam and Eve and “The others”? Even if there were no Adam and Eve, is it implausible for a population of 10,000 to be descended from one couple?
Like or Dislike:
0
I guess I still remain skeptical of many aspects of evolution. Also, it seems to me that Jay Richards gives some excellent advice in his book God and Evolution in that we must define what we mean by evolution.
I would certainly say that say that natural selection occurs, but it would be directed, not undirected. Also, natural selection as a mechanism can’t account for all of life’s complexity. Just because natural selection occurs, that does not mean the entire naturalistic evolutionary account is correct. It is not an originator of the genetic info needed nor does it account for new genetic info.
It also does not allow for organisms to evolve from molecules to man nor support the evolutionary tree of life. It should be noted that the website Dissent From Darwin has 900 Ph.D scientists that don’t think random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Also, In his recent book, Christian Apologetics, Douglas Groothuis says that in relation to the origins debate, these are the non-negotiables theologically.
1. God created the universe ex nihlo
2. God created each “kind” specially, not through a long naturalistic process of macroevolution. However, we cannot say with certainty that a biblical “kind” corresponds to what biologists call a “species.”
3. Species may change and adapt to their environment in various limited ways, given the natures God has given them (microevolution).
4. A considerable amount of time elapsed between the creation of their species and the creation of humans.
5. God created beings specially, not through a long process of naturalistic evolution.
6. The first couple was specially created by God and experienced the Fall- space time history
What bothers me is naïve college students who think evolution eliminates the need for a Creator.
Like or Dislike:
0
I have kind of a unique take on this that I have not heard anyone else promote. Of course that may very well be for a good reason. LOL Population Genetics lines up with how I’ve read Genesis for some time now. I think we conflate the ideas of “two by two” mentioned in the flood account and inferred by what was brought to Adam for naming with the QUANTITY of kind created in chapter one. But I don’t think God created just two of everything. Day 6 has God creating mankind and other animals following the statement of letting the earth produce them. I believe the creation of Adam in chapter two to be a separate event in the same way that CS Lewis refers to them being the first “Homo Divinus” . If you look at the timing specified in the early verses of the chapter, Adam may have very well been made PRIOR to day six. We are told it was before any bushes or plants or rain, so it could be as early as day three.
And having Adam and Eve as a special creation in a special place/garden that is separate from general mankind spoken of in chapter one can also help in understanding the whole “sons of God” versus “daughters of men” thing we get to in chapter six. It could explain how Cain could leave the garden area and be afraid of a population of people found elsewhere, as well as where he found his wife. It also allows for the evidence hominids and even other “men”, and now the evidence of Population Genetics as well, while still maintaining a believe in a literal, historical Adam and Eve. It can even impact our understanding of covenant people versus other people. And it all struck me when I read chapter two without the “aid” of already “knowing” that it took place on day six.
I get more into how I currently read all of this on Theologica (http://theologica.ning.com/profiles/blogs/what-i-believe-about). It’s amazing though of how I read the text lining up with Population Genetics, John Walton’s work on “functional” creation, CS Lewis’ “Homo Divinus”, and other things that I don’t come across until later. In other words, I didn’t change how I read the text based on these other influences, but read the text that way *first*, often being accused of capitulating to some book I’d never heard of, and *then* had those ideas validated by some really smart folks. Makes me think I *may* be on the right tract.
Like or Dislike:
1
BTW, if anyone is interested in exploring the idea of population genetics or other areas of science as it relates to understanding Genesis and not denying the creative acts of God, there is a good Facebook group for these kinds of discussions that is full of some really smart Christian folks with backgrounds in the sciences. You can check it out at https://www.facebook.com/groups/214832310976/
Like or Dislike:
2
I have a question for you, Charles. You throw out a lot of questions. Are they rhetorical? Do *you* have the answers for them? Or are they intended to be a challenge in lieu of any evidence *contrary* to things like population genetics? I just don’t understand the intention of the long list of questions. If they are legit, I’ll be glad to answer some of them. But if anything said is just going to be challenged in an endless game of “Who Said?”, I’m not interested.
Like or Dislike:
0
(40) Charles wrote:
“Paul (35)
It was you (and post # 1) who tabled “well meaning brothers” and “sincerity”. Clearly the context was that of erroneous brothers. If you are going to state as much, all I request is that you deal with the case.”
(42) Daniel wrote:
“Lest anyone take Paul’s silence at Charles’ challenges as a lack of a response, he DID say he was taking a break from this until after Christmas. I, on the other hand, probably won’t. So if you’d like *me* to response to things like “is this the case or not”, I’d be glad to.”
============================
You addressed “anyone” here. You imply that answers to my “challenges” may be required, and that you would be ‘glad’ to answer. Question: sorry, but would you be glad, or not? Now you have qualified your intention.
My questions are requesting supporting evidence for claims, some of them quite categorical. If one tables claims, one should be prepared to provide such evidence lest they remain unsupported generalizations.
As to answers, Daniel I have no questions for you and I do not note any others taking you up on your offer to provide answers to my questions to Paul and Kevin.
Like or Dislike:
0
Also Mike and Loo, I requested clarification from,
Now you have qualified your intentions Daniel. Initially,you were concerned that people not take Paul’s silence the wrong way. Take up Paul’s case if that is your aim. If it is necessary for you to do so, I suppose whether or not I am playing games will have to be put aside. You will need to decide on your objective and follow through.
Like or Dislike:
0
That’s fine, Charles. It was just coming across to me as more of a debate tactic than a sincere request for information. If the information was the goal, it wouldn’t really matter who supplied it. If the intent if to make sure that X person can answer a specific challenge with sources acceptable to you, that is fine. Putting someone else on the defensive and giving them the burden of proof for everything is a common debate tactic. If I can frame the debate on the things YOU have to prove in order to win, I don’t have to have any answers myself. In my own mind, I’ve won by default. And that is how this was coming across to me. I just didn’t want to spin my wheels answering some of your questions if an actual answer wasn’t your intent. So I’ll just ignore the questions you specify should be answered by others.
Like or Dislike:
0
Daniel, sorry about another question here, but don’t you have your own blog to moderate?
As for ‘debate tactic’: you frame that as somehow unseemly. Debates are in fact an important means of arriving at genuine truth and have done so for thousands of years. What kind of science, or society, would it be if certain classes of individuals were entitled to proclaim ‘truth’ without having to provide evidence; or worse, that the right to respond was curtailed?
And in fact Daniel, that is how western courts function. The burden of proof is on the one who tables the case, or the argument, or the accusation, etc. And the standard of proof on which reputation, freedom, and life rest is “beyond a reasonable doubt”.
So perhaps confine yourself to the study of reasonable doubt and warranted belief. The public are entitled to such even if we all know not everyone is sincere.
Like or Dislike:
0
Daniel: please do not forget that you did offer to provide clarification of Paul’s arguments to the group here. You then turned that around to challenge my sincerity and go off on a little ‘naughty boy’ admonition. As you can see, I have already written that I do not care about sincerity, yours, mine or anyone else’s.
But I do think that may not have been a nice thing to do.
Like or Dislike:
0
1. Yes, Charles, I do blog. I have had several over the years. Right now, I blog about theological stuff and political stuff at Theologica, where I also help moderate the forums. And I have a technology blog elsewhere as well.
2. I stated that challenging questions were a valid debate tactic. There is nothing wrong with it in that setting. William Lane Craig uses it quite effectively. I prefer discussion over debate though, and like it where questions are asked and answered as a group. To me, the goal should be in increasing knowledge, and I think that debate, like politics, often has “winning” as the goal. It isn’t “naughty” to have a context, but it IS important that we all share the same context if we are going to have an interaction of any value.
3. I understand that debates work a lot like the courts. But in court, everyone is aware of the context and the rules. You don’t have one side going in expecting court and the other going in expecting mediation. I’m not convinced that everyone here is expecting the same kind of context. In a debate/court context, it is perfectly OK to challenge the other side to produce something….but it can’t be done fairly if the other side isn’t going to have a rebuttal. A lot of challenging questions to Paul immediately after he said he was taking a holiday break could be seen as that kind of tactic. I respect Paul and didn’t want it to come across as if an absence of an answer those challenges over the subsequent responses was the same thing as not HAVING an answer.
The point is that it comes across as if you disagree with a lot of statements here. But your responses of challenges in the form of questions or even presuming that I need to “confine [my]self to the study of reasonable doubt and warranted belief” comes across, to me, as someone who is trying to frame the debate and discussion for their own advantage and not a sincere search for information. It does’t really contribute to the conversation as much as tries to shape it. And, to be honest, I get defensive when I feel like I’m being manipulated as opposed to consulted. If that *isn’t* your intent, that’s fine. But it IS the way it is coming across to me. And the fact that you admit that you don’t care for your own sincerity, much less the sincerity of anyone else, makes me wonder if you are here with the same goals as the rest of us. Not approaching a discussion with sincerity seems, by definition, to be a bit trollish to me. But I don’t moderate things here, so the way things appear to me don’t really matter.
Like or Dislike:
0
Daniel (6,page 2) wrote:
” But I don’t moderate things here, so the way things appear to me don’t really matter. ”
If that is the case, why do you continue to make this an issue, and at some length? Why do you continue to speak for Paul Copan or the others writing here, when they are not asking you to do so, and they are not asking you questions? This I would call special pleading.
Like or Dislike:
0
Daniel also wrote:
“even presuming that I need to “confine [my]self to the study of reasonable doubt and warranted belief”
Not presuming. That is the standard I try to apply to myself; it is the standard of scholarship; it is the way things are. It is not an innnovation on my part.
Like or Dislike:
0
Daniel also wrote:
“and not a sincere search for information.”
Again with the sincerity thing. Paul was the first to put sincerity on the table; not me. And now you continue to make it “the main thing”.
The point is this; in the search for truth, sincerity does not matter. Method does.
It is not a character assassination to request that the one who tables the truth claim come forth with the evidence. To make that happen requires questions. It is not a legitimate response to make a character aspersion (you’re insincere) on the person making the request.
If you put it on the table, expect to be questioned. That is the way it works, whether or not it makes you uneasy
Daniel, look around. Who is asking you to defend their position or to answer my questions? Wno is it that has taken this from the so called “main thing” and related questions, to the questioners’ sincerity?
Like or Dislike:
0
Dr. Copan: “And if evolution turns out to be true, why couldn’t this be one of the means by which God brings about his purposes on earth?”
On the flip side: If evolution turns out to be false, why couldn’t this be one of the means by which Satan brings about the damnation of souls on earth?
Like or Dislike:
0
Daniel also wrote:
” the fact that you admit that you don’t care for your own sincerity, much less the sincerity of anyone else, makes me wonder if you are here with the same goals as the rest of us.”
Look around Daniel. Who has asked you to defend their positions or to speak for “the rest of us” or to define the goals of “the rest of us”?
But you say that I am trying to manipulate the discussion!
Like or Dislike:
0
Daniel also wrote:
” In a debate/court context, it is perfectly OK to challenge the other side to produce something….but it can’t be done fairly if the other side isn’t going to have a rebuttal. A lot of challenging questions to Paul immediately after he said he was taking a holiday break could be seen as that kind of tactic.”
Now that is a chuckle. Mr. Copan is a professional scholar and author, as we can note above. This is his web site. You are concerned that he will not have a rebuttal?
Look around. When did he express that concern? When did he ask you to answer for him?
The main thing, wasn’t it? You started off, as I have reminded you, with the intent of answering the questions. All you have done since then is make this an issue of character.
Like or Dislike:
0
Daniel also wrote:
“And, to be honest, I get defensive when I feel like I’m being manipulated as opposed to consulted.”
Look around Daniel. Who asked you any questions? Who asked you to speak for them? And who offered to take up Mr. Copan’s cause by providing answers to questions? Who manipulated you into rebuking me for asking too many questions? And now you are the offended party!
Like or Dislike:
0
Good article. Well-argued point.
As an evangelical Christian who’s finally settled with Framework interpretation/theistic evolution understanding of Genesis 1, I concede that there is one problem with this approach: it’s difficult to justify accepting a non-literalistic understanding of Genesis 1, without also accepting non-literalistic understanding of subsequent account of Eden story, Noah’s flood and Table of Nations.
That said, to my mind, the alternative is far worse.
Like or Dislike:
0
Daniel also wrote:
” I’m not convinced that everyone here is expecting the same kind of context.”
That does not make it wrong to try to provide context. What do you think Mr. Copan is trying to do by writing his books and this blog? Does not the fact that he is an author and a scholar and freely admits he has a mandate to correct well meaning brothers, suggest this is exactlly the context? Does not the extensive list of references and footnotes suggest he is familiar with this standard?
Daniel, when one enters a discussion and begins to make truth claims and to correct others and to challenge their motives, one either knows or ought to know, or at least be ready to learn, the context or the rules of engagement. We both entered this willingly and at the risk of having our opinions corrected on the WORLD WIDE web. I’m not the one who has made this little engagement about my motives or your motives or deficiencies or lack of sincerity.
Like or Dislike:
0
Charles, you have asked me a bunch of questions over a number of posts. I answered. I asked if you wanted me to address some of the questions you asked others and you basically said no. So I’m not going there. It’s no big deal. And yet the multitude posts directed to/at me continue – even as you seem to be at a loss to explain my responses to them. No one is forcing you to continue to talk about my involvement here and making that an issue. We are just on separate pages when it comes to the context of the discussion here.
I’m not saying I’m right in considering it a general and irenic discussion where we are ALL allowed to participate with our thoughts and answers to questions and where knowledge is the goal and not gotcha debate points, but until Michael and/or Paul tell me my thoughts on the questions being posted are out of line or disruptive, I’ll continue to post here just as I always have with whatever I think contributes to the conversation.
I think it is a valid question to ask of either of us why we are here and what our intentions are. Considering the number of times my comments were encouraged and complimented, I’m comfortable with my answer to those questions. I think I’ve added something to the conversation. You are free to disagree with a “Who asked *you* to get involved” kind of challenge. To which, I’ll ask who decided that YOU could judge who was qualified to answer questions and who was not…..
Like or Dislike:
0
Daniel also wrote:
“..a bit trollish to me.”
I hope this represents your apogee from “the main thing”. What about the “Two Books” paradigm, or the relationship between science and general revelation, or things of that nature.
Like or Dislike:
0
Daniel also wrote:
“To which, I’ll ask who decided that YOU could judge who was qualified to answer questions and who was not…..”
Nobody. The questions stand or fall on their own merit. Mr. Copan and you put your positions out here on what I remind you is the WORLD WIDE web. That’s a big table. You indicated the questions were “challenging” and warranted answers. The one who puts the issue on the very big table and indicates that brothers need and have been corrected must understand that questions will come. Now you have gone from a willingness to answer challenging questions on behalf of a brother you respect to more and more personal comments.
Repeat, nobody has made me a judge of who is qualified. When I ask you, “who has asked you to answer” I do so to point out that you have made the issue my right to question, and you have spoken in several places on behalf of the presumptive group or context or motive. You made the issue sincerity and motivation and got away from the actual questions.
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] Copen wrote an article titled “Creation and Evolution: Keeping the Main Thing the Main Thing” that is worth reading, but the best part was one the comments. Let me reproduce it here (from [...]
Like or Dislike:
1
to Loo,
Here I offer my interpretation of population genetics.
First of all, the assertion is that modern humans descended probably from no more than a few thousand individuals after a prolonged period of either starvation or at least scarcity of resources.
Secondly, population genetics does point to one Mitochondrial Eve and one Y-chromosome Adam. The concept being that all members of a species ultimately descend from one progenitor. In the case of humans, since we all get our mitochondria from our mother, and all males get our Y-chromosomes from our father, we can reasonably trace our ancestors in this way.
In population genetics, it doesn’t mean that in the lifetime of this progenitor, he/she/it was the only member of its species, but over a huge number of generations, the clan that descends from this one individual eventually out-breed or out-survive everyone else (:P).
This concept has been applied, I think, to many species. In general, the fewer the number that are still alive within a species (the more endangered the animal is), the more recent the progenitor lived.
Interestingly, by population genetics, the Mitochondrial Eve lived hundreds of thousands years before the Y-chromosome Adam, which makes sense from biblical standpoint, since we know that we inherited our mitochondria from Eve, but our Y-chromosomes from Noah!
Now, I am no expert in population genetics, so I cannot tell you if Mitochondrial ancestor was expected to live before Y-chromosome ancestor from a statistical standpoint. I also concede that current population genetics does not explain Ham/Shem/Japheth – Table of Nations. But I actually do think population genetics has strengthened, rather than weakened, the data found within the Bible.
Like or Dislike:
1
Where are the Theologica moderators to stop the 2-commenter comments.
Like or Dislike:
1
Marv -
You said: Our faith is to a large degree a text-based faith. How we deal with texts is going to make a big difference. Your suggestion that we can just tailor our understanding of the text based on what we decide otherwise to be true is… disturbing. Trying to knead evolution into Genesis one would be serious eisegesis.
The reality is that we do tailor our understanding of the text to what we faithfully and reasonably (and sometimes unfaithfully and unreasonably) determine from other methods and sources. It is reality. It is not to deny that THE ultimate and absolute truth exists within what God teaches us in Scripture. Yet, not just because we are dumb, but because we are thousands of years removed from its context, we kind of miss it at times. It’s ok to recognise some kind of Wesleyan quadrilateral in helping us grasp God’s revelation in the text. It’s really ok.
I know you would keep arguing that the whole sun-setting/rising and stopping was meant phenomenologically. That’s a very difficult thing to prove, either way, that it was or was not meant phenomenologically. But if it was actually understand in that day that the sun moved, and not the earth, then we have some things to deal with in regards to our understanding of God’s creation and God’s revelation in the text. We don’t need to feel our faith is destroyed. But we have some things to think through, i.e., in the days of Copernicus and Galileo.
I suppose the reason Genesis 1 speaks of a geocentric focus (what is everything explained in relation to – the creation of our heavens and earth) is because they really thought geocentrically. Can you or I prove or disprove it? No, probably not empirically satisfactorily? But we can make educated guesses, of which I am not as educated as some. But it seems highly plausible we have a group of people working geocentrically back then. Not because they were dumb, for we are all dumb as compared to God’s knowledge, but because that was the way they understood things. So the gracious Father we have allowed some great revelatory statements about Himself and His good creation be made from a geocentric standpoint. You know, kind of like if God decided to speak today, in our 21st century world, he’d probably speak in a way we understand it. And you and I believe He does speak today (though we don’t stick it in the canon) – not as unto Hebrews of millennia ago, but to us in our culture and time. I suppose He spoke to Hebrews millennia ago as Hebrews millennia ago. Not because they were dumber than us, but simply because of the reality of Acts 17:26-27.
Like or Dislike:
1
Scotti, that’s what happens when the blogger drops out for a couple of days!
Actually, I don’t mind these other dialogues just as long as the tone remains cordial (see the guidelines for posting at P&P). Charles, I do think your tone does have something of an “edge”; despite your disagreement with Daniel, he has been a most gracious interlocutor. Daniel doesn’t have to speak for me (though I agree with him on a number of points) and am truly intrigued by what he says and would like to see the conversation play out. This blogsite is a legitimate platform for just such an interaction, even if the blogger himself isn’t always engaging in the dialogue. May we all keep the tone gracious!
As for disagreement and sincerity, yes, we can agree to disagree. The apostle Paul does place a certain stock in sincerity-not simply in the content he is trying to communicate (e.g. 2 Cor. 1:12). I appreciate the sincerity of another brother, even if I think he is incorrect. The apostle Paul thought that the “weaker brother” (who had a conscience about meat offered to idols after it was sold in the marketplace) was well-meaning, even if Paul thought this position to be theologically incorrect. Paul sought to keep the main thing the main thing.
On the evidence for animal death built into creation, I gave verses for this from Psalm 104 and the latter chapters of Job. I don’t know what more to say, as this does seem sufficient evidence.
In terms of the two books view, I think this model is nicely reinforced by passages such as Isaiah 28:24-29:
Does the farmer plow continually to plant seed?
Does he continually turn and harrow the ground?
Does he not level its surface
And sow dill and scatter cummin
And plant wheat in rows,
Barley in its place and rye within its area?
For his God instructs and teaches him properly.
For dill is not threshed with a threshing sledge,
Nor is the cartwheel driven over cummin;
But dill is beaten out with a rod, and cummin with a club.
Grain for bread is crushed,
Indeed, he does not continue to thresh it forever.
Because the wheel of his cart and his horses eventually damage it,
He does not thresh it longer.
This also comes from the LORD of hosts,
Who has made His counsel wonderful and His wisdom great.
Thus this two books view applies to the science of farming (agriculture)—and by extension the various natural sciences as well.
Eric, thanks for your helpful comments, citing Groothuis. A nice summary.
Grace to you all!
Like or Dislike:
2
Marv -
Forgot one thing. I am not sure anyone is trying to ‘knead’ evolution into Genesis 1. Rather, I see most people either a) acknowledging that Gen 1 is not ultimately given to us to answer the intricate ‘how long’ question nor the intricacies of the ‘method’ God used as He created (fiat or drawn out) or b) that God gave His revelation within the text all the while accommodating to the understanding and framework of the author of Gen 1.
I know you feel both options are dodgy and not in accordance with the text. But at least note that not too many people are kneading evolution into the text as if it’s ‘in there’ if we search hard enough. I would admit that’s going overboard.
Like or Dislike:
1
The world, the greater culture surrounding us has and does change the interpretation of Scripture. The Bible teaches a flat geocentric earth, yet those passages have been so reworked in most interpretive traditions so that people today insist that they don’t teach or even use that ancient worldview. Jesus clearly taught that demons cause disease and that casting them out is the way to health, yet few churches outside of Christian Science sustain such a viewpoint, the evidence is so overwhelming that those verses are just rewritten in our minds. But the best example, i am aware of is slavery, read Robert Dabney for a justification not only of slavery but of a hierarchical worldview based on the ancient idea of the Great Chain of Being. He thought that Jacobin egalitarianism would be the end of a Christian society and the antithesis of a true Christian worldview. Yet few of his descendants believe this (neo-confederates and some folks in compounds in Idaho) having at the instigation of Rev Dr’s Sherman and Grant(kudos to Mark Noll) rewritten theology to accommodate the realpolitic changes in American society.
The question is not if the world, science, or politics changes our interpretation of what Scripture teaches but how, when and why it does.
To claim that our interpretation is just like Jesus’ or Paul’s or Moses’ is simply to ignore the extraordinary changes that have been part of theology since the very beginning.
Like or Dislike:
1
Wow, a lot of comments piled up unawares. Let me just reply to one more comment by Charles: “If evolution turns out to be false, why couldn’t this be one of the means by which Satan brings about the damnation of souls on earth?” The question is: “Can a person be a true Christian and an evolutionist?” If so, then rejection of evolution is not central to embracing the gospel. If you think not, then I fear this illustrates my point about failing to keep the main thing the main thing and that this is adding to the gospel.
Like or Dislike:
0
The main thing is the main irrefutable argument of “Ex Nihilo” verses self existent (eternal) space, matter and energy.
Rather than explaining the previous point from a technical viewpoint, it can be best illustrated by how I explain the creation verses evolution debate to my 5 year old:
If people say “we came from monkeys”, you simply say “where did that come from”?
And when they move it back to fish or birds, then to amoeba’s or one celled organisms you say
“Where did that come from?”
When the argument gets back to “we came from the big bang”. the answer is …. you guessed it… “where did that come from?”
The very existence of matter, energy and space proves there had to be a God who is self existent who created (by speaking) the world into existence out of NOTHING (Ex Nihilo)
BTW —-The “bounds” of the universe proves the existence of a God who created it. If you think about what happens after you have traveled for a million trillion light years, you don’t get to the “end”, to see what is beyond the ends of the universe, because there can be no end. For if there is an “end” to the universe, then what is beyond the edge of what contains the ends of the universe?
Like or Dislike:
1
I think it is possible to stretch creation ex nihilo to an extreme that the text in Genesis doesn’t support. When it says that the EARTH produced a lot of stuff, it doesn’t elaborate on the how. As such, the propositions of different options is not ANTI God or unbiblical. When a suggestion is given that doesn’t include a miracle, folks often take it as an attack on God. But whether we read a secular solution or a sacred one into the text, we are still adding to it. If we all recognize that it is possible for both sides to do that and neither is a spiritual exercise, I think we can get past this idea that if your understanding of how is more scientific than mine, you are more secular and less godly. If it is a necessary thing for us to believe a certain thing about the how in order to keep the main thing in focus, I’m sure we would have been given more details. The fact that we were not tells me that whether we believe it was all miraculously spoken into existence, whether it was manually formed and separated, or whether natural laws and such were programmed by Him to work His purposes, we can all agree that He is the focus and these other things should be used to point to Him, not distract from Him.
Like or Dislike:
1
Very good post Daniel. #28
It is very important for us NOT to read anything into the text that is not there.
The Bible does not precisely explain the beginning of the universe. It does not at any point as far as I remember contain any raw data concerning the beginning of the universe, then interpret that data. It simply says God did it.
Why are we asking questions of the text that the text was not written to answer? Science as we know it did not exist when Moses wrote the account of creation. Even if it had, trying to explain advanced science to uneducated slaves who could not even read would have taken all the forty years in the wilderness up! Even modern scientists probably wouldn’t get most of it.
The point in the account of creation as outlined in Genesis is this:
“Hey ancient Israelites, see those stars you worship? Stop worshiping them, I made them, I am God, not the stars. Hey ancient Israelites, see the sun you worship? Stop worshiping it, Ra does not exist, I made it to give you light, I am God, not the sun. Hey ancient Israelites, see the fish , the birds, the lions and bears, see the trees, rocks etc, stop worshiping these things, I made them, they are not gods, I am. I made you the pinnacle of my creation, you are to subdues them, not the other way around. Oh and by the way, I AM GOD, snap out of your polytheism.”
This is the point of the account of creation as outlined in Genesis. To show that Yahweh is God. Not a rock, fish, or a bit of wood. It is very unfair to ask questions of the text that the people of the time and even the author were not addressing. Rhome Dyck pointed this out on TTP ‘Bibliology and Hermeneutics’ when he said that during the creation of the manhattan project and ultimately the nuclear bomb was taking place they were not asking ‘What will the side effects of this be?’ but ‘How big will this be? Will it work?’ Why then do we insist on defending our position with such staunch spirit when we ultimately look foolish for doing so? The professional atheist Anthony Flew did what most credible philosophers do, his first rule was ‘follow the evidence where it leads’ and he ended up a deist, possibly a theist. He could not answer to the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Never heard of it? follow this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kal%C4%81m_cosmological_argument
Could God have made the earth in seven days? Yes. Did He? Well (deep subject;)) probably not, since the evidence points to something else, but He could have. After all, Jesus turned water into wine, and wine takes time to age, Jesus did it instantly, so believers have to admit he could have done that with the universe. Still, the evidence points to something else and we must follow the evidence so long as it does not conflict with the core points of Christianity, namely the resurrection. If I were God (your’e all lucky I’m not!), I would take the billions of years route. Why? because it would be more fun to spend all that time watching these things take place.
My post isn’t really finished but for the sake of others boredom, I’ll stop here.
Like or Dislike:
0
Mr. Copan, thank you for your tolerance, but based on these items, I wonder how carefully you are have followed what I have written? Perhaps a little sharper edge is needed sometimes?
====================================
You wrote this:
“Paul Copan says:
December 26, 2011 at 4:12 pm
Like or Dislike: 0
Wow, a lot of comments piled up unawares. Let me just reply to one more comment by Charles: “If evolution turns out to be false, why couldn’t this be one of the means by which Satan brings about the damnation of souls on earth?”
======================================
But the post to which you refer says this:
“Truth Unites… and Divides says:
December 26, 2011 at 2:16 pm
Like or Dislike: 0
Dr. Copan: “And if evolution turns out to be true, why couldn’t this be one of the means by which God brings about his purposes on earth?”
On the flip side: If evolution turns out to be false, why couldn’t this be one of the means by which Satan brings about the damnation of souls on earth?
Like or Dislike:
0
Dr. Copan, thank you once again for your tolerance.
With respect to this “two comment-er commentary” to which some object, (fair comment) I just point this out, and move on; you said this:
“Charles, I do think your tone does have something of an “edge”; despite your disagreement with Daniel, he has been a most gracious interlocutor.”
First, I suggest, as above, that you look the first part of the interlocution over again;
“Daniel says:
December 26, 2011 at 10:42 am
Like or Dislike: 0
I have a question for you, Charles. You throw out a lot of questions. Are they rhetorical? Do *you* have the answers for them? Or are they intended to be a challenge in lieu of any evidence *contrary* to things like population genetics? I just don’t understand the intention of the long list of questions. If they are legit, I’ll be glad to answer some of them. But if anything said is just going to be challenged in an endless game of “Who Said?”, I’m not interested.”
second, the writer of the post offers to the participants to answer my questions; following that the
subject becomes personal, as to game-playing, doubtful motivations and intentions. I did not engage the writer, or question the writer, or make any reference to the writer. But somehow the writer became the victim.
RHETORICALLY speaking, who went off topic? Who made the discussion personal?
That is all.
Again, thank you for your tolerance.
Like or Dislike:
2
Charles,
why don’t you state your views clearly on the article by Paul Copan so we can discuss them? I would find that interesting. You clearly are quite bright. I am interested in learning different peoples views, especially ones more learned than myself. I live next door to an atheistic professor. He has some very convincing arguments. He has clearly thought through all these issues.
Like or Dislike:
0
We got really deep into that wine bit on Theologica. We are told that drunk people thought it tasted good. That is all. Trying to read into it that time was messed with or that it is a good argument for God being deceptive, which is basically what the appearance of age proposition boils down to. If the wine came with fake invoices and delivery receipts, it would really benefit the creation discussion to bring it in. As it stands though, I just don’t get a lot of benefit from that account as it relates to creation. To me, there is a huge difference between proposing what God could do with time and understanding evidence to the contrary. But part of that has to do with my belief that Genesis 1-2 were cases of a Christophany, which might have a lot of implications for Someone in physical form in this space/time. But that is a different topic. LOL
Like or Dislike:
0
Thanks for that Ben.
I will try to come up with a coherent response.
Like or Dislike:
0
Thanks Charles,
I am relatively new to theology as a study topic, so any information and philosophy I can glean from others is of profound benefit to me! I am sure like your previous posts, it will be very coherent. given the level of discussion thus far, I’m sure you could enrich the conversation beyond measure.
Daniel,
in respect of this conversation, yes, the wine issue is probably not really worth bringing in. I don’t think there was a manipulation of time there, it seems more like a straight alchemy to me. I’m not an expert in these issues (as you can probably tell), just interested in self educating.
Thanks for your input.
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] To Moses As Creationists Wish He HadDec 26th, 2011 by James F. McGrath TweetBrian LePort shared a brilliant comment someone left on the Reclaiming the Mind blog on a post about evolution. I thought I should share it, tweaking it slightly to improve the punctuation, and expanding it to [...]
Like or Dislike:
0
“If evolution turns out to be false, why couldn’t this be one of the means by which Satan brings about the damnation of souls on earth?”
Dr. Paul Copan: “The question is: “Can a person be a true Christian and an evolutionist?” If so, then rejection of evolution is not central to embracing the gospel. If you think not, then I fear this illustrates my point about failing to keep the main thing the main thing and that this is adding to the gospel.”
Another question to contemplate:
Can a person be a true Christian and still be co-opted by Satan to teach and to propagate some soul-damning “secondary” doctrine that leads some/many souls to Hell?
Like or Dislike:
0
Truth unites and divides,
Can you give an example of a “secondary” doctrine that leads anyone whatsoever to hell?
Like or Dislike:
0
“Can you give an example of a “secondary” doctrine that leads anyone whatsoever to hell?”
Ben,
A good question. Truth be told, I rather regretted putting in the adjective/qualifier “secondary” as soon as I wrote it.
Let’s remove the word “secondary”.
(Revised) Another question to contemplate:
Can a person be a true Christian and still be co-opted by Satan to teach and to propagate some soul-damning doctrine that leads some/many souls to Hell?
Like or Dislike:
0
Hello Truth Unites and Divides,
I’m a layman, and not skilled in debating, but another thought occurred to me though, how is this question you have asked relevant to the topic? I would be willing to discuss it even though as I have indicated, with my limited knowledge, we might just end up further from the truth than closer to it! lol
Like or Dislike:
2
“Can a person be a true Christian and still be co-opted by Satan to teach and to propagate some soul-damning “secondary” doctrine that leads some/many souls to Hell?”
Can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard people say that you can’t believe the Bible and doubt YEC or that if you don’t trust YEC you don’t trust God. When the church makes science the enemy, a lot of intellectuals are rejected in the process. Just saying….
You mean something like saying that a young-earth creation is not just part of the gospel message, but central to it, and that you can’t accept Christ without accepting that as well?
Like or Dislike:
0
Ben,
It’s related to the question posed in Dr. Copan’s concluding paragraph.
Like or Dislike:
0
@Daniel #40/90,
Can a person be a true Christian and still be co-opted by Satan to teach and to propagate some soul-damning doctrine that leads some/many souls to Hell?
Would you answer the question as “Yes.” Or would you answer the question as “No.”
Like or Dislike:
1
I would say yes. Lots of folks thinking they are doing God’s work are going to be hearing “Depart from me. I never knew you.”
Like or Dislike:
0
Truth Unites And divides,
Stupid me. to be honest, I don’t see the connection. If you are proposing what Daniel is suggesting then I have never thought that this issue is one that would lead to hell. I may be missing the point entirely here. If you want to explain further what you mean then great, I would appreciate that as someone who still has an awful lot to learn, I’m genuine novice. Sorry to be a bother.
Like or Dislike:
2
Truth – #38 -
In relation to the topic of the blog, and specifically with regards to evolution and creation, I really firmly believe that it is often not the propagation of an idea that leads to damnation, but the propagation of the the idea that one must choose between it and faith in Jesus Christ.
Now on an issue like “did Christ rise?” or “did Christ come in the flesh?” or “did God create the world?” this dichotomy is true.
On an issue like evolution, I passionately believe that far more damage is done insisting that you can’t be a Christian and believe it, and bolstering this idea by telling people that evolutionists believe that fish grew legs one day and walked out of the sea, or that humans descended from monkeys. This is the reason why people get out into university away from the shelter of their church and family, are exposed to sophisticated arguments and actual real, compelling evidence, and they turn away because they have been told their whole life it is one or the other. They see that the things they have been taught in church are not true to the real science as it is taught and practised, and their faith can’t handle it. That’s our fault for not giving them the chance to work through the issue properly, and for telling them that any sort of capitulation to it is tantamount to heresy and apostasy. It just isn’t. It IS a secondary issue. You can be a Christian and believe that evolution may have occurred or that it did occur.
It is one thing to study the evidence and decide one way or the other for yourself. It is quite another to tell other people they can’t be Christian and believe it.
Truth, that wasn’t as such meant to be a rant at you because I see what you are asking and it is a good point. It just raised quite a sensitive topic for me. I know too many people who use evolution as an excuse not to believe anything in the bible because they perceive this ridiculous dichotomy as being true.
Peace,
Saskia
Like or Dislike:
1
Let me clarify that last statement by saying I *ALSO* think there are many who believe they are doing God’s work but are not true Christians. But I do think sincere and true Christians can be wrong and lead people astray as well. None of us are perfect. And I think one of the Devils most successful tactics is to get us to add to the Bible. That is why I try to keep my list of required beliefs to a bare minimum. I think the more junk we add to a pretty simple message, the more difficult we make it for some people.
Like or Dislike:
3
I’d add to what Saskia #45 says in that is isn’t just that our kids are going away and faced with solid arguments and real science that is the issue. They are also taught a Biblical principle that became a foundation of science to test everything and hold on to the good. When they actually start testing those “Creation Science” arguments, they fail. And this leads to a crisis of faith because they have been taught this is what Genesis says and have been taught that this foundation is critical for the Gospel. I think it is critical for our youth to learn that their faith should not rise or fall on their interpretation of Genesis 1. Yet you have folks like the AIG staff member that spoke at my daughter’s commencement at a very dogmatic YEC place that they basically already had the truth and shouldn’t listen to any college or university that proposed they question it. Sorry. If I am not allowed to question and test what I’ve been taught in the same way the Bareans did, I’m not being educated. I’m being indoctrinated.
Like or Dislike:
0
Well put Saskia.
I guess in my country, this issue is not as big as it may be in the USA. I have never even come across this idea before, that you must have one or the other. It seems ridiculous to me since it’s obvious salvation is not based on anything other than the resurrection.
Daniel, you have a very good approach keeping the required beliefs to a minimum. I want all churches here in the UK to start TTP or something like it. It is a brilliant course.
Thanks CMP
Like or Dislike:
0
Keeping the Main Thing the Main Thing
(Dr. Copan) “So the main thing is to keep the main thing: God vs. no God—not creation vs. evolution.”
Is a variant of this a reasonable analogy:
So the main thing is to keep the main thing: God vs. no God – not Virgin Birth vs. non-Virgin Birth.
Recently, C. Michael Patton wrote a post on the importance of the Virgin Birth. His concluding paragraph wraps with this:
“While even some evangelical theologians seem to relativize the importance of the virgin birth (see above), it is vital to note that denials of the virgin birth (and/or the resurrection) have historically inevitably been accompanied by heresies that undercut an orthodox understanding of the person of the incarnate Christ. In other words the sign of the virgin birth cannot be separated from the thing signified, a true incarnation of God in human flesh. Attempts to do so empty the Incarnation of its content and with it the possibility of salvation which is anchored fully in the grace of God.”
In a slight transposition of Dr. Copan’s comments in #26/76, is there agreement with the following:
“The question is: “Can a person be a true Christian and deny the Virgin Birth?” If so, then rejection of the Virgin Birth is not central to embracing the gospel. If you think not, then I fear this illustrates my point about failing to keep the main thing the main thing and that this is adding to the gospel.”"
Like or Dislike:
0
Daniel, #47 -
Yes well said, I was sort of driving at that as well but was not able to put it as clearly as you have,
Thanks
Saskia
Like or Dislike:
0
I personally agree that the virgin birth is not a necessary element of faith. I think if someone turned away from Christ because they decided not to believe in the virgin birth it would be a terrible tragedy.
However I do not think it is a perfect analogy as it is a historical idea much like the resurrection of Christ. It is not a case, as evolution is, of a specific reading of scripture, which seems to be invalidated by the current data we have on the natural world. Science cannot provide any evidence for or against the virgin birth.
Also, the issue with the virgin birth, I believe, would not so much be god vs no god, as “incarnation vs no incarnation” i.e. the manhood and godhood of Jesus. This is the main thing, which even Mr Patton wrote in the passage you quote – he says the importance of the virgin birth is what it signifies, i.e. that Christ was the incarnation of God.
I guess in the end it comes down to what we define as “central”, what we define as “important” and what we define as “unimportant.”. I would not put either the virgin birth or evolution in the central category, but I wouldn’t know whether to say they are important or unimportant. I would love to hear others’ thoughts on these issues as well.
Saskia
Like or Dislike:
0
“I think if someone turned away from Christ because they decided not to believe in the virgin birth it would be a terrible tragedy.”
I think if someone turned away from Christ because they decided not to believe in Creation it would be a terrible tragedy.
Like or Dislike:
0
I think if someone turned away from Christ it would be a terrible tragedy
Yeah that wasn’t so well put, you got me
It is a real conundrum, where you classify different doctrines. And I can’t pretend that I am enough of a scholar to be able to categorically state which doctrines are central. Just throwing in my two cents.
Saskia
Like or Dislike:
2
I think the worst tragedy is for someone to turn away from Christ not just because of a non-essential belief, the belief that it WAS essential when it wasn’t, but the fact that essential or not, it isn’t a clear doctrine at all but just a preferred interpretation. You wouldn’t just be trusting someone else over the Bible, but trusting someone else that was wrong both in what is essential and in what they believe the Bible actually taught. At that point, we have not only elevated our interpretation to the Word itself and added to the requirements for salvation, but have done so in a way that is a stumbling block for others and actually drives them AWAY from Christ. And once someone has learned that this is what is required of them, it is that much harder to un-teach that and un-ring that bell to actually get them to be receptive again.
Like or Dislike:
2
Saskia, I don’t pretend that I am enough of a scholar to be able to categorically state which doctrines are central either. But the thief on the cross had enough information and faith for it to save him when he trusted in Christ. I don’t see him being put through a lengthy catechism first. I don’t see anyone having to explain the Trinity or predestination to him. It must have been pretty basic and, according to Romans 1, must be simple enough that we can get what we need to know from what God has provided us. The Bible is rich in doctrine, and I love the Pauline epistles for that. But if a proper understanding of all of that or even a complete knowledge of it even if we didn’t fully understand it is a requirement, then I don’t see how Romans 1 makes any sense. What about those that pre-dated all that doctrine being put to paper? Just how much did the woman at the well need to know and understand? Very little, I think.
Like or Dislike:
0
Saskia 105
“I personally agree that the virgin birth is not a necessary element of faith. I think if someone turned away from Christ because they decided not to believe in the virgin birth it would be a terrible tragedy.”
Various doctrines could be put forth as ‘necessary’ or not necessary for faith. I take a point of view on this based on (a partial list) 2 Timothy: All scripture (in the context Paul refers primarily to the Old Testament is God breathed and is profitable; for training, admonishing, rebuking, correcting, instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully equipped, lacking nothing…; in another place Paul reminds you “how from infancy… you have known the Holy Scriptures which can make you wise unto salvation”. To the Ephesians Paul reminds them that “I have not failed to teach you the full counsel of God… I have not failed to teach you everything necessary…
If it is taught in Scripture, it is meant to be known and cherished. And Paul commanded also that his letters, which were in his lifetime acknowledged as God-breathed scripture, where to be read in every church.
Like or Dislike:
0
As to why, in general, men do not believe in Christ:
Jesus said, in John 3, that they are already condemned if they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. And that is because they love darkness and their deeds are deeds of darkness, they refuse to come to the light to be saved. They are to look on the One lifted up on the cross, like the serpent lifted by Moses in the desert, because only the crucified and risen Son of God can divert the wrath of God coming upon them.
It is not as though because one man believes in evolution, or another despises the Trinity, a third ridicules the virgin birth, a fourth mocks guilt in Adam based on the mere bite of a fruit while yet another cannot abide the unscientific foolishness of a literal six day creation.
All alike are subject to the wrath of God. They are sinners, and guilty sinners at tfalhat. Men love sin. In their minds they are hostile to God. They do not find it convenient to retain the knowledge of God. Yet Romans is clear; they can clearly see his eternal power and divine nature from what has been made; this they reject because they are hostile, unregenerate sinners. That is why fallen man is hostile to the doctrines of creation; he has chosen to make his gods from the natural world, and to claim a non-existent ancestry/biological kinship with them. This has been a staple pagan them for thousands of years, including the Greeks intellectual heritage of Paul’s time. To confirm, all you have to do is to look at the literature of modern evolutionists and environmentalists.
Like or Dislike:
0
re:why men do not believe in Jesus Christ
In a recent study of 1John, I counted between 25 and thirty reasons why men do not believe in Christ.
God’s word preached under the conviction of the Holy Spirit, leads to conviction of sin and to salvation. Any doctrine, any text is just as likely to bring a man to saving faith by the Spirit, as it is to harden his heart against God, according to the will of God. In the end, it is only because of him that we are in Christ. Salvation is of the Lord.
Like or Dislike:
0
Charles #46
Sorry, busy with Christmas, you asked where I got the population genetics info:
http://genome.cshlp.org/content/17/4/520.full
This is not easy reading. If science is not your area consider:
http://biologos.org/blog/understanding-evolution-mitochondrial-eve-y-chromosome-adam
Even with Mitochondrial Eve, the human population doesn’t get down to 1 breeding pair. It isn’t about a man named Adam and a woman named Eve back at the dawn of time that shared the earth with others that causes the issues. The issues are from the idea of Original Sin. Many believers and denominations have held to a notion that we inherit our sin physically from our fathers. IF this is the case, having Adam in a populated world when he first sinned means the inherited curse of the first sin would have taken many generations (centuries) to be present in the entire human race. That means the true fall from Grace wouldn’t have been evident for a long time later (if we inherit this curse physically). If we don’t inherit our sin at conception – how are we born sinners? That was the stumbling block I meant (should have been more clear). I realize not all denominations nor doctrines believe this, so it certainly isn’t a universally christian stumbling block.
Hope this clears my comment up a bit more Charles.
Like or Dislike:
0
Loo-thanks!
Like or Dislike:
2
Truth -
It’s not about whether we Christians argue for or against creation. We all argue for a telos-purposeful creation created by our God. We cannot get away from such. So no one is denying that. We are walking on firm and similar ground here together.
Rather, the question is the length and method God used to accomplish this most awesome and powerful act of creation. Some see only one specific method and time period as more God & Scripture-honouring. Some see the possibility of another method as maintaining honour for God & Scripture as well.
Like or Dislike:
0
Rather, the question is the length and method ”
God spoke, and it was so. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. He sustains all things with his powerful world.
Why do people say “we do not know how” or “Scripture is not intended to show us how” God made the creation? There is an answer; why is this answer not satisfactory to inquirers? We have a Savior who with a word could transform hundreds of liters of water into high-quality wine; who could say, “Go. Your son his healed’ and from that very hour, the son was healed. Who could say, divide the bread and fish amongst the people and multiplied thousands are fed from a basket.
‘
This is a man who could shout, “Lazarus, come forth” and it was so. Who could walk on water, walk through walls, defy gravity, call up a fish with a coin in its mouth to pay his taxes, defy gravity and levitate to the stratosphere.
Which is easier, he would say: “To say to this man, ‘your sins are forgiven’ or to say ‘rise, take up your bed and walk”
Here is the eternal Son of God who in the beginning of the Creation, when all things were made through him, called out the stars one by one, and by name, in their uncounted trillions and unending variety and power.
Why should we consider it strange that he can and does do all things according to the praise of his glorious grace, according to the counsel of his will, and by his powerful word? As Paul said to Agrippa, ‘Why should you consider it strange that God should raise the dead”
Like or Dislike:
1
Charles -
I agree with all the examples you have given. And God could produce a child in a matter of seconds. But it is interesting He has chosen to develop such a beautiful creation over a 40-week period, step by step, process by process. It is a beautiful, creative project, one I believe He revels in even though He could have done it in mere seconds. And He still gets all the glory in the process of knitting us together in our mother’s room.
My goal is not to convince you of evolutionary creation, but that we recognise that, if such is plausible (and it seems plausible) such need not be seen as a ploy of the enemy nor dishonouring to God and His word. It is creating an extreme and unhelpful dichotomy.
Like or Dislike:
0
”
Some see the possibility of another method as maintaining honour for God & Scripture as well.”
Scott, by that do you mean evolution?
I think that a real some-one with a name and a face and a story has more value than a hypothetical ‘somebody’ with a ‘possible ideal’.
As you might very reasonably infer, I make no apology for believing the creation account of Genesis to be factual history, albeit like all history accounts and like of Scripture, a selective, necessarily incomplete but by no means insufficient account.o
If your last post was meant to suggest those who believe in a
God-honouring form of evolution over against a belief like mine, it would be helpful to me if you would state some cases. Who do you have in mind, with such a point of view?
On what basis does this person adopt, maintain, and promulgate such a view to the glory of God?
Like or Dislike:
0
a” But it is interesting He has chosen to develop such a beautiful creation over a 40-week period, step by step, process by process.”
I would like to know in what way this process as an analogy makes any conception of theistic evolution plausible.
Like or Dislike:
0
Dr. Paul Copan: “I also mention in the book that the fundamental issue to discuss with scientifically-minded non-Christians—the main thing—is not “creation vs. evolution”; rather, it is the question of “God vs. no God.”
As I speak to secular audiences on university campuses and elsewhere, I don’t raise the creation vs. evolution issue.”
This is a good approach.
Given that you’re focused on “the main thing” (God vs. No God) with non-believers, several questions primarily emerge for me:
(1) Have you ever had a discussion/debate about “the main thing” with non-believers whereby the non-believer brought up the issue of Creation vs. Evolution in response to your discussion about “the main thing”?
(2) If so, why do you think non-believers would rather derail away from “the main thing” to instead discuss Creation vs. Evolution?
(3) Suppose in response to their attempt to derail the topic away from “the main thing”, you gently responded by saying, “Let’s address one topic at a time. The Main Thing here is “God vs. No God.” Let’s not get sidetracked to other issues, that while important in their own right, gets away from “the main thing” of God vs. No God.”
Would that response be well-received?
Like or Dislike:
0
“My goal is not to convince you of evolutionary creation, but that we recognise that, if such is plausible (and it seems plausible) such need not be seen as a ploy of the enemy nor dishonouring to God and His word. It is creating an extreme and unhelpful dichotomy.”
The dichotomy is inevitable. Any time there is more than one opinion. Supposing then that you do favour the evolutionary paradigm, and supposing you are not trying to convince me to believe, nevertheless you seem to be suggesting that to oppose it on any grounds makes one necessarily a troublemaker or a disturber of the peace and unity. Thus, the
believer in EC maintains that it it “God honouring” means I am bound to agree or stay quiet or be charged with creating an ‘extremely unhealthy dichotomy’.
Why should the one who responds, be the one charged with the offense? I have seen this type of language before and I do find it alarming. What happened to looking at the claims on the basis of their relative merits, rather than accusing one of the respondents of heresy (for that is the one who breaks the unity of fellowship). For surely if one view is untrue, it should not be taught to
Christians as though it was, and Christians should not be told to tolerate that which is untrue or scolded if they oppose such.
I would like to know, an but by no means in an urgent hurry, some of the reasons why you think it seems plausible.
Like or Dislike:
0
IHe he. Scott I just found this a bit of a chuckle..
You say you do not want to convince me of EC but that “we ” recognize….
eeeh, so, “just think like me”.
Good night.
Like or Dislike:
1
Charles -
For helpful Christian evolutionary creationists, you can see the BioLogos group at http://biologos.org. You can see Denis LamOureaux’s book, I Love Jesus and I Ccept Evolution (link here – http://amzn.to/slGrEX). Another author would be Francis Collins. Or see Scot McKnight’s site with his articles on science and faith.
I think it fair to say that you would know why I mentioned the 40-week developmental process of a baby as relevant to our discussion.
You said: The dichotomy is inevitable. Any time there is more than one opinion. Supposing then that you do favour the evolutionary paradigm, and supposing you are not trying to convince me to believe, nevertheless you seem to be suggesting that to oppose it on any grounds makes one necessarily a troublemaker or a disturber of the peace and unity. Thus, the
believer in EC maintains that it it “God honouring” means I am bound to agree or stay quiet or be charged with creating an ‘extremely unhealthy dichotomy’.</i
Like or Dislike:
1
Charles -
For helpful Christian evolutionary creationists, you can see the BioLogos group at http://biologos.org. You can see Denis LamOureaux’s book, I Love Jesus and I Ccept Evolution (link here – http://amzn.to/slGrEX). Another author would be Francis Collins. Or see Scot McKnight’s site with his articles on science and faith.
I think it fair to say that you would know why I mentioned the 40-week developmental process of a baby as relevant to our discussion.
You said: The dichotomy is inevitable. Any time there is more than one opinion. Supposing then that you do favour the evolutionary paradigm, and supposing you are not trying to convince me to believe, nevertheless you seem to be suggesting that to oppose it on any grounds makes one necessarily a troublemaker or a disturber of the peace and unity. Thus, the
believer in EC maintains that it it “God honouring” means I am bound to agree or stay quiet or be charged with creating an ‘extremely unhealthy dichotomy’.
I didn’t call you a troublemaker. I’m simply asking that you not paint it so black and white. It’s not that simple in such a highly discussed and debatable topic. I wish it were. I wish I had all the answers. Discussing the in’s and out’s of different positions might be more fruitful than claiming one is more faithful to God and Scripture than another. I am not claiming EC is the more faithful. I am asking that we not despise it as simply an untenable belief of true Christ-honouring disciples.
Like or Dislike:
0
” Discussing the in’s and out’s of different positions might be more fruitful than claiming one is more faithful to God and Scripture than another.”
Delay long, and never come to a conclusion
Like or Dislike:
0
“For helpful Christian evolutionary creationists, you can see the BioLogos group at http://biologos.org.”
Are you aware of the ridicule and contempt in which BioLogos is held by the agitators in the radical atheist evolutionist camp?
True evolutionists want know accommodation of the true faith with Christianity or deism of any sort.
Like or Dislike:
0
” Another author would be Francis Collins. ”
I have heard at least three addresses by Collins given to various audiences, on the faith/science theme. And he was none too charitable to those who disagree with him.
Collins is another one who has, it seems, not won a lot of friends with his deism. The letters section of National Geographic was an interesting place after they featured Collins and his ‘faith’. Some writers felt is was a disgrace and against what science and NG had always stood for.
Like or Dislike:
0
“You can see Denis LamOureaux’s book, I Love Jesus and I Ccept Evolution (link here – http://amzn.to/slGrEX).”
DOL does not model the charity you recommend. He writes that those who criticize evolutionists are guilty of bearing false witness.
I have a contact who has sat in on a seminar he gave to high school teachers and who has children who have taken his courses. Would you like his telephone number so he can describe DOL’s behaviour to you?
Like or Dislike:
0
I have appreciated BioLogos, Lamoureaux, and McKnight. Perfect? No, just like me. But helpful thinkers about the issues.
Like or Dislike:
0
If an idea has no merit, that ought to be found out and quickly. If it is wrong, it ought not to be taught and disseminated to Christians.
As to true disciples: I have heard Collins give his ‘testimony’. If one can be damned by faint praise, then Jesus Christ is such. Collins describes coming to faith as an intellectual epiphany, and gives most of the credit to his own analytical skills and to CS Lewis. He does not speak of sin and grace, or the Gospel, the Good News, nor of the cross or eternal life.
Like or Dislike:
0
I have appreciated BioLogos, Lamoureaux, and McKnight. Perfect? No..
No one is asking for perfection. Just plausibility.
Why do you personally find EC plausible?. I know why these gentlemen do.
Please understand, by the way, that I refer to character issues here because you put it on the table. These men simply do not model the charity you enjoin.
Like or Dislike:
0
Collins and Lamoureux also are clear that those who oppose EC should keep quiet and not make trouble. Perhaps it is you invoking DOL’s ‘false dichotomy’ meme that gave me the impression.
Like or Dislike:
0
“I think it fair to say that you would know why I mentioned the 40-week developmental process of a baby as relevant to our discussion.”
I do know why you mentioned it; what I want to know is why you think as an analogy it makes EC plausible in any way.
I know what Denis Lamoureux thinks. I would like to know the reasons you think and reason the plausibility of EC. If you could just do that one thing, clearly explicate why the analogy of the birth process is comparable to EC, that would be a start.
Like or Dislike:
1
Charles -
I am not that skilled in the sciences. I have read some, and desire to read more as time permits. But I know my limits. As I have said, my desire is first and foremost to challenge people to not see evolutionary creation as absolutely implausible and not honouring to God or Scripture. I think that is taking it too far. As Paul Copan has suggested, we can graciously allow others to hold to differing views. But to give bad and unhelpful labels to those who either do or possibly do hold to EC is going too far.
Like or Dislike:
0
Scott, this is a small sample size; but I have met two EC sympathizing scientists in connection with Christian ministry functions. Both, and one of them his spouse also, got right in my grill and in a most direct and unequivocal manner told me that people who oppose evolution, in the Christian context, especially if they were creationists, were divisive troublemakers who ought to keep quiet and let the EC folk get on with it. Both incidentally very active in the CSCA, the Canadian equivalent of the ASA.
Like or Dislike:
0
“… my desire is first and foremost to challenge people to not see evolutionary creation as absolutely implausible and not honouring to God or Scripture.”
Scott, what if on careful analysis, evolutionary creation is found to be ‘absolutely implausible’? Is this not a possibility? And after all, Paul Copan has written above that Christians are bound to follow the truth wherever it leads, even if it turns out that evolution is true.
What if EC is wrong? (And it is wrong). But IF it is wrong, then it does dishonour God the Creator. That is bad. It ought not to be taught or disseminated to Christians.
Moreover Scott, their is no Scriptural mandate to tolerate all differing views without remainder. For instance Paul the Apostle had the audacity to confront Peter face to face “in front of them alla , because he was in the wrong”. So there is a precedent.
In the same place, Paul speaks of the other Apostles in this way: what they were makes no difference to me; did they bring the same Gospel that I do?
EC impinges on several doctrines foundational to the Gospel.
Like or Dislike:
0
“But I know my limits.”
Then be careful to not hang great weights on small wires,
Today’s science is tomorrow’s witchcraft.
Like or Dislike:
0
“I think it fair to say that you would know why I mentioned the 40-week developmental process of a baby as relevant to our discussion.”
I do know why you mentioned it; what I want to know is why you think as an analogy it makes EC plausible in any way.
================================le===
With respect, if you cannot explain this one thing which you advanced in support of the plausibility of EC and therefore, (other than the endorsement of Francis Collins and Denis Lamoureux) constitutes your main scientific argument for EC; then is it possible that you don’t understand it? And if this is the case, perhaps it is not your calling to scold people who don’t mind saying that EC is implausible, and don’t mind who they say it to?
Like or Dislike:
0
But to give bad and unhelpful labels to those who either do or possibly do hold to EC is going too far.”
Well Scott, Paul Copan says folk who don’t use his method, turn people off the Gospel. That is quite a serious criticism. Mind you he hasn’t named a case where he knows this has happened; he just knows you’re wrong.
I should mention that asI understand it, there are two main schools of scholarly apologetics; Evidential and Presuppositional. I suspect that Mr. Copan is in the Evidential School. In any case, there are vehement disagreements ongoing between these schools of thought and their practitioners. Mr. Copan knows this; which is why I think it is really not cricket for him to dismiss those who don’t adhere to his methodology as just wrong.
Like or Dislike:
0
Greatest cultural and intellectual historian from the last 100 years writes on Darwin and evolution:
“…This profound emotional and intellectual victory once gained, it would have taken a superman or a coward to retreat from it for so trifling a cause as lack of final proof. The scientific principle being sound, demonstrative proof would be sure to follow in due course….No one of any intellectual standing went back to Personal Creation. On the contrary, intelligent clerics and their flocks adapted Evolution to Revelation in exactly the same way that their grandfathers had adapted Gravitation to it. In the United States especially, the most fervent evolutionists were deists: Asa Gray, Joseph Leconte, Theodore Parker, John Fiske, young William James—none of these in welcoming evolution denied a supreme being.”
—Darwin, Marx, Wagner, Jacques Barzun, p. 65 – 66
Like or Dislike:
0
“And what is mere lack of evidence, against so massive a force? Of what import is it that almost all the available evidence points in other directions?”
SOURCE for both prior quotations: Uncommon Descent
Like or Dislike:
0
also from Uncommon Descent: Is evolution a truism?
“They know not how, but they are sure that somehow the incredibly high-dimension biological design hyperspace is filled with gradual, ever-increasing fitness pathways that lead to the millions upon millions of species and all their intricate and creative designs. And so therefore, they have believed that the mere existence of biological variation that is inherited, limited resources and natural selection, together make evolution a truism.”
But now even evolutionists are coming around to what was obvious from the beginning. Biology is not a “just add water” kind of project. It is yet another miserable failure of evolutionary theory. But evolutionists will, of course, remain undeterred. For evolution must be a fact. Religion drives science, and it matters.”
Like or Dislike:
0
Charles, Charlie, TUAD,
I am coming to this thread late, being pointed to P. Copan’s blog just recently. Charles, your analysis in this thread is spot-on as well as the earlier comments by Charlie and TUAD. I take it you both (Charles and Charlie) are not the same person. Keep up the good work to all of you.
Like or Dislike:
0
Scott, just how are we to be gracious to those that hold to a different interpretation when folks like Francis Collins doesn’t even have a Bible in the right color!!!!
Like or Dislike:
0
Charles,
My faux pas. There is no Charlie. What I had thought was a Charlie in comment #2 on the first page, was a trick of my mind and eyes and was really a Charles. Stay young my friends, old age creeps up surreptitiously and degeneration and the enemy death are soon to follow.
Like or Dislike:
2
Charles, ALL interpretations can be wrong. That includes both yours and mine. As more evidence is developed, we should be humble enough to admit when the evidence favors a different interpretation and more and more of our own arguments fall. Many Christians went into geology in the mid 1800′s in the belief that they would find evidence for a global flood. And the evidence just wasn’t there. They ended up forming old-earth creationist organizations. In more modern times, Glenn Morton’s story (http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htm) is a great read of those who were brought up under “creation science” that went on to find that the facts don’t fit that model. And we should have the integrity to admit that and change our creation model. Unfortunately, the US Church has a tendency to become dogmatic about something and then double-down on it. I don’t think I have ever heard a pastor get up and say that upon further research and meditation, they have changed their position on some passage. Instead, they see the increasing evidence against their position as a test of faith and chalk it up as being right leads to persecution. Yet if it is someone like Francis Collins who is under attack from various directions, it doesn’t even cross their mind that HE might be right and HE is being persecuted for standing for truth. And, from my personal experience, the reason why they are not open to any interpretation other than their own is that they have erroneously been taught that any old-earth interpretation is in response to and a capitulation with Darwinsim. They’ve been taught that the church as ALWAYS held to the current YEC flood geology model. And any information that they have on the alternate interpretations are generally straw men created by the folks like ICR and AIG. They wouldn’t dare let their political opponent tell them what their political candidate of choice believes, but have no problem at all with that kind of think when it comes to the Genesis Debate. They have never actually sat down and gone through an objective explanation of where the models fail or succeed (like Glover’s series at http://youtu.be/Fperp1Mezt0), so they don’t know that the science behind things like EC is growing and becoming more solid while the evidence for the flood geology model gets weaker and weaker.
The bottom line is that we are to defend ourselves and our faith with both gentleness and respect. When it comes to Genesis, it is often a full-contact sport and you better wear your pads and cup, and respect is generally limited to the folks that agree with you and doesn’t extend far enough to also cover the truth.
Like or Dislike:
0
folks like Francis Collins doesn’t even have a Bible in the right color!!!!”
Are you an Evidentialist then, Daniel?
I am partial to the Presuppositional school.
Like or Dislike:
0
“And any information that they have on the alternate interpretations are generally straw men created by the folks like ICR and AIG.”
Daniel, I invite you to illustrate here, with an author, a date, a title and your synopsis and analysis, one straw man each from AIG and ICR. Show why each is wrong.
I invite you also to seek and find the book “The Great Turning Point by Dr. Terry Mortenson. Dr. Mortenson did a doctorate on the 19th Century Scriptural Geologists in England. He lectures widely and writes on the subject.
It is all too easy, and bad manners I feel, to start a link war in these situations, so I will avoid that; however the book and its references in its entirety is available online.
I invite you also to communicate with the author, and share you view above with him.
There are too many unfounded generalizations in what you have just written. I really suggest you go at one point, one case at a time. Remember you had some specific answers to specific questions I posed earlier?
You are right, the subject of flood geology and the age of the earth are related to evolutionary creation; please note however that in the preceeding interchanges, it is Evolutionary Creation (or theistic evolution) and whether it is plausible or biblically defensible, are on the table.
Like or Dislike:
0
“They have never actually sat down and gone through an objective explanation of where the models fail or succeed”
Daniel, this is what I think you need to do with the items I’ve suggested. Let’s please stick with cases and names rather than “they, them, the other one, all of them…)
Like or Dislike:
0
Daniel, I looked up your first link. Thanks. I intend to follow it up.
Like or Dislike:
0
” Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.
“From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true? ,”
That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said ‘No!’ A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, “Wait a minute. There has to be one!” But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either. One man I could not reach, to ask that question, had a crisis of faith about two years after coming into the oil industry.”
Like or Dislike:
0
Interesting description of the “chopping off” of Steve Morris at the ankles. The suggestion that he is not a real petroleum geologist because he was not working for an oil company at the time. He had been a professor at the University of Oklahoma, which means he was not a slouch as a scholar.
Morris did his doctoral dissertation on the origin and transportation of trees found in coal deposits.
Like or Dislike:
1
Charles, I’ll try to get to all your questions and challenges, but it is going to have to wait until I get some horizontal time. To give you one quick answer though, when dealing with most folks in most areas, I lean towards being an Evidentialist. To me, Presuppositional apologetics works great when trying to convince the choir that already is convinced, but otherwise comes across too much like begging the question. Sooner or later, we need evidence to support our presuppositions.
Like or Dislike:
1
Oh, and BTW, the point about Steve Morris is that he presented himself as a geologist when he wasn’t. At one time, he *taught* it, but that makes him an ex-teacher, not a practicing geologist. You know what they say about those that can and those that can’t….
Like or Dislike:
0
At one time, he *taught* it, but that makes him an ex-teacher, not a practicing geologist. You know what they say about those that can and those that can’t….”
Daniel, you are in error. Look it up. Please.
Like or Dislike:
0
Daniel, with respect to Mr. Glenn Morton, he critiqued the Doctoral thesis of Mortenson which I refer to here; Mortenson has posted online, in several places, a long response to many points made by Morton. I have not read it so that is all I know. Mortenson’s response is from 2002.
Incidentally, Morton apparently worked and now publishes in the geology field (among many others) but has no formal training in geology; I think physics was his field. He appears to have an extensive portfolio in the PSCF journal
Like or Dislike:
0
Sooner or later, we need evidence to support our presuppositions.”
These both have formal definitions and methodologies. To be a presuppositionalist does not mean to proceed with no regard for evidence.
Which I gather you supposed, without evidence.
Like or Dislike:
1
@Daniel #43, 3rd page
‘Many Christians went into geology in the mid 1800′s in the belief that they would find evidence for a global flood. And the evidence just wasn’t there.’
If one studies the history of geology, the above is completely backwards. The geologists of the 1700′s and 1800′s were seeking to distance themselves from any notion of the Biblical Flood of Noah found in the Scriptures. The belief in a global, universal Flood in Noah’s day had permeated the Church up until that time, and the idea of ‘deep time’ and its idea of millions of years was the product of speculation and imagination rooted in anti-biblical philosophical assumptions.
Niels Steenson (1638-1686), or Steno, proposed the widely accepted principle of superposition, and yet expressed belief in a roughly 6000-year-old earth. English geologists like John Woodward, Alexander Catcott, and the German geologist Johann Lehmann in the 1700′s wrote books reinforcing this young-earth, global-Flood view. This was consistent with what the church believed for the first 18 centuries.
It wasn’t until men like Comte de Buffon, Pierre La Place, Jean Lamarck, and James Hutton (and then later Charles Lyell) who expressly rejected the biblical Flood of Noah’s day that we start to see this idea of ‘deep time’, itself carried over into the newly separate field of geology with its systematic field studies, collection and classification of rocks and fossils, and development of theoretical reconstructions of the historical events that formed these rock layers and fossils. This separate field of science, geology, is only about 200 years old.
Like or Dislike:
0
Last year I attended a lecture by Dr. Jonathon Sarfati. There over 1300 people in the hall. He answered questions for about an hour. One young person asked him if there were any “real scientists’ who held his position. This year I read parts of many of his books, I also read nine back issues of the magazine Creation. My question to this group is whether you have read the same material? Thank you in advance for your responses.
Like or Dislike:
1
Charles, I *did* look up Morris’ history. His degrees have him in school until 1980, when he got his PhD in Geologic Engineering. He then stayed in/at school and taught until 1984. At that point, he joined his dad at ICR, where he has been ever since. According to his own bio, “Dr. Morris received his B.S. in Civil Engineering at Virginia Tech in 1969 and his M.S. in Geological Engineering at the University of Oklahoma in 1977. He received his Doctorate in Geological Engineering at the University of Oklahoma in 1980. Dr. Morris can be heard each day on the Back to Genesis radio program. He is the author of numerous books, including The Young Earth. Dr. Morris taught geology at the University of Oklahoma before joining the faculty of the ICR.”
If you have any evidence that he was EVER “in the oil industry” or “a petroleum geologist”, please provide it. Just because someone takes science classes and can teach what they were taught doesn’t make them a scientist.
Like or Dislike:
0
As far as AUG and straw men go, I will give you a personal account of my my daughter’s commencement speech that was given by AIG’s Dr. Georgia Purdom. This was shortly after some of her comments and Ham’s defense of them got AIG dis-invited from some homeschool gatherings. She talked of Peter Enns and Biologos mixing science with their faith and literally put their “faith” in a fingered quotation marks kind of way as if it were something else entirely. She went on to suggest that Mr. Enns, and likely BioLogos itself due to his association with that organization, questioned or doubted core doctrines like the virgin birth because they believed theologies are provisional. And her basis for this? A much-highlighted quote from Enns where he said “All theologies are provisional. Welcome to the conversation!” She read that with much flair and got some actual gasps and murmurs from the crowd upon its delivery.
Believing this was probably out of context and had nothing to do with the virgin birth at all, I quickly scribbled down that phrase and decided to see if I could locate it in context to see what was really said. I found that in fact Enns was not speaking of the virgin birth at all. The quote in question comes at the very end of a presentation entitled “Erasmus Lecture” given at Westmont College. You can watch the entire 49-minute YouTube lecture yourself, but this was the very last statement in the lecture, the last point on the last slide, and there is a LOT of context leading up to it that Purdom failed to mention in her commencement address.
Ultimately, Enns’ point is that while Paul brings Adam into the New Testament and makes it part of doctrine and not just history, it doesn’t change the doctrine of redemption that Paul is teaching if one sees Adam as a literal man that represents Israel in many ways, or just as a representation of Israel. Either way though, Enns recognized that sin and death are real, and says that the solution for sin, the Gospel message, is still the same regardless of where you see sin originating. The solution doesn’t change. Far from casting doubt on core doctrines, his whole point is that they remain intact even if you have a different interpretation of some of the elements used to explain them.
Here is Enn’s actual full statement. It has nothing at all to do with the presented context that Biologos doubted core doctrines of the Bible. “All of theologies, including my own, are provisional. Welcome to the conversation. And it’s been going on for 2,000 years. Thinking people trying to put all the pieces together. Who is God? Who are we? What’s the Bible? How does all this effect how I live today? How does how I live effect how I read the Bible? This is not new. It’s just now the issues are different and, in some ways, they are more pressing. Evolution is a pressing theological issue. There is a sense in which it is a real game changer. It takes a lot to think through it, but it is not a new idea. Welcome to the conversation.”
Like or Dislike:
1
Let me get this straight, Charles. Someone that worked and now publishes in the geology field is to be doubted about his work experience because his school degree is in something else, but someone that NEVER worked in those areas is to be trusted when he identifies himself as being in that field because he once taught something somewhat related to it? The point is that Morton was showing what he had discovered in personal work and Morris had no first-hand evidence to the contrary – just what he’d been told and then repeated. You are not really suggesting that, are you?
Like or Dislike:
0
“… Someone that worked and now publishes in the geology field is to be doubted about his work experience because his school degree is in something else, but someone that NEVER worked in those areas is to be trusted when he identifies himself as being in that field because he once taught something somewhat related to it?”
To answer your question: in short, no. It’s an interesting reversal, and it often happens in life. As far as I am concerned, truth is truth, and Morris and Morton should both be evaluated on that basis, regardless of what they have done or not done. Both have degrees in legitimate scientific write about science. Neither should be dismissed based on their job descriptions.
Like or Dislike:
1
Steve, the fact that not all geologists were looking for evidence of the flood does not invalidate my statement. Have you ever read the history of the creationist movement in Ronald Numbers’ “The Creationists”?
Like or Dislike:
1
Just something to keep in mind if any of you end up talking to a scientist (Ph.D. or in the field). Many quotes and comments and rebuttals are not actually coming from biology/ists. This may not be apparent or important to some of you, but to a scientist, trying to refute evolution with Big Bang arguments won’t work. The Big Bang, age of Universe, etc. is astrophysics. As soon as a Christian uses this line of argument against evolution, most scientist aren’t listening. You just jumped fields.
Same goes for the scientist quoted to refute evolution. Try to stick with those who are Biologists – Biochemists are NOT biologists (I don’t know how many times I have dealt with this one). Biochemistry is a branch of chemistry. Chemists didn’t propose evolution, chemists don’t use the theory in their works and chemists don’t need to know evolution to excel in their fields. They are dealing with substances much smaller than living organisms. Even amoebas are much larger and complex structures than Chemists focus on and study. To biologists, however, they observe organisms, learn about the components of organisms and experiment on (parts of) organisms (not just molecules).
It is biologists who understand why and how evolution works, so, if you are going to ‘major on a minor’ with a biologist, at least do the recipient a favour and quote a biologist to refute evolution. People quoted in this thread are not biologists, except Gorgia Purdom that Daniel mentioned (I think). Dr. Sarfati – Chemist, Meyer’s Geophysicist, etc.
I haven’t googled all names, but I am wondering why more biologists aren’t quoted to refute evolution?
A creationist who is a biologist is Todd Wood:
http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/09/truth-about-evolution.html
Like or Dislike:
0
“If you have any evidence that he was EVER “in the oil industry” or “a petroleum geologist”, please provide it. Just because someone takes science classes and can teach what they were taught doesn’t make them a scientist.”
The interchange recorded by Morton, which took place at the International Creation Conference in Pittsburgh in 1986 (Morton’s paper is listed in the Proceedings of that conference but so far I have been to locate it anywhere else.
Morton does not provide exactly what Morris said, he provides his own interpretation, and I cannot find other corroborating descriptions of the discussion, even though Morton’s account is repeated in many places. I wonder if it is only hearsay in that case.
Dr. Morris has done more than “take some science classes”, I promise you.
It is not necessary to “work” in the oil industry to be a competent petroleum geologist. There are professional organizations for petroleum geologists, with websites, and you can go onlinrepore and read about the various professional activities these people engage in.
Dr. Morris (whose name fyi is John, not Steve) is the President of the Institute for Creation Research. You can reach him by telephone, they might even have a 1-800 number.
I have a call in to the press department of ICR with inquiries about Dr. Morris. I will get back to you on that.
Like or Dislike:
0
” Have you ever read the history of the creationist movement in Ronald Numbers’ “The Creationists”?
Daniel, it is “a” history, not “the” history. There are other writers on that subject. Please be more precise.
Every writer has a selectivity and a bias.
Like or Dislike:
0
Daniel, regarding the history of geology, if you don’t have time to read, you could still verify that Terry Mortenson provided a reply to Morton’s critique of his doctoral thesis on the 19c “Scriptural Geologists”. The thesis has been made into a book which is online.
There are also available online, Daniel, a number of the original documents by the men featured in the book.
Like or Dislike:
0
Daniel, I also will be contacting answers in genesis about Dr. Purdoms itinerary and her comments about BioLogos. If you provide me with the name of the school I will contact them also
I can understand why you would take offense at Purdom’s remarks.
However, from your comments above, I inferred that this “straw man” building has been going on for a long time, and by at least two organizations, and has had a widespread influence long, long before this commencement exercise for your daughter. So you are not being straight about this Daniel. You put this on the table.
What I am looking for is one case from each organization, of a written and scientifically erroneous statement about the specific issues raised here, primarily the plausibility of EC or just evolution, which has created confusion or deception.
Given also your own online forums and your qualified interest in this field, I wonder whether when you have seen these ‘straw men’ and contacted these agencies to object to or correct their errors. I have found that they usually reply to enquiries. For instance I contacted CMI questioning whether they should rely on a certain document for a story, and they emailed me corroborating information on the background. I am still not satisfied the original in fact exists, or whether the account is a hearsay account (Ie somebody is said to have seen it) but I would be happy to provide you with the details of my inquiry.
I wrote to the late Dr. Henry Morris some years ago to question his use of Gail Riplinger as a source for an article he wrote about Bible versions. I do not agree with ICR’s King-James only stand. Dr. Morris did reply to me and was very gracious.
Like or Dislike:
0
Daniel, with respect to Dr. Purdom; you may not appreciate her sarcasm about BioLogos. But did she slander, libel, lie, or defame them or their leaders? Did she misquote them?
If not, it is fair comment, and does not sound more harmful than the many, many accusatory comments you have written in this forum.
That is what happens, and has happened all through history. BioLogos has been highly critical of creationists. Are you aware of what even such a man as Bruce Waltke has written and said (and Waltke has enough integrity that he put his academic standing and career on the line by so doing) on BEHALF of BioLogos?
I have already mentioned that the worst critics of BioLogos are the radical evolutionist types like PZ Myers. They don’t want any bridges being built. They are not impressed by Francis Collins and Karl Giberson and John Polkinghorne. And do you understand Daniel, that BioLogos is not just ‘out there’ producing their website. They are after the next generation of Christian young men and women and even children in the Sunday school. They are after the pastors and church leaders. They want their agenda front and center in churches across the US–and Canada, where I live. They want into my church and into my kid’s heads; and they are doing it with large cash from the Templeton Foundation, to whom the Dalai Lama and Jesus are pretty much the same thing.
Is that what you think Daniel?
Stay out of my church, BioLogos. Repent, Tim Keller and NT Wright and Alistair McGrath and the whole lot of you.
Like or Dislike:
0
Loo:
Chemists didn’t propose evolution, chemists don’t use the theory in their works and chemists don’t need to know evolution to excel in their fields.”
You are right about the need to know evolution; however, I think a lot of chemists/bio
Like or Dislike:
0
Loo:
“Chemists didn’t propose evolution, chemists don’t use the theory in their works and chemists don’t need to know evolution to excel in their fields.”
You are right in the latter; but are not a lot of biochemists messing around with origin of life experiments?
Like or Dislike:
1
@Daniel #11,
I think Charles answered quite correctly in #14. So at least let’s get a correct understanding of the history of geology. Let’s stop this farsical nonsense that a young universe, young earth view is a recent development. Yes, there are exceptions, but by and large the church had held that view for 18 centuries. The gap theory, day-age theory, progressive-creation theory, theistic evolution-theory, analogical or framework hypothesis views followed after the advent of modern geology and its notions of ‘deep time’.
Like or Dislike:
0
@Wayne #6,
I think you need to be more specific with your question brother. Personally, Sarfati’s books are at the top of my reading list. I have hosted a conference for him here in my hometown in 2008. He is an excellent writer, speaker, and debater on scientific issues. He himself is a ‘Christian scientist’, holding a Ph.D in physical chemistry, and a former New Zealand national chess champion.
Any theistic-evolutionary adherent should at least read his books to understand the ‘other’ side.
Like or Dislike:
0
That is a good point Steve.
Given the large number of creation-related sites, (thank God!) and articles out there, inevitably certain things get embellished, modified, passed on when they should be buried, etc, it is important to focus on what is the best resource for a given situation. I have heard Carl Wieland speak to groups about the importance of quality control in ministry, how people and ideas and publications need to be vetted carefully.
With men like Sarfati, we have access to resources such that it is not bragging to say, ‘unless you have been through this writer/book etc, you are really avoiding the issue.’ If Sarfati can be refuted-and that not by third party smears-then that is something everyone ought to note.
Like or Dislike:
0
tps Steve I got smacked down by Sarfati recently on facebook, when I suggested on his thread that photons have no real existence, they are an imaginary construct.
“Not so” he wrote back, “as I prove in such and such an article”, which turns out to be the entire history of quantum mechanics back to Newton.
And there it is; since I cannot understand a substantial part of the article by this expert on light chemistry (spectroscopy), what do I say in reply?
Like or Dislike:
0
@Charles #21
Charles,
Perhaps you have read Sarfati’s ‘The Greatest Hoax on Earth? Refuting Dawkins on Evolution’, no? If not, I recommend it. I recommend it especially in light of my comment above to my Christian brothers and sisters as theistic-evolutionary adherents who are open to seeing the ‘other’ side.
Blessings.
Like or Dislike:
0
@Charles #22,
What are the sources you referred to for photons being an imaginary construct?
Charles,
Eat a little humble pie, perhaps?
Like or Dislike:
1
Charles said, “Every writer has a selectivity and a bias.” And I’m reminded of that every time I read one of his posts. LOL Seriously? We are going to argue over the article I used to refer to a history book? LOL
Like or Dislike:
1
Charles, you keep moving the goal posts here. You tell me I’m wrong when I say Morris isn’t in the petroleum industry and tell me I need to look it up. I provide his bio, and suddenly the argument switches to whether he’s smart or done other things. You asked about straw men and I provide you a personal example of distorting another’s position and you change the argument to whether she slandered or misquoted him. It’s a different argument. And the fact that you seem to see the need to verify my account by checking her speaking schedule comes across as a challenge to my integrity. And now Steve is playing the same game by suggesting I was arguing for YEC being a recent development when my statement about Numbers’ book was in the context of Christians who went into geology expecting to find evidence for a global flood and ended up becoming old-earthers. We are not only on different pages here, but different planets. At this point, I am not even sure what your goal is in the targeted interaction with me. We can’t even agree on history, much less how to interpret it. All one has to do is go read Augustine to see that old earth interpretations pre-date Darwinism and the study of geology. Yet we see these absurd statements like all the old-age interpretations “followed after the advent of modern geology” and yet you are so busy busting MY chops over whether Numbers wrote about “the” history or “a” history to address such blatant historical revisionism. The irony of this in a topic about majoring on the majors doesn’t escape me.
Like or Dislike:
0
@Daniel #26,
‘All one has to do is go read Augustine to see that old earth interpretations pre-date Darwinism and the study of geology.’
I can’t believe you want to pull out this old canard simply to try and prove ‘your’ revisionist take on history. I’m trying to be charitable here Daniel, and in the spirit of irenic discourse flatly tell you that the church despite some examples like Augustine and others, believed in a young universe, young earth for the first 18 centuries of its existence. Augustine, by the way argued for an instantaneous creation, not one of long ages, and 1) in his Interpretation of Genesis used Jerome’s Latin translation, not the original language, 2) had to use the Latin because he did not know Hebrew, never personally grappling with the original text, 3) was identified with the Alexandrian school, well known for its heavy allegorizing than any rigorous systematic philological method, 4) did not believe there was human death before the Fall, 5) believed in a literal global Flood, 6) does not inspire confidence that he ever distanced himself far enough from his early Neoplatonic leanings, and 7) believed that the ‘six days’ of creation typologically predicted that the entire history of the earth would last six millenia.
Who are you reading, Hugh Ross?
Like or Dislike:
0
“Charles, you keep moving the goal posts here. You tell me I’m wrong when I say Morris isn’t in the petroleum industry and tell me I need to look it up.”
You are in error about Morris’s qualifications and experience; your original point (or Morton’s in his article) was whether Morris was in the oil industry in 1986, when the conference took place at which Morris challenged Morton when Morton presented a paper.
You prefer to present Morris as someone who “took some classes and did some teaching”. I gather so as to sugge st he had no professional qualifications to speak authoritatively on geological matters. The facts are entirely otherwise, and you can verify them for yourself.
Morton, as I have already pointed out, does not provide exactly what Morris is supposed to have said at the 1986 conference, and there is so far as I know no corroborating witness to the alleged conversation, at least not a recorded one.
Like or Dislike:
0
Daniel,
I have spoken to the communications office at ICR today, advising them there are allegations on the internet and at this website concerning the professional credentials and experience of Dr. John Morris.
They have advised me to detail these issues in writing to Dr. Morris and clarification from him. This I will do within the next week.
Meanwhile, I reiterate that Glenn Morton’s credibility and recall of events and facts are in dispute by Dr. Terry Mortenson, a qualified expert on the history of geology in the 19th century, whose doctorate on the subject Morton cast into disrepute.
Because you obviously have a strong interest in the subject, and have strong views on the influence of geology on theology and church history, I strongly suggest you complement your reading of Numbers with Mortenson’s work. Then you might be qualified to have a valid opinion on geology yourself, and take your focus off whether Morris is a valid authority. As it stands, your position appears weak on is not improved by your attacks on Morris, about whom I suspect you know little or nothing.
Like or Dislike:
0
Daniel, with respect to Dr. Purdom, it is obvious from what I wrote above that I had, and have no doubts as to whether she spoke at your daughter’s commencement, or whether she criticized BioLogos.
In contacting Answers in Genesis, I did what you should have done if Purdom offended you. I’m doing what a fair person would do, which is to see if there is another side to the story. What school did she speak at? What did she say? Does she recall parents taking offense? If you did take offense Daniel, you should at least tell the school. As it is, you have brought your grievance over here, where it has nothing to do with whether the view of evolution presented by BioLogos is plausible, whether theistic evolution is plausible.
Daniel, if you are going to make truth claims here, especially if they involve character issues of third parties, and you claim to be a teacher yourself, why does it surprise you and offend you that others check your claims ? Is it because you yourself are unwilling or unable to check things for yourself? Is this a habit foreign to you? You will reply that you checked up on Dr. Morris. But most inadequately in proportion has you have smeared his reputation here.
Just a reminder, Dr. Morris’s first name is John, not Steve.
Like or Dislike:
0
“…you are so busy busting MY chops ”
Come on Daniel; look back at what you have written and see that you have busted more chops than Samson did with the jawbone of a donkey. Most of it in the form of generalizations.
I said there is nothing wrong with Purdom criticizing BioLogos publicly, or making comments that suggest people should not trust them. My point is that you have claimed Aig and ICR have been creating straw men for years and messing with every Christian’s head regarding creation and geology, and Purdom’s comment at a (you don’t say how recent) event is representative of that.
Your point is that this is a longstanding problem affecting a great many people. Clearly then Purdom is not the issue. The issue is, what and where are the specific statements writing about the science, history and geology you claim to know so much about, that are demonstrably wrong and have messed up peoples’ heads; and I expect you to provide the analysis with real facts.
Like or Dislike:
0
Daniel, Glenn Morton claims to know and have testimony from a number of ICR graduates, that “not a single fact they learned about geology turned out to be true in the field”.
In my conversation with ICR this morning, I advised them of this claim, which Morton has published. ICR employs and collaborates with a number of professional geologists doing active field work at Mt. St. Helens, the Grand Canyon and other places. We will see how this plays out.
Like or Dislike:
1
The point, Steve, is that you are fighting a straw man. I never claimed that the church only recently started teaching YEC. I stated, and stand by the claim, that as geology started coming into its own, many Christians started using it to find evidence of a global flood and were unable to do so. That is all. To suggest that things like the gap theory or literary framework interpretations only came about in the last couple hundred years is just factually inaccurate – to put as charitable of a spin on it as possible. Was it the most popular view in the church? No. But I never made that claim. Augustine believed everything was created back “in the beginning”. The fact that he didn’t believe in the day-age theory doesn’t make your claim accurate. You can give all the excuses you want for why he held those beliefs, but it doesn’t eliminate him as a prime example of how your statement was false. Whether he was right or wrong, whether his reasons were good or not, he and others like him who held to things like the framework interpretation DID pre-date darwinism and geologic study.
I’m NOT saying that all the ancient church fathers were old-earthers. I know better. I’m saying that they didn’t all hold to what is now considered the literal/clear YEC reading of the text. Several of the early church fathers couldn’t be further from a literal interpretation that could be used to date creation. They took it as allegory. But just as we cannot equate things like the framework interpretation or days of revelation interpretation with “old earth” (even as they ARE used in old earth interpretations and don’t post-date geology) we also can’t equate “young earth” with the flood-geology model on which it is currently largely based. As Whitcomb and Morris clearly document in “The Genesis Flood”, that has not always been the common belief. It was presented as a new model for a reason.
As far as Ross goes, let me just say that he’s wrong about a lot of things and just leave it at that.
Like or Dislike:
0
Charles said, “Every writer has a selectivity and a bias.” And I’m reminded of that every time I read one of his posts.”
Daniel, this is tilting at windmills. You have not made a great discovery, since I have already revealed my bias and my selectivity and bias numerous times.
Like or Dislike:
0
“..as geology started coming into its own, many Christians started using it to find evidence of a global flood and were unable to do so.
You are once again in error Daniel. Go to the work of Mortenson and see what I mean. And remember, the work of many of these men whom he researched, is available free online in digital form. Decide for yourself, from the primary sources, how well they succeeded,
My bias in the end however, is that if I don’t believe scripture on this subject, I will not believe if someone comes back from the dead.
Like or Dislike:
1
We will just have to agree to disagree on what geology has actually found with regards to proof for a global flood or the motives of the Christians that went into that field. I’m comfortable with what the evidence shows and comfortable that it doesn’t contradict what the Bible actually teaches. So I applaud you in believing what the Bible says about the topic, but encourage you to focus on what it ACTUALLY says without the “benefit” of all the interpretation of folks like Ken Ham that are frequently added to it as if it is equally inspired. I also encourage you to try to read it not as it reads/speaks to YOU today in the 21st century, but see it for what it said in the context and to the audience of the time it was written.
Like or Dislike:
0
Steve and Charles indicated that have read Jonathon Sarfati. I have his book THE GREATEST HOAX ON EARTH beside me now. I am watching A bunch of Creation Ministry International DVD’s this week. Are the following men, who lecture on these DVD’s reputable men of science or not; Dr. Tas Walker, Dr. Don Batten, Dr. Jonathon Sarfati, Dr. Emil Silverstru and Dr. Werner Gitt. The following men also have earned Doctorates and they all affirm Sarfati’s book on the back cover: Dr. Robert Carter, Dr. John Stanford , Dr. Felix Konotey-Ahulu and Dr. John Baumgardner. Are they all to be immediately dismissed because they hold to a literal understanding of Genesis? Perhaps, Daniel would like to comment on this please. Thanking you in advance.
Like or Dislike:
1
I am familiar with Sarfati, but have not read much of his book-length stuff. I don’t know these other folks. My only comment about the experts that different sides trot out is to find out if their degrees are from legit places, see if they have actual work experience in the field, and limit their expert opinions to those topics. Just because someone claims a doctoral degree doesn’t mean it was earned or in the area that they opine on. Just look at “Dr. Dino”. LOL
Like or Dislike:
0
@Daniel#33,
That I’m fighting a straw man, brother, is like the pot calling the kettle black.
‘I stated, and stand by the claim, that as geology started coming into its own, many Christians started using it to find evidence of a global flood and were unable to do so.’
A sweeping generalization as Charles has pointed out. Can you cite the Christians who started using it to find evidence of a global flood but couldn’t, please?
‘To suggest that things like the gap theory or literary framework interpretations only came about in the last couple hundred years is just factually inaccurate – to put as charitable of a spin on it as possible.’
Another sweeping generalization, Daniel. Can you please cite the sources of these theories, their originators, and the dates. I honestly don’t think you have any clue as to when these theories originated and came into prominence or the dates involved, or you wouldn’t make such a statement.
‘As Whitcomb and Morris clearly document in “The Genesis Flood”, that has not always been the common belief. It was presented as a new model for a reason.
Please cite the page numbers in ‘The Genesis Flood’ Daniel, so I can check my copy and respond.
Like or Dislike:
0
Steve, the examples and specifics you demand are well documented in Number’s book. I no longer have my copy of it so I can’t give you specific page numbers, but it isn’t hard to find online. If you are serious about wanting answers and details, that is where you can find them. Short of that, just Google the following statement and see if it pre-dates 1850 or not.
“It is quite foolish to think that the world was created in six days or in space of time at all…because every period of time is a series of days and nights…these can only be made by the movement of the sun…the world was not made in time, but that time was made by means of the world, for it was heaven’s movement that was the index of the nature of time.”
Like or Dislike:
0
Daniel,
Why the mystery, brother? You think one example from someone you don’t cite, but ask me to google will prove your case? Cite your source and we can discuss it. As to being serious about wanting answers and details, yes, I always like to see people back up their claims with sources, dates, specific names; something I’ve noticed just in the short time I’ve been here you are reluctant to do.
Like or Dislike:
0
Daniel,
‘the examples and specifics you demand are well documented in Number’s book. I no longer have my copy of it so I can’t give you specific page numbers, but it isn’t hard to find online.’
I asked you for the names of Christians who started using geology to find evidence for a global flood, but couldn’t. You’ve read the book but can’t remember a single Christian name and date to support your claim? Again, I am sorely puzzled by your lack of specifics. You write in sweeping generalizations, but can’t remember anyone’s name to back up your statement?
I also asked you to substantiate with page number(s) in ‘The Genesis Flood’ your claim about Whitcomb and Morris. Specifics, Daniel.
Like or Dislike:
0
The “mystery” as you put it is because you don’t know me from Adam and obviously don’t just trust anything I say. So I thought I’d point you to an objective source that doesn’t have a dog in this fight. If I say X and you are skeptical of me, I have to overcome your bias. But if you go LOOK for X, you are more likely to accept it because there are no genetic fallacies to overcome. But if a copy-and-paste of a phrase is more trouble than you are willing to commit to, at least I’ve found out the level of your involvement in the conversation without wasting a lot of time on it.
To solve your mystery though, Philo Judaeus is the one that said “It is quite foolish to think that the world was created in six days in a space of time at all.” But he wasn’t alone in this non-literal interpretation. We’ve already mentioned Augustine. Josephus also stated that the length of day was something that needed more of his attention. Clement of Alexandria, Origin, and others also followed interpretations other than what we are told “the church has always taught”.
If you want to get a real kick, check out the Genesis commentary written by Ephraim the Syrian back in the 300′s. He’s a saint of the Syriac Orthodox Church. You can find it at http://www2.iath.virginia.edu/anderson/commentaries/EphGen.html. His focus on the four elements of earth, wind, water, and fire, and his reading Genesis 1 not in a way that dates creation but in a way that validates his calendar and puts the moon as 15 days older than the sun should be enough evidence that until Darwin, not everyone understood this passage the same way.
Like or Dislike:
0
@Daniel #43
No, I don’t know who you are, nor do I care. Whether you are credentialed in some specialist field, have a few letters after your name, a few books to your credit, it matters not one wit to me. I choose to use my first and last name when I blog, a practice I see not all share. What does matter to me, are cogent arguments with specifics, well reasoned arguments with support material, quotes, dates, page numbers, etc. That you have submitted this in #43 above will lend to a more fruitful discussion. You speak to my level of involvement in the conversation as if in some pedantic way your smug superiority stands in contrast to my ignorance? Am I getting that right?
I am out the door tonight Daniel, but I’ll pick the rest of your comments up tomorrow.
Like or Dislike:
0
Steve, I’m sorry that you are disappointed by my lack of specifics. It is only fair that you know that I too am sorry that I am not good at recalling the specifics on demand. But there is a reason for it that goes beyond me just not having the answers so I must be wrong. If you, like I, had a 23% deficit of red blood cells. a 18% deficit in total blood volume, and a 15% deficit in blood plasma, and lost an *additional* 14% of that within half an hour of being up carrying on a conversation like this, you too would have problems remembering page numbers and specific names of long dead people that you read about several years ago. So I’m content in remembering where the information IS so that I can get it should I need to, but don’t have the details down pat like I used to. Most of my Genesis study took place prior to my disability. I now remember the general plot lines of things and the broad strokes of books, but not the character names and now many times they were mentioned on a specific page. So if pointing you to the source of the information isn’t enough for you, I’m unable to help further.
Like or Dislike:
0
Steve, I’m not being smug. Nor do I think you are ignorant. I just think you are misinformed when you make statements like, “The gap theory, day-age theory, progressive-creation theory, theistic evolution-theory, analogical or framework hypothesis views followed after the advent of modern geology and its notions of ‘deep time’”. I will grant that they became a lot more popular as evidences of age were discovered, and obviously Theistic Evolution came after Evolution was proposed, but non-literal interpretations go back for centuries. And even if they believed they were reading it “literally”, folks like Augustine and Ephraim the Syrian show that what they think it MEANS is a lot different than what modern folks like Ken Ham thinks it means. Our worldview and how we interpret the passage is much different than that of the 4th century, and even further removed from back when it was written. That is why I balk at this false dichotomy that folks always understood this the way Ken Ham does until Darwin came along and then came up with interpretations to force-fit science into the account. The resurgence of YEC flood geology in the 60s is every much an attempt to merge science with scripture as any of these other interpretations which are said to do so. We can’t pretend that this is a debate between the Bible and taking it literally and some compromised version of it that was co-opted by science when the YEC position is called “creation science”.
Like or Dislike:
1
COPAN IS NAIVE — POINT ONE OF TWO
The “age” issue is not a non-issue.
a) Determining the “age” of things is what science is quite good at. See the excellent paper that reviews fallacious young-earth arguments in light of what is actually known about finding the ages of things, “Finding the Age of the Earth: By Physics or by Faith?”
b) Old-earth creationism has to contend with not just a single great flood but with five or six major extinction events on earth. What “creator/designer” works for millions of years creating life forms that continue dying painfully and becoming extinct, sometimes en masse in major extinction events? Popping new creatures into existence each new eon only to kill many of them en masse during the next eon? Allowing countless branches to simply go extinct?
c) What’s the value of the Noah’s Ark story in old-earth creationism? A Local flood? Why not walk away from it? Move. And why preserve so many animals in one boat if they were all around the earth still?
Like or Dislike:
1
COPAN IS NAIVE — POINT TWO OF TWO
The “God” or “no God” question involves more intermediate questions than Copan admits.
a) What kind of “God” do you think it would take to create a cosmos with such fragile short-lived life forms? At best this cosmos is filled with wildly dangerous levels of radiation, unstable planetary bodies sterile of life, comets and asteroids smacking into such planetoids even the ones with life on them, and stars that sometimes get too near each other or explode, as well as galaxies that sometimes collide. At best this wild mix up of atoms and energies in the cosmos produces living organisms in a few teensy “habitable zones,” and I bet most of the places in the cosmos where life is found only consist of single celled life forms.
b)So the cosmos appears at best, in equilibrium with life and death. And the intelligent life on this planet is living on the shifting quaking surface of a planet hung like a shooting gallery in space.
c) And we are restricted to the surface such that if we ascend up or down five miles from the earth’s surface we’ll freeze or burn. And most of the earth’s shifting surface isn’t extremely amenable to human habitation, it’s either frozen tundra, sandy desert, too rocky and steep, or too infested with diseases and parasites.
d) What kind of God allows so many different religious views to co-exist? And has so many people’s visions and NDEs differ? Most people who are revived do not even report having an NDE. Of those who do, Betty Eade met a Mormon Jesus, a Thailand Buddhist met a turtle God, another person met a clown, another person claims he met a guy named “Bob” who comforted him. Most NDEs are not highly descriptive, just a tunnel and light. And of those whose NDEs free them from fear of death, not all of them are Evangelical Christians, far from it. So the NDEs and visionary experiences of say, native Americans and Hindus and Buddhists and Christians differ in many respects. There’s also Christian mystic universalists like Julian of Norwich, and Christian mystics whose experiences and writings have commonalities with mystics from other religions.
e) So Copan is naive to suppose that the question is simply one of God or no God. The question of what kind of God would create this kind of cosmos, and also allow so many different religions (and rival inspired writings and commentaries of those writings) and such varieties of visions and NDEs to exist, is a question that remains wide open. What do we really know?
f) Also, Copan and other Evangelicals can’t even agree on the meaning of Genesis 1:1!
Like or Dislike:
0
Dear brother Daniel, The last thing I want to do is bring you distress and grief. Thank you for being so candid and direct about your struggles with your health. In that spirit, may I recommend Sarfati’s THE GREATEST HOAX ON EARTH? The book was written to answer the very best questions raised by Dr. Dawkins in his book THE GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH. This is considered by many to be the best defense of creation (young Earth) available today. I want to publically express my gratitude for all the excellent I.D.M. material indicating that the evidence points to an personal Designer behind creation. That is all very valuable. I hope you get a copy of THE GREATEST HOAX ON EARTH? and study the book for personal profit. You may still disagree with the author when you finish it but I think you will also respect some of the biblical and scientific arguments he attempts to make for a growing segment of the Church. May our Lord bless and keep you. Peace in the Lamb, wayne.
Like or Dislike:
0
Wayne, I appreciate the book recommendation. Unfortunately, things about the length of a long blog post are about the extend of my reading comprehension any more. That is why I shipped off my library of books on this issue to the Credo House for their use there. I am well aware of the most popular scientific claims of the YEC organizations though. I held that belief myself and made those same arguments for decades. And even though I no longer see them as valid, I think it is important for every Christian to be aware of them and to test/validate them. And part of that comes from researching what OTHERS say about the arguments. Since most YEC creationist claims are not peer reviewed by anyone that is objective or skeptical, it is important to seek out the the opposite opinion. As Proverbs says, the first to make a case SEEMS right until the other comes and examines him. Or, as Paul said it, test EVERYTHING and hold to the good.
Like or Dislike:
0
Ed, in your first point, you ask about why there was a flood if it was only local. I can think of a couple of different reasons. It was not only a test of faith and obedience for Noah, as well as a witness to others while the ark was being built, but ultimately destroyed to corrupt civilization in which Noah lived. So it was a judgment as well. These reasons are not weakened at all if the penguins of the Antarctic or the koalas of Australia didn’t also perish. As far as preservation of animals do, just because a flood might not have been planet wide doesn’t mean that it couldn’t have covered a significant area that before the days of planes, trains, and automobiles would have been a hardship to replenish from elsewhere.
If you are interested in discussing the extent of the flood, I think we are about to get into that a wee bit on Theologica. http://theologica.ning.com/forum/topics/olive-leaf
Like or Dislike:
0
Here is the intro to Daniel’s facebook group:
“This group is open to everyone, especially anyone who loves science and wants to celebrate Darwins’ powerful theory…”
Like or Dislike:
0
But for all the claims about the authority of Scripture, who ever starts there? Instead of reading about science, read about Scripture. Read commentaries.
“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was without form and void and darkness covered the face of the deep…”
“And God said, ‘Let there be light…’”
How much time elapsed in the age of the earth between “darkness” and “Let there be light”? We have no clue in Scripture.
Gen 1:1 is not a preface, it is an absolute statement; “heavens and earth” is a merism, a figure of speech that signifies the whole, i.e. “the universe”
v. 2 tells us the state of the earth following that act; Calvin said something like ‘the earth was not perfected’ at its beginning.
NICOT: “Verse 2 then, describes the situation prior to the detailed creation that is spelled out in vv 3ff.
Three conditions of the earth are described, the last being ‘darkness’ for which God provides the remedy in v. 3, “Let there be light…”
And in the following verses he provides the remedies for the other two conditions.
There is a wonderful symmetry here: Days one to three have been called, “Days of Preparation” and the last three, Days of Filling or from the general to the particular . e.g. Day one has ‘light’ ; day four has sun/moon set in order. Day two has sky and day five has birds of the sky, etc.
IN these verses “heaven” and “earth” are used in a limited sense. “The dry land he called earth” [not the planet] The heavens, here, as the NIV translates it, is our “sky.”
Day One and the days that follow are the week in which God sets his creation in order for the creation of man.
“For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day.” Deu. 20
This verse is often wrongly used. Here, speaking of that week, “the LORD made” not created as in Gen. 1:1. “Made” has the same connotation as our “making” our bed. We set in order what is already there. [ie the remedy for the condition described in verse 2]
Thus the verse in Deu. is parallel with the “days” of the week…heavens, earth, sea, and all that is in them [It does not reflect on the creation of the universe but on that of setting the earth in order]
John Calvin, ages before evolution arrived, made many great comments on Genesis: “He who would learn astronomy…let him go elsewhere….”
Calvin: ”Moses wrote in a popular style things which without instruction, all ordinary persons, endued with common sense, are able to understand; but astronomers investigate with great labor whatever the sagacity of the human mind can comprehend. Nevertheless, this study is not to be reprobated, nor this science to be condemned, because some frantic persons are wont boldly to reject whatever is unknown to them. For astronomy is not only pleasant, but also very useful to be known: it cannot be denied that this art unfolds the admirable wisdom of God.”
Like or Dislike:
0
I am new to this thread, but find it fascinating because of the obvious struggle to make science fit with scripture despite a high level of scientific illiteracy on display. As a scientist, I cringe at such ignorant proclamations as “If evolution turns out to be wrong…” Common ancestry of species has been demonstrated beyond doubt. It is a well-established fact and I am happy to discuss the details of that evidence with anyone who is genuinely interested. Someone made a comment early on about “carbon dating of moon rocks”. Please…is there anyone else here who sees the lunacy (pun intended) of juxtaposing the terms “carbon dating” and “moon rocks”? Nobody in their right mind would try to use carbon dating to determine the age of moon rocks. The poster attempted to dismiss the valid science behind the well-established age of the earth (4.6 billion years) by the unsupported assertion that scientists discard carbon dating measurements of moon rocks that don’t fit the desired outcome. The problem is that she telegraphed the fact that she was posting from a position of ignorance rather than one of knowledge. If you want to talk about science, then talk about science. But if you simply wish to dismiss science because you find the cognitive dissonance unpleasant, you are playing a losing game.
Like or Dislike:
1
Poor Charles has painted himself into a corner of science denial driven by biblical literalism that has forced him to take refuge in the lies of organizations like CMI and AiG to stave off the cognitive dissonance with which others on this thread struggle. As for Sarfati, he is not stupid as much as dishonest in his presentation. He’s a charlatan committed to a literal interpretation of the Bible. This is set out in the CMI Statement of Faith, which requires him to subjugate science to scripture. http://creation.com/about-us#what_we_believe
This means that they reject any scientific conclusion that contradicts their interpretation of the Bible. Any rational person will recognize the inherent intellectual dishonesty of this approach to knowledge. Sarfati and others know that they are misrepresenting what the science tells us and they also know that most people do not have the background to see how they are being dishonest. Charles is an excellent example of someone who just wants to be reassured that his untenable beliefs are validated by some “authority”.
Like or Dislike:
1
Augustine was right when he wrote with regard to denial of natural knowledge “It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are.”
Like or Dislike:
0
Here are the details on the article cited by Ed Babinski above:
(Thanks, btw)
Title: Finding the Age of the Earth by Physics or by Faith?
Authors: Brush, Stephen G.
Descriptors: College Science; Creationism; Elementary Secondary Education; Evolution; Geology; Geophysics; Higher Education; Philosophy; Physics; Science Education; Science History; Scientists; Secondary School Science; Theories; Time
Source: Journal of Geological Education, v30 n1 p34-58
Jan 1982
Peer-Reviewed: N/A
Publication Date: 1982-01-00
Pub Types: Journal Articles; Reports – General
Abstract: Refutes scientific creationists’ arguments that the earth is less than 10,000 years old by presenting information related to the time scales for creation and evolution models, times from stellar distances, Kelvin’s estimate of the earth’s age, radioactive decay, radiometric dating, and the decay of the earth’s magnetic field. (DC)
Identifiers: Radioactivity
Education Level: Elementary Secondary Education; Higher Education
Like or Dislike:
0
Journal of Geological Education
J Geol Educ
Published/Hosted by . ISSN: 0022-1368.
Classification: Geology — Study and teaching.
Further information
Journal of Geological Education currently does not have a website.
Like or Dislike:
1
Interesting that you do not want to hear from a scientist on the subject of science. What happened to the notion of open exchange?
Like or Dislike:
0
“Augustine was right when he wrote with regard to denial of natural knowledge “It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world”
That quote is thrown around by theistic evolutionists like cheap confetti at a hoodlum’s wedding. It’s a way of painting those who disagree with them as reactionary ignoramuses.
Nobody-nobody-here is seriously suggestion rejecting natural knowledge.
Evolution is not about knowledge, or data, or empirical facts like gravity or the sphericity of the earth or whether antibiotics work or any of the legion of examples used by EC believers to ridicule non-believers. Evolution is about interpreting observations to make conclusions about the unseen past. It is philosophical, speculative, historical by nature; it is not empirical, inductive, evidence-based, testable, repeatable. And its conclusions, if true, would violate every single established principle and law from empirical science, without exception.
Using this quote in a debate about whether Darwinian evolution is true or plausible, might be relevant if it could be shown here that one of the posters is rejecting a known, empirically proven and repeatable fact of science in order to make a point.
But is does not matter where one goes to discuss evolution, somebody is going to throw out this quote and like insurance companies who deny claims, assume that 9 out of 10 people will go away.
Like or Dislike:
0
“Interesting that you do not want to hear from a scientist on the subject of science. What happened to the notion of open exchange?”
Please explain; who are you addressing here? Who is the scientist in question? What is the subject? What is it that is not being heard? Are you a scientist?
Like or Dislike:
1
“Evolution is not about knowledge, or data, or empirical facts like gravity or the sphericity of the earth…”
Of course it is. All data require interpretation and evolutionary biology is no different.
Like or Dislike:
0
The past cannot be observed. Evolution cannot be tested empirically or inductively, there is no way to establish its reliability or validity as can be done with gravitation and light and physiology and chemistry and cellular biology. Science deals with what can be observed again and again.
Therefore evolution is philosophy, not science.
Like or Dislike:
0
re:
“Evolution is about interpreting observations to make conclusions about the unseen past. It is philosophical, speculative, historical by nature; it is not empirical, inductive, evidence-based, testable, repeatable. And its conclusions, if true, would violate every single established principle and law from empirical science, without exception.”
nonsense.
show how common descent “violate(s) every single established principle and law from empirical science”.
what principles specifically, are you speaking about?
don’t speak in this nebulous generality, but be specific. show how a specific idea in evolutionary theory, like common descent violates a specific principle of natural law. (you are boisterously bluffing)
Like or Dislike:
0
Yes, I’m a scientist and my first two posts were not published. Charles, you are in deep denial of the objective reality that modern science offers. The earth is ancient and common ancestry of species is established fact. I am happy to discuss in detail whatever lines of evidence that might interest you.
Like or Dislike:
0
Hi Richard; of course I am bluffing. But in any case, would you mind just briefly encapsulating how you understand common descent, and I will try to answer.
Like or Dislike:
0
David Levin, is this you?
Dr. Levin specializes in research that analyzes the molecular mechanisms by which cells detect and respond to various forms of stress, formally known as signal transduction. He focuses on medical applications, using yeast as a model system to reveal potential targets for anti-fungal drug development.
Like or Dislike:
0
I’m a scientist and my first two posts were not published.”
Could you put them up on my facebook wall?
Like or Dislike:
0
re:
“The past cannot be observed. Evolution cannot be tested empirically or inductively, there is no way to establish its reliability or validity as can be done with gravitation and light and physiology and chemistry and cellular biology. Science deals with what can be observed again and again.”
more nonsense.
everything you think you know is past experience, the present is this fleeing moment, no knowledge exists only in the present. as soon as you do any science experiment it is in the past, must it be continuously performed to be in the present? or is it something about the distant past that bothers you so much that you would be willing to embark on this “The past cannot be observed” nonsense. but you know that there is no arbitrary point where recent becomes distant past. in any case, all you have in your head is past, is memory, is experience, is it therefore unobservable? or is recent past to be described as your lifetime so to avoid this obvious problem? so that anything that occurred before your birth is distant past and thus cannot be observed?
Like or Dislike:
0
Richard, what about common descent? Help me out please.
Like or Dislike:
0
Yes, that’s me. I’m a molecular geneticist trained in biochemistry and cell biology. And yes, common ancestry is as well established as anything else science tells us. What would you like to know about common descent.
Like or Dislike:
0
Depression in Schizophrenics: Proceedings [Hardcover]
Richard Williams (Editor), J. Thomas Dalby (Editor)
Richard, is this you?
Like or Dislike:
0
What would you like to know about common descent.
what do you understand it to signify? Just how you would define it say to a first-year biology student on day one,
Like or Dislike:
0
charles
you made the big general nebulous statement:
“Evolution is about interpreting observations to make conclusions about the unseen past. It is philosophical, speculative, historical by nature; it is not empirical, inductive, evidence-based, testable, repeatable. And its conclusions, if true, would violate every single established principle and law from empirical science, without exception.”
defend it with specifics. i offered common descent as an example of what i think the appropriate level of specificity. pick what you want. defend your contention with specifics: what specific element of evolutionary theory violates which specific principle of empirical science? that is why you are bluffing, you are not defending this high level principle with specifics you are trying to turn it around into me defining common descent. nonsense, it’s about you making indefensible general philosophic statements in a scientific discussion. use the science, what idea in ET violates what specific law of science? should be easy “every single” “without exception” leaves lots of principles for you to choose from, huh?
Like or Dislike:
0
that is why you are bluffing,”
OK Richard, agreed. Now that we have that out of the way, could you please briefly explain what you understand common descent to be, and I will try to answer your question.
Like or Dislike:
0
Is this you Richard?
This year has marked, I believe, the beginning of the end of the war between science and religion. Creationism cannot last. The New Atheists are now old (or <?a href="http://www.religiondispatches.or
Like or Dislike:
0
David Levin: are any of these available online?
recent publications
Kim, K-Y and D. E. Levin (2011). Mpk1 MAPK Association with the Paf1 Complex Blocks Sen1-Mediated Premature Transcription Termination. Cell, 144: 745-756.
Kim, K-Y., A. W. Truman, S. Caesar, G. Schlenstedt, and D. E. Levin. (2010). Yeast Mpk1 cell wall integrity MAPK regulates nucleocytoplasmic shuttling of the Swi6 transcriptional regulator. Mol. Biol. Cell, 21:1609-1619.
Beese, S. E., T. Negishi, and D. E. Levin. (2009). Identification of positive regulators of the yeast Fps1 glycerol channel. PLoS Genetics, 5: e1000738.
Truman, A. W., K-Y. Kim, and D. E. Levin. (2009). Mechanism of Mpk1 MAPK binding to the Swi4 transcription factor and its regulation by a novel caffeine-induced phosphorylation. Mol. Cell. Biol., 29:6449-6461.
Kim, K-Y., A. W. Truman, and D. E. Levin. (2008). Yeast Mpk1 MAPK activates transcription through Swi4/Swi6 by a non-catalytic mechanism that requires upstream signal. Mol. Cell. Biol., 28:2579-2589.
Kim, K-Y., I. C. Cosano, D. E. Levin, M. Molina, and H. Martín. (2007). Dissecting the transcriptional activation function of the cell wall integrity MAP kinase. Yeast 24: 335-342.
Newman, H. A., M. J. Romeo, S. E. Lewis, B. C. Yan, P. Orlean, and D. E. Levin. (2005). Gpi19, the Saccharomyces cerevisiae homologue of mammalian PIG-P, is a subunit of the initial enzyme for glycosylphosphatidylinositol anchor biosynthesis. Eukaryotic Cell 4:1801-1807.
Levin, D. E. (2005). Cell wall integrity signaling in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Micro. Molec. Biol. Rev. 69: 262-291.
Vay, H. A., A. K. Sobering, and D. E. Levin. (2004). Mutational analysis of the cytoplasmic domain of the Wsc1 cell wall stress sensor. Microbiology 150: 3281-3288.
Sobering, A. K., R. Watanabe, M. J. Romeo, B. C. Yan, C. A. Specht, P. Orlean, H. Riezman, and D. E. Levin. (2004). Yeast Ras regulates the complex that catalyzes the first step in GPI-anchor biosynthesis at the ER. Cell 117:637-648.
Like or Dislike:
0
Dr Levin, if you were tasked with assembling a parts list for a generic human somatic cell, how many components would you expect, approximately, to emerge on the list?
Like or Dislike:
0
Dr. Levin: I found a lot of full-text work of yours on pubmed.
Like or Dislike:
0
Charles,
Many of those publications are available online, but some require subscriptions. The PLoS Genetics paper is a public access publication.
With regard to common ancestry, it’s simple. The tree of life is a family tree that includes all eukaryotic life forms. I generally leave out bacteria, because their free exchange of DNA (horizontal gene transfer) makes determining detailed ancestry of prokaryotes difficult. But I imagine you are most concerned by the established fact that humans are descended from apes. We can start there if you like.
Like or Dislike:
1
By the way Charles, you have staked out an untenable position for yourself with the claim that science has no way to unravel historical events that happened in the absence of witnesses. Forensic scientists do this for a living. Science is especially good at unraveling past events by the application of logic to data. Yes, inferences from the data are important, but this is true of science in general.
Like or Dislike:
1
So Charles,
What, specifically is your criticism of the science that underwrites the conclusion of common ancestry? Why do you reject the conclusion that humans are great apes, cousins of the other great apes? (I assume this is your position and that you will correct me if it’s not). This is well-establised science with a mountain of evidence to support it. So, please articulate your specific complaint with the evidence.
Like or Dislike:
0
By the way Charles, you have staked out an untenable position for yourself with the claim that science has no way to unravel historical events that happened in the absence of witnesses. Forensic scientists do this for a living.”
Point taken. I will have to think about this. My first response is that in general, forensic science covers a time scale differing from evolutionary deep time by many orders of magnitude;
also, that forensics deals with events considerably less complex than the alleged development of inorganic materials to LUCA, and from LUCA to fish, philosophers, trees, insects, humans.
Like or Dislike:
0
I think what I wrote is that evolution happened in the absence of witnesses, moreover cannot be observed in the present, nor replicated. I mean here by the way macroevolution.
I would like to know from you, Dr. Levin, what happened between the alleged LUCA fossil, whatever you think that may be, and the Cambrian Explosion, when apparently every known phylum (marine that is) appeared simultaneously. Do you believe the Goldschmidt hypothesis?
Like or Dislike:
0
Dr. Levin, when can I have my complete cellular parts inventory? I believe you are better equipped than myself to furnish such a document; perhaps some of your doctoral students could work on it.
Next, I would like you to walk me through it, and work up a critical path analysis, indicating when and how each item appeared or was added to the environment, how it was integrated fully into the functioning cell etc. Piece of cake, I imagine. Dawkins can help out when he’s in town next.
Like or Dislike:
0
After that, Dr. Levin, it gets a little easier.
Since nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution, and since biochemistry is an important feature of biological science, I would like a list of excerpts from your published work indicating which evolutionary facts from previous work you incorporated in your reviews of literature, which irreducible facts of evolution were critical to your lab experiments, and what your work contributed towards further establishing that a solution of highly diluted inorganic substances in seawater or ponds or whatever, managed to assemble themselves into proteins, cell membranes, Kreb’s cycles, cell duplication apparatus, and all of the other processes observed in your work plus the 10,000 or so studies published in each issue of the Journal of Biological Chemistry.
Like or Dislike:
0
Why do you reject the conclusion that humans are great apes, cousins of the other great apes? ”
You’ll have to show me where I specifically stated as much.
I will admit to knowing that the comparisons of human and chimp dna alleged to prove common ancestry are problematic.
Like or Dislike:
0
Dr. Levin, what is your opinion of the tempest in a teapot that errupted when last year someone published proof that bacteria could incorporate arsenic into their dna? Have these results been replicated? I understand it was not creationists who raised this hullabaloo either.
Like or Dislike:
0
Daniel,
Sorry, been out all day. Got to go back and read up on all the comments since we last left off. Might be able to respond tomorrow. As to being ‘misinformed’, welcome to the club. The feeling is mutual brother.
Like or Dislike:
0
Dr.n Levin, what is your opinion of the change in knowledge of the human genome from the rock solid one gene-one enzyme of Watson, to the final tally in the Collins project?
I remember hearing Dr. Collins saying in a speech of his pride in that the project finished on time and on budget.
I can’t help wonder if this had anything to do with the fact that the total was about one-third of the initial expectation. Down there with bananas and earthworms?
Like or Dislike:
0
Hey Charles,
Who is this David Levin guy, pompously saying, ‘Poor Charles has painted himself into a corner of science denial driven by biblical literalism’, and so cocksure of himself that he claims there is a ‘high level of scientific illiteracy on display?.’ Is he somebody important, or just thinks he’s important? Let me catch up on my reading and I’ll post further.
Like or Dislike:
0
Dr. Levin,
Are you a follower and a disciple of Jesus Christ? If so, can you describe theologically where you are in your relationship to Jesus Christ? For example, are you a regularly attending member of a church? Which church/denomination, if you care to share? And so on, and so forth.
If you care to respond, that is.
Like or Dislike:
0
TUAD,
Still catching up. Good questions. I’m putting odds that your questions are beneath him.
Like or Dislike:
1
Personally, I find it in poor taste to demand or request some spiritual litmus test in a discussion like this. The fine doctor is qualified to offer an opinion on these matters based on his education and experience regardless of whether or not he belongs to the right denominations or attends some preferred church regularly enough.
Like or Dislike:
0
Daniel,
I’m gonna have to cut and paste from page 4 of the comments to page 5 of the comments here, so bear with me as I put my thoughts together. Might be page 6 by the time I get it all together. Let me ask you a question in light of your #46 above: does a person’s worldview matter as to how they approach any stated proposition concerning the universe?
Like or Dislike:
0
@TUAD #44,
I think this review of Moreland’s ‘Scaling the Secular City: A Defense of Christianity’ here:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A1W2OAXJ1JQT9/ref=cm_pdp_rev_more?ie=UTF8&sort_by=MostRecentReview#ROXPYSKFA2CUI
written by David E. Levin, is the same David E. Levin posting comments here and might answer your questions. Here’s one line from Levin’s review of Moreland’s book: ‘As a scientist who is not especially interested in Christian apologetics, I was nevertheless interested in how Moreland addressed the subject of science and Christianity. Only here could I make an informed assessment of whether he offers a knowledgeable and honest presentation of the scientific issues. I’m sorry to say that he did neither.’
I think his biases are showing.
Like or Dislike:
1
Everyone has a worldview. And it effects how they approach things. But Dr Levin is here answering questions based on his scientific background and education. He’s not here trying to challenge anyone’s theology. As such, asking him very pointed questions about the status of his relationship with Christ serves no real purpose other than to set up a genetic fallacy. To further comment on those questions with the suggestion that he’s pompous or might think the challenges to his spiritual status are “beneath him” is more manipulative than carrying on a conversation with gentleness and respect. I don’t know Dr Levin. I was actually interested in hearing what he had to say re: some of the scientific claims made around here. I’m just hoping that bad behavior doesn’t drive him away before that happens.
If he were here making comments about God, it would *possibly* be valid to ask the context in which he is making those statements. But it comes across as if we are setting up this comparison and contrast where we have these “good Christian scientists” like Sarfati that can be trusted and something else. I find it distasteful. Unless you guys want to preface YOUR posts on this topic with YOUR spiritual bona fides and curriculum vitae as a valid reason for why we should listen to YOU and why YOU are right, it’s irrelevant to the topic. I don’t see where it can add anything. If Dr. Levin meets your spiritual threshold and provides evidence for evolution, it isn’t gong to make the evidence for evolution more convincing. And if he doesn’t, it just gives you a fallacious reason to reject it.
Like or Dislike:
0
@Daniel #49,
But Dr Levin is here answering questions based on his scientific background and education.
And I’m sure that there’s no bias involved here, right? LOL
Like or Dislike:
1
Charles,
You are all over the map with questions about a complete parts list for a human cell, detailed events prior to the Cambrian explosion, how my work might or might not impact what we learn about abiogenesis, a crappy (and since debunked) paper about arsenic incorporation into DNA, etc. It serves no purpose for me to speculate here on questions for which science has not yet provided solid answers. Let’s instead talk about things we do know.
“I will admit to knowing that the comparisons of human and chimp dna alleged to prove common ancestry are problematic.”
Please tell me what you perceive the problems to be with the chimp-human genomic comparisons. I am quite familiar with many aspects of these data. Perhaps I can tell you some things about it that you do not know.
Like or Dislike:
2
Steve, we ALL have bias. Yours comes though loud and clear. But if we refuse to learn from anyone with a bias, we can never learn from ANYONE – including Christ. So what is your point? At the very least, this can be a learning experience because you just might be presented with evidence that is not a straw man spun to reflect all the bias against something. I don’t know what Dr Levin is going to say. As I am not a theistic evolutionist, or a natural evolutionist for that matter either, I don’t know if I am going to agree with him or not. But I do know that a practicing cellular biologist is going to be a lot more equipped to offer information on evolution than some geologist or physicist or something. The proper thing to do is to have an open mind and accept that whatever Dr. Levin’s alleged biases might be, they are no more biased than those of the Sarfati’s or Ham’s or Morris’ of this world…yet you don’t seem to feel the need to point THEIRS out.
Like or Dislike:
0
Daniel,
Answer me one question please. Are you the Daniel B. Wallace of Credo House Ministries and the blog Theologica?
Like or Dislike:
2
Daniel,
Thank you for your support. I wish to convey the importance of honesty in the presentation of scientific knowledge. I have creationist firends who insist that the evidence does not matter to them. They believe what they believe, regardless of what evidence might be brought to bear on certain questions. I have more respect for these individuals than I do for those who engage in deception and outright lies in a pretense that science supports a literal interpretation of the Bible. People like Sarfati are peddling snake oil to the credulous masses who want, more than anything, to continue to believe things that are demonstrably false.
What is needed here is for people to engage in an open an honest examination of the data. This is not easy for many non-scientists, particularly those who would rather defer to some authoritative sounding figure. But I can offer genuine expertise in the area of biological evolution and am also quite conversant on the topic of dating methods. I am not asking anyone to believe any claims that I make, only to engage the data and draw their own conclusions. But if all of their “scientific” information comes from places like CMI and AiG, they are doing themselves a great disservice.
Like or Dislike:
0
Lol. No. I’m not Dan Wallace. When I am not posting from my phone, my posts do link to my Theologica blog though. If you are wanting to find out all the reasons why you might want to ignore anything I say, you can find lots of my stuff there in the form of blogs and forum posts.
Like or Dislike:
0
@Daniel #2
I am biased. I am biased for Biblical Chrisitianity. Levin is not. I am biased for propositional truth as it is revealed in the Judeo-Christian Scriptures. Levin is not. I am biased for the Biblical doctrine of creation. Levin is not. I am biased for a man once dead to resurrect Himself back to life. Levin is not.
Levin is biased against any and all of the above, and not a fan of Christian apologetics. What could he possibly offer to a Christian blog that is not completely filled with his biases, especially on evolution? I am simply amazed at your statement: ‘But I do know that a practicing cellular biologist is going to be a lot more equipped to offer information on evolution than some geologist or physicist or something.’ and not understand that evolution is the epitome of a philosophical bias.
Like or Dislike:
0
Steve,
All I ask is that you engage the evidence. Science is nothing more than the application of logic to data. One’s biases should have no impact on one’s ability to derive logical conclusions from a collection of information. For example, I could provide you with an exceptionally strong set of data supporting the accepted conclusion that the Hawaiian island chain was formed over a period of 65 million years. It’s absolutely beautiful. You might possibly be able to explain the data in some other way, but we should at least be able to look at the same set of data, set aside our biases about what the answer should be, and apply logic to their interpretation. Is this something you are afraid to do?
Like or Dislike:
1
I share a lot of your beliefs. But I think it is only fair not to ASSUME someone else’s beliefs and whether their alleged biases can, in any way, change the outcome of testable scientific hypothesis. Just because the observer may or may not share your same beliefs and preferences does not mean that it changes the results of things like genetic tests. A bias may impact how the data is interpreted, but the data is neutral. Dr Levin’s point is that there is a long history where some creationists not only show bias in interpretation, but totally misrepresent the data. You can even find them selling and promoting creationist arguments that have been disproved for decades and are even disavowed in the small print of the web sites of the creationists selling the stuff. The have lost all credibility because of it. The fact that you can walk into a CHRISTIAN bookstore today and find books still using moon dust arguments and claiming human footprints in the Paluxy River leaves us with no credibility to challenge the bias of others.
Like or Dislike:
0
@David #7,
You may be able to hoodwink some of the people posting here that you don’t come across the evidence without your biases, but not all of us. The ‘objective’ observer of science who sets aside his biases about what the answer should be while looking at a set of data was destroyed by Polanyi and Kuhn. You have a much bigger problem, and I would be negligent for at least not attempting to point you to it. To wit, an acknowledgment that Jesus is Lord. Does that scare you? Am I blithely to assume that you have not been confronted with the truth claims of Christianity , yet have rejected them?
Like or Dislike:
1
Steve,
Clearly, you are not someone interested in what science can tell us. I am hoping that others on this thread share my curiosity about the earth and its lifeforms. It’s what propelled me into science many years ago and I derive great satisfaction from generating new knowledge to share with the world. I wish you the best, but will not respond further to your comments.
Like or Dislike:
2
Dr Levin’s, I don’t know if anyone else is willing to engage in the data or not, but count me in. To me, it is a bit odd that folks that are so dogmatic about how evolution could not happen even over millions of years have no problem at all with the same process being responsible for hundreds of thousands of species coming from a small group of common ancestors on a big boat 4500 years ago….as long as you don’t use the “E” word to describe it. LOL
Like or Dislike:
1
Indeed, Daniel. I will pick this up again tomorrow and we can actually discuss some of what I consider to be the strongest lines of evidence supporting evolution and an ancient earth. Perhaps others here will be interested, as well.
Like or Dislike:
0
@David #10,
That’s fine David. You can run, actually still keep running I suppose, and hide behind your philosophically biased theory of evolution, but know that Jesus the creator and sustainer of the universe is knocking at the door of your mind. All you need to do is open it.
Like or Dislike:
1
Dr Levin,
I have been following the discussion but not engaging since my last post as it is clearly a waste of my time.
However, I would really love to hear the data about the age of the earth that you talked about.
I would also love any comments you may have about exactly why DNA evidence seems to point to a common descent.
Also, I would like your input on an accusation I have never been able to falsify or verify for myself, which is that carbon dating has been used on freshly extruded rock and found it to me millions or billions of years old. This claim is used to discount dating methods. I was wondering if you have heard it, whether or not it is true and what evidence you have. If it is true, I would love your comments on why it does not discount the age of the earth as scientists have determined it.
To Charles, Wayne et al,
I am really glad that you want to stand up for God’s hand in creation.
I would also love to hear any data that you have to give and any particular claims and rebuttals you may have to the data posted by Dr Levin. Can you give me some of the evidences you know of to support your views that evolution is not true?
Please note that I am not persuaded one side or the other, though I do firmly believe that God through Christ created all things. I have never been able to access raw data and study it for myself and I have great difficulty in trusting both sides. However I am always interested in examining data and claims.
Also, can everyone please refrain from name calling and rhetoric? This is not at all constructive.
Last thing, I find it really awful when Christians resort to accusing one another of not really believing in Jesus as Lord. That’s not a judgement for you to make, not of someone you know from the internet only. I would even be wary of making that accusation to my closest friend or spouse. This is a defeat for our Christian love for one another. If any of us really want to show atheists and agnostic scientists what it means to be Christian, we should start not by belittling them and ignoring them, but by loving one another, as Jesus has commanded us to do.
In peace,
Saskia
Like or Dislike:
0
Before you go spending a lot of time convincing me of stuff I already accept, let me say that I do believe in an old earth. And I believe the Bible to be silent on how the earth produced plants and living things. Can we start there? And if you think it might be more advantageous to do this in a different format or location, perhaps we could do it in the creation, fall, and flood section of the Theologica forum at Theologica.ning.com. Might be less sniping there.
Like or Dislike:
0
“Please tell me what you perceive the problems to be with the chimp-human genomic comparisons. I am quite familiar with many aspects of these data. Perhaps I can tell you some things about it that you do not know.”
The fundamental issue is that the two genomes have not been compared a one for one basis. The total number of base pairs compared is orders of magnitude small that the total involved, so the comparison is very far from complete; but the general audience thinks it’s cut, dried and bagged.
Like or Dislike:
1
Dr. David E. Levin,
What can you tell us about psudo-genes? Specifically in humans and Chimps.
If all of our Mitochondrial DNA stems from one human woman, did she inherit this Mito. DNA from other earlier hominids? How did she get a unique sequence of Mitochondrial DNA, and every other woman in her generation got different Mitochondrial DNA, if Mit.DNA doesn’t mingle with our “regular” (nuclear) DNA?
Sorry, if you haven’t heard of Mitochondrial DNA – it’s a big thing in evangelical circles.
Like or Dislike:
0
Daniel,
Finally able to return to your comments 44, 46, 47 on page 4 of these posts. Since my comments did not refer to non-literal interpretations by some church leaders, but specifically to the gap theory, day-age theory, analogical, framework and theistic evolutionary theories, let me proceed as follows. With every church father you want to cite, e.g., Ephrem the Syrian, I can cite others as well to support my contention. If you want to get a real kick check out Basil of Ceasarea’s Hexaemeron, Lactantius’ Institutes, or Victorinus’ On the Creation of the World.
The point of contention here is that although there were diverse views held by the Church Fathers, they all correctly gave priority to the theological meaning of the creation, and definitely asserted that the earth was created suddenly and in less than 6000 years before their time. They lived in the mileu of Greek thought where evolutionary and uniformitarian concepts were plentiful. Hippolytus (c. AD170-235), a presbyter in Rome, is a good example of someone who was familiar with and rejected many Greek naturalistic teachings in his The Refutation of All Heresies.
Your use of Augustine to support the view of long ages is simply incorrect:
‘They are deceived too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000 years have yet passed’ (The City of God 12.10, in NPNF1, vol. 2). He believed in an ‘instantaneous’ creation from mistranslating Gen. 2:4, not knowing Hebrew and working from the original text, and only coming to know Greek later in life long after his commentary on Genesis was done. Your use of Augustine in support of ‘deep time’ is severely misguided, bordering on the unethical. There is no room for current old-earth advocates to appeal to him for support for their interpretation of the creation days as being long ages of millions of years each.
Now, to the analysis of the current theories that I have mentioned: gap, day-age, analogical, framework.
It was Thomas Chalmers in 1814, a young Presbyterian pastor, who in a review of Cuvier’s Theory of the Earth proposed that all the time could fit between Gen. 1:1 and Gen. 1:2. This became known as the ‘gap theory’. Later C.I. Scofield put the gap theory in his notes on Gen. 1:2 in his Scofield Reference Bible.
In 1823, George Stanley Faber, an Anglican theologian, was one of the earliest advocates of the day-age view, believing that the days of creation were not literal but figurative of long ages.
The framework view, a fairly recent addition to the compromise and capitulation on Genesis 1, is most notably promoted by Meredith G. Kline in his book Because It Had Not Rained, and Henri Blocher in his In the Beginning.
The analogical view is very similar to the framework view, fairly recent, and neither speak to any specificity in Genesis 1 except to say that ‘God created everything’.
You have already admitted that the theistic evolutionary view could not have come about until after Darwin, so we have no need to address it as a point of contention.
The point of all this Daniel, is that the Church held a fairly consistent view of a young universe and young earth through it’s first 16 centuries up until the time of modern geology in the early 1800′s when the idea of millions of years became the predominant view of the findings of secular geologists. It was compromising theologians who then acquiesced by proposing the gap theory, day-age theory, theistic evolutionary theory, etc.
Like or Dislike:
0
Steve, you are fighting a straw man. I’m not claiming that the early church believed in old ages. That is moving the goal post. You listed a long list of “non-literal” interpretations and said they the post-date the study of geology. I’m saying that these non-literal interpretations (or at least some of them) PRE-date geology. Once geology started indicating long ages, they became more popular as a way to harmonize what the Scripture was teaching with what the Creation was teaching, but these things like the framework interpretation of what Genesis 1 was saying pre-date the 1800. It is often presented as if “the church” has always read Genesis 1 the way Ken Ham does until they “compromised” with those atheist evolutionists. That is just historical revisionism.
I will grant you that the ancient church fathers believed in a young earth But the ancient church theologians were also convinced of a lot of other things which we now disregard. They were making deductions based on a very limited set of knowledge compared to what we have today. All one has to do is read what was written about geocentrism and the antipodes and such to see that using the early church fathers in some kind of appeal to authority isn’t a good idea. If you want some concrete examples of some of that, the Glover YouTube series I linked to pages ago is full of citations. I think the early church fathers are great sources of theology, but when it comes to science, I’d trust a molecular geneticist trained in biochemistry and cell biology over my favorite church father, Augustine, any day of the week. When it comes to a discussion of original sin or something though, Dr Levin is going to have to take a back seat to the long dead guy.
One last comment on the Gap Theory. I am aware of the history of that as it relates to being called that and it being promoted by Scoffield. My first “big boy Bible” was his reference Bible back in the early 70′s. But it is another example of an interpretation that was *popularized* after geology, not one that was invented after geology. The fact that Chalmers proposed it doesn’t mean that he was the *first* to do so. Many argue that Origin’s comment about our current heaven and earth borrowing their names from the/a prior one indicates a gap theory interpretation way back then. I’ve also seen quotes from Augustine that might indicate a creation of everything “in the beginning” where this “beginning” was of undetermined length or separated from the first day by some period of time. Even if one discounts that though, one cannot argue that folks like Simon Episcopius and J G Rosenmüller were influenced by the geology of the 1850′s or whatever. I guess it could be argued that John Pye-Smith’s work from 1839 was possibly influenced by Lyell’s 1830-1933′s “Principles of Geology”, but still this whole idea that some interpretation that was influenced by something else must be discarded because it shows a bias is rather fallacious. Everything you and I read from the text is influenced by our other knowledge and biases. NONE of us read it in a vacuum. And it wasn’t presented in a vacuum. The original audience had their own ideas of how the world worked and the revelation of God and how HE works was presented in that context.
Like or Dislike:
0
I see there is lots of interest. I will deal with each of these questions in order and hope to generate further discussion and questions. Please let me know if anything is unclear or needs further elaboration.
Like or Dislike:
0
Saskia: “I would like your input on an accusation I have never been able to falsify or verify for myself, which is that carbon dating has been used on freshly extruded rock and found it to me millions or billions of years old.”
Firstly, thank you for your interest and I will do my best to address any and all questions that pertain to the interpretation of data. Secondly, I should clarify an error regarding your use of the term ‘carbon dating’. Carbon dating is not used to determine the ages of rocks. It can only be used to date carbon-containing samples of biological origin. I can explain to you in broad strokes in another post how that works, if you like.
The data to which you refer I believe concerns the Potassium-Argon (K-Ar) dating of newly formed lava from Mount St. Helen. Dating carried out by YEC Steve Austin in 1996 generated ages of samples ranging from 0.35 +/- 0.05 MY to 2.8 MY +/- 0.6 MY. The reason I make a point of indicating that Austin is a YEC is that he approached the question dishonestly. K-Ar dating is used to determine the ages of volcanic rocks that are millions to billions of years old. This is because the half-life of K-40 is 1.3 billion years. The company to which Austin sent his samples stated on their website that “We cannot analyze samples expected to be younger than 2 MY”. The reason for this is that the “background noise” from the instrumentation (trace Ar in the system) precludes accurate dating of samples with little to no Ar. It’s like trying to measure the length of a grain of sand with a meter stick. The best one can do is to say that it is less than a millimeter (the smallest gradation of the stick). Austin knew that the numbers generated would just be “noise”.
http://noanswersingenesis.org.au/mt_st_helens_dacite_kh.htm
Like or Dislike:
1
If the writer of Gen believed that the world was flat, that the moon was a light bearer like the sun, the the sun moved around the earth, that the world was 6K years old, that his genealogy went back to Adam the first man, does that mean God wants me to duplicate his beliefs? that is, is God teaching as binding everything in the Scriptures or using some things to communicate to the Bible’s first readers?
if i see the Bible as authoritative, does that mean i assume the writer’s of Scripture worldviews and ideas about what the world is like are authoritative to me? must, if i am to take Scripture seriously, think like some amalgam of ANE and hellenized Palestinian worldviews?
Like or Dislike:
0
Dr. Levin, #19/269: “I will deal with each of these questions in order and hope to generate further discussion and questions. Please let me know if anything is unclear or needs further elaboration.”
Dr. Levin, if you’d be so kind, would you address the questions I asked earlier:
“Are you a follower and a disciple of Jesus Christ? If so, can you describe theologically where you are in your relationship to Jesus Christ? For example, are you a regularly attending member of a church? Which church/denomination, if you care to share? And so on, and so forth.”
Your answer would be very helpful as it pertains in several ways to the topic of Dr. Copan’s post: “Creation and Evolution: Keeping the Main Thing the Main Thing.”
Like or Dislike:
0
Saskia,
I think you will also appreciate the following example of evidence for an ancient earth. This has to do with the formation of the chain of Hawaiian islands. The reason that I like this example is that it invokes two consilient lines of evidence (radiometric dating and tectonic plate movement) that converge on the same answer.
The evidence, when viewed objectively, leads to the conclusion that the Hawaiian islands were formed in a 3000 mile-long chain over the last 65 million years by a combination of steady northwest movement of the Pacific plate and volcanic activity below that plate:
The Hawaiian islands form a linear chain along the path of the Pacific plate, which moves northwest at a measured rate of 5-10 cm/yr. The chain of roughly 100 islands is about 3000 miles (5000 km) long. These islands are made of volcanic basalt, and have been dated by the K/Ar method. The remarkable finding here is that they display a linear range of ages as a function of distance from a volcanic hot spot under the plate. The oldest (at the northwest end), at about 65 million years, is most distal to the youngest (Hawaii itself, at the southeast end), which is still volcanically active and sits over the volcanic hotspot. Today, the Pacific plate is measured (by GPS tracking) to move approximately 3 inches per year. If the rate of movement has been constant, the plate is calculated to have moved 3000 miles in 63 million years, almost the exact measured age and span of the chain.
http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/GG/HCV/haw_formation.html
Here is the key observation that we must explain: There is a linear relationship between the measured ages of these islands (more than 100 independent measurements) and their distance from the volcanic hotspot. You see, we have two independent sets of data (age and distance) that support the uniformity of movement of the Pacific plate over a period of 65 million years.
The radiometric dating data cannot be dismissed by the blanket criticism that “dating techniques are not reliable”. We have a large number of samples from these islands that show step-wise increases in age for each island as we move further away from the volcanic hot-spot. The data mean something. You are free to interpret both sets of data in a different way, but in the end, any interpretation must fit the data.
Like or Dislike:
0
Great information on the dating, Dr Levin. I’d like to add a question to your list. It is one I proposed to a group on Facebook that has a lot of theistic evolutionists as members. How is it NOT an assumption that just because two life forms share the same trait that they are related? Let me give you an example. My wife has blue eyes. I have brown. Our kids have brown. The assumption would be that they got their brown eyes from me. But my daughter is adopted. She got hers from someone else. So we were both effected by whatever causes brown eyes, but it doesn’t indicate that I’m her ancestor. So how is it that we know that four legged animals with fur all came from a single source and not *multiple* sources that all got four legs and fir from some other shared cause? Why assume shared ancestry when there can be a shared cause?
Like or Dislike:
2
TUAD, Dr Levin volunteered to answer questions about evidence for age and evolution. He didn’t volunteer for a spiritual strip search. Can we keep this on topic please? His data about dating methods and Hawaii and such is valid or not regardless of how many times he’s been to church or whether he prefers Coke or Pepsi. Unless you can show where his facts are wrong, any alleged bias associated with his NON-scientific beliefs does nothing more than show your own bias.
Like or Dislike:
0
@ Daniel, #25/275,
Your impudent rush to display your boorish dullness is rather off-putting and far too frequent.
Do you not comprehend the last part:
“Your answer would be very helpful as it pertains in several ways to the topic of Dr. Copan’s post: “Creation and Evolution: Keeping the Main Thing the Main Thing.””
Like or Dislike:
0
Charles: “The fundamental issue is that the two genomes have not been compared a one for one basis. The total number of base pairs compared is orders of magnitude small that the total involved, so the comparison is very far from complete…”
Actually, that’s not true. Both sequences have been determined in their entirety and aligned with each other. So, if this is your criticism of the data, it does not seem to be much of a criticism.
Like or Dislike:
0
This seems like a good place to introduce the chromosome 2 story. Some of you may know that humans have 46 chromosomes (23 pairs), whereas the other apes all have 48 (24 pairs). This difference was cited years ago by creationists as evidence for special creation of humans. But in 1992, a discovery from Bob Wells’ lab at Yale offered an explanation for this discrepancy. What they found when determining the sequence of a piece of human DNA from chromosome 2 was that sequences normally found only at the ends of chromosomes (called telomeres) were sitting in the middle of the chromosome. Telomeres are non-informational repeats of 6-nucleotides (TTAGGG) that are added by an enzyme to both ends of linear chromosomes after each round of cell division. Duplication of linear chromosomes is an imperfect process, which results in the loss of 50-100 nucleotides at the ends during each duplication. It’s easy to understand that the cell would quickly get into trouble if there was no solution to this problem. The purpose of telomeres is to provide a buffer of unimportant sequence at the ends that can be lost during duplication. But they are only found at the ends. The striking finding that there were telomeric repeats sitting in the middle of chromosome 2 led to the immediate recognition that there has been an end-to-end fusion of two chromosomes at some time in the history of human evolution. Examination of the Figure 1 in the Wells paper allow one to draw a line at the precise point of fusion (where TTAGGG repeats turn into their complement CCCTAA).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1924367
Like or Dislike:
1
Chromosome 2 Part 2.
Understanding that two chromosomes had undergone fusion in the human lineage led to the testable hypothesis that this fusion might explain the discrepancy between the number of human chromosomes as compared to the number of chromosomes in other ape species. The prediction was this: if true, we should expect to find two ape chromosomes that when conceptually set end-to-end with each other, would align with the single human chromosome 2. This is precisely what is seen. This is taken as strong evidence that humans and other apes share a common ancestor that had 24 pairs of chromosomes and that the fusion of two ancestral chromosomes to form human chromosome 2 occurred at some point after the divergence of the human lineage from the others.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human)
Like or Dislike:
2
TUAD, What *I* see when I read the OP is (1) an acceptance of old ages, and (2) “I grant evolution and begin the discussion there.” You guys come across as wanting to argue BOTH of these points and, to me, it comes across as if the only evidence you will accept in regards to those topics will have to come from someone who meets your spiritual litmus test. If you think “What denomination do you belong to” and “How often do you attend church” are keeping the main thing the main thing, then I’m not sure I read the same post you did. If we are going to follow Paul’s advice in the OP, setting up someone’s spiritual health as a prerequisite to talking with them isn’t how to go about it. I too am curious about Dr Levin’s belief in God, but I approach the topic within the confines of HIS expertise and offer to answer questions. My question for him is a perfect example. Asking about Causal Agents in the context of evolution is a way to build a bridge between science and a Creator. Insisting that someone gracious enough to be patient with our questions meet some kind of requirement up front is building walls, not bridges. If you find that approach “boorish dullness” and prefer a confrontational apologetic approach, that is fine. But lets not pretend that Paul’s original post is an excuse for that.
Like or Dislike:
0
Dr Levin, your explanation of how we can go from 22 pairs to 23 makes sense. But what about when the number of pairs is vastly different? Ken Ham’s anti-evolution Creation Museum, for example, proposes that both wolves and foxes share a common Ark ancestor – even though one has 78 chromosomes and the other has 34 (http://nyti.ms/vMIFfW). What could cause that kind of change over that relatively short period of time? Or should we just chalk it up to Ham getting it wrong on this topic?
Like or Dislike:
1
Loo: “What can you tell us about psudo-genes? Specifically in humans and Chimps.”
Daniel: “How is it NOT an assumption that just because two life forms share the same trait that they are related? …. So how is it that we know that four legged animals with fur all came from a single source and not *multiple* sources that all got four legs and fir from some other shared cause? Why assume shared ancestry when there can be a shared cause?”
These are both great questions, which I will address together using the concept of nested hierarchies. I hear and read much criticism about the interpretation of shared traits and shared DNA that hinges on the issue of how one can distinguish between common descent and common design. Similarity alone could not distinguish between these. But nested hierarchies can. I find it interesting that although this is the foundational concept of evolutionary tree building (phylogenetics) this is a concept that few creationists have even heard of. My take is that, because it so strongly supports common ancestry, it is a topic that folks like Sarfati, Ham, etc. don’t want to touch.
I will set out the basic concept and then provide an example of how it is used in the next post. Before DNA analysis was available, anatomists groups organisms based on shared traits using nested hierarchies. The more universal a specific anatomical feature, the more ancestral it was deemed to be. It was admittedly something of an acquired skill to determine which traits were ancestral to which, but the idea (using vertebrates as an example) went like this: There is a great diversity of animals that share the common feature of a backbone (vertebrates). This should, therefore, be a deeply ancestral trait. Among those animals with backbones, there are some with legs (tetrapods), some without legs (i.e fish). This divergence should therefore be less ancestral (or derived) than having a backbone. Among those animals with backbones and legs, some have hair and mammary glands (mammals), others lay eggs (birds, amphibians, and reptiles). I hope you can see from this the nested hierarchy of traits. Of course, there are always exceptions (snakes and whales, which are reptiles and mammals, respectively, do not have legs), but a trained anatomist will use many more traits in the phylogenetic assignment than the grossly over-simplified set I have given.
Like or Dislike:
0
Nested hierarchies part 2: DNA comparisons.
I should have pointed out in the previous post that such nested hierarchies are absolutely predicted by common ancestry, but not necessary for common design. A designer could just mix and match traits at will, particularly if designing each species de novo. The fact is that a nested hierarchy of alterations is an essential element of common ancestry. If common ancestry is true, there should be only a single correct tree of life (for eukaryotes) that can be defined by nested hierarchies that reflect the points of divergence of various lineages that gave rise to all modern plants and animals.
When DNA analysis became available starting in the 1980s, it was then possible to ask if the nested hierarchies could be observed in the DNA. This is done by following the pattern of differences (rather than similarities) in the DNA. An alteration in the DNA (a mutation) that arises in one individual will be passed on to descendants of that individual. Because specific mutations are pretty rare, the assumption we make is that if we see the same mutation in multiple individuals, that mutation arose once in an ancestor of those individuals, rather than multiple times independently.
This applies to different species, as well. If, for example, we see the same mutation in two species that is not shared by a third species, we tentatively conclude that the first two are more closely related to each other than either is the third. Mechanistically, the mutation occurred at a time after the divergence of the lineage leading to the third species, but before the divergence of the first two. If we see the same pattern for lots of mutations in these species, we can have confidence that this assignment is correct. If we could not see an intelligible pattern of shared changes in the DNA among various species, this would absolutely violate the central prediction of common ancestry.
How can we tell what is a mutation?
In the next post, I will explain how mobile DNA elements have removed this question from the equation.
Like or Dislike:
0
Nested hierarchies part 3.
The strongest evidence for common ancestry of species is shared errors in the DNA of a variety of types. For example, parasitic mobile DNA elements, which make up 45% of the human and primate genomes, provide some of the best evidence. These elements replicate and insert new copies of themselves into the genomes of the cells in which they live. We have literally millions of them within our genome. One in eight humans has a new mobile DNA element somewhere in their genome that was not inherited, but was generated in the egg or sperm that produced them. They usually cause no harm, but they certainly don’t do us any good. When these elements insert themselves into the genome, they do so at random. This is important, because the likelihood of an element inserting itself into exactly the same site in two genomes is extremely low. That means that when we see two individuals with a mobile DNA element inserted at precisely the same position in their genomes, we can reasonably conclude that this was the result of a single insertion event, which was subsequently transmitted genetically, rather than two identical insertion events happening independently.
The history of movement of these DNA elements can be used to assess common ancestry and phylogenetic branch points. This becomes a straightforward logic problem of genomic DNA comparisons. When we look at the data, there is only one phylogenetic arrangement that is consistent throughout (and there are mountains of data to look at). Let’s try this, so you can see how it works. Imagine that we are comparing the mobile DNA elements from a particular region of DNA shared by humans, chimps, gorillas, and orangutans. Let’s say that this region of DNA is about 1 million nucleotides in length and within it are about 500 mobile DNA elements in each species. The positions of most of these (about 400) are common to all four species. Some are unique to a species (say 10 per species), reflecting recent insertion events that arose specifically in that species. Neither of these classes is particularly interesting from the perspective of common ancestry. The universal commonalities and unique differences are just that. But let’s now consider elements that are shared by two, or three of the four species. What we find is that about 60 elements in this region of DNA are shared by humans, chimps, and gorillas (but not found in orangutans). We find another 30 that are shared by humans and chimps only (not found in gorillas or orangutans). Significantly, we find none shared by humans and gorillas only, or chimps and orangutans only, or chimps and gorillas only, or any other combination of two or three species. How do we interpret these data? There is one and only one solution to this logic problem and this is it: Common elements in chimps and humans reflect insertion events that arose prior to the evolutionary divergence of the two lineages that led to these species, but after divergence from the gorilla and orangutan lineages. Common elements found in humans, chimps and gorillas reflect more ancient insertion events that arose prior to the divergence of the lineages that led to those three species, but after divergence of the orangutan lineage. The evidence of the common ancestry of these four species remains in their DNA. Moreover, it indicates unambiguously that the line leading to orangutans diverged earliest, followed by the gorilla line, followed finally by divergence of the human and chimp lines. The “nested” hierarchy of data (unique elements, those shared by two, shared by three, or shared by four species) fit only a single model for common ancestry.
Now, I made those numbers up for the sake of illustration, but they reflect pretty accurately what you would find were you to look at any particular 1-megabase chunk of genomic DNA from these four closely related species (there are thousands of such chunks). Why is this evidence inconsistent with common design? First, as I noted at the start, the insertion of these DNA elements occurs at random with no benefit to the individual in whose genome they arise, so their presence by “design” makes no sense. Second, if they were designed into the genomes of four separate species, as the creationist would argue, he/she would have to explain the peculiar nesting. That is, why are there elements shared by humans and chimps only, but none shared by chimps and gorillas only, or gorillas and humans only, even though the overall level of similarity among these three genomes is nearly equivalent? Common design cannot answer that, except to say that the designer could have made it look as though genomes are the result of descent with modification (God the deceiver). Common ancestry, as we have seen, explains these observations very well.
Like or Dislike:
0
Daniel: “Ken Ham’s anti-evolution Creation Museum, for example, proposes that both wolves and foxes share a common Ark ancestor – even though one has 78 chromosomes and the other has 34 (http://nyti.ms/vMIFfW). What could cause that kind of change over that relatively short period of time?”
The short answer is: nothing. The point of the NYT article was the ridiculousness of Ham’s claim. Wolves and foxes are not that closely related. Their lineages diverged from each other some 7-10 million years ago. You can find the phylogenetic tree of canids here:
http://www.angelfire.com/in/wolfblud/canineevolution.htm
This brings us back to the post hoc notion of hyper-evolution proposed by some YECs today as a way to get around the problem of fitting all of the known species onto an Ark with a biblically-defined size. This is an idea that is completely without evidential support and the idea goes like this. Because the size of the Ark was explicitly set out in Genesis, this creates a problem for anyone who wishes to claim that Noah collected all the animals two-by-two. Because today we know of literally millions of species, it doesn’t take much to realize that they all would not fit onto the Ark. So, creationists try to resolve this dilemma by saying that Noah only collected “created kinds”, which are defined as ancestral forms of the millions of species we see today. This would decrease the number of animals required on the Ark by 100 or 1000-fold, after which, there is proposed to have been a rapid radiation of species to get to where we are today. Talk about mental gymnastics! But you have it exactly right to question the idea that all of the various canid species from foxes to wolves have evolved in the last 4500 years since the flood. If such a thing was possible, then on what reasoned basis can creationists argue against common ancestry of all species over a much longer time-frame?
Like or Dislike:
0
Loo: “What can you tell us about psudo-genes? Specifically in humans and Chimps.”
I neglected to address your question about pseudogenes. Pseudogenes are interesting in that they tell us where we have been in an evolutionary sense. These are genes that no longer function. That is to say, they have been allowed to mutate to a state of non-functionality because a species shifts to a new environmental niche that allows it to survive without a particular gene, or set of genes. In the absence of selection pressure to maintain function, any mutation that breaks a gene is not culled out of the population and may end up spreading through the population. This has happened many times in evolutionary history. A well-known example in primates is the GULO gene, which encodes an enzyme required for the production of vitamin C. In most mammals, this gene is functional, but in apes, including humans, it is broken (mutated to non-functionality). Thus, it is referred to as a pseudogene. Interestingly, the inactivating mutations in the primate GULO genes are identical, arguing that its inactivation happened once in an ancestral primate. It is likely that the arboreal lifestyle of primates, which provides a diet rich in vitamin C allowed for the loss of function of the GULO gene. This is only a problem today for humans who do not eat enough fruits.
http://www.proof-of-evolution.com/pseudogene.html
Another example of pseudogenes are the olfactory receptors. Many mammals have a large number of genes (about 1000) that encode receptors that allow them to smell a wide variety of odors that humans cannot smell. This is not because we do not have the same genes, it is because most of our olfactory receptor genes (about 70%) have been allowed to mutate to non-functionality. We rely far more on our eyesight than our sense of smell. An extreme example of loss of olfactory receptor gene function is the cetaceans (whales and dolphins). These are mammals, and there is abundant evidence that they evolved from four legged mammals about 45 million years ago, returning to an aquatic life-style (their closest living relative is the hippopotamus). Because there is not much to smell in the air of the open ocean, nearly all of the 1000 olfactory genes of these animals have been allowed to mutate to non-functionality. As I said, pseudogenes tell us about our evolutionary history.
http://sysbio.oxfordjournals.org/content/57/4/574.long
A more general discussion of pseudogenes can be found here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/
Like or Dislike:
0
I found that bit about the GULO gene interesting. Glover also got into that in the YouTube series I posted. There is some interesting stuff there. If you haven’t seen it, it is a 16-part series that starts at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fperp1Mezt0.
Are you aware of the intelligent design arguments of irreducible complexity? What are your thoughts on that?
Like or Dislike:
0
Daniel: “Are you aware of the intelligent design arguments of irreducible complexity? What are your thoughts on that?”
Indeed. I was invited to write a review of Michael Behe’s book “The Edge of Evolution” for the Reports of the National Center for Science Education. In brief, my assessment of the Intelligent Design crowd is that they offer nothing but God-of-the-gaps arguments. These are whines about perceived inadequacies of evolutionary theory to explain the emergence of X, Y, or Z. What is lacking in the ID discourse is anything resembling a testable hypothesis that would move it into the realm of science.
I provide in this review a treatment of the concept of irreducible complexity and explain why it does not a barrier to step-wise evolution. We can discuss it at greater length, if you wish.
http://ncse.com/rncse/27/1-2/review-edge-evolution
Like or Dislike:
1
i believe that the nested hierarchical structure of living things is an important issue in the discussion. because life doesn’t look anything like any intelligent designer we are familiar with except those who use genetic algorithms to design.
designers swap modules, in fields from computer programming to auto design, people are loath to redesign/reinvent the wheel. we want to use past designed, functional, debugged pieces to design with.
yet life never does this (well not quite never see syncythin, an RV protein co-opted to build placentas), even if a parasite has a working structure a creature can not simply borrow it. eyes are created a bit differently dozens of times. life designs only using what is available in it’s lineage. this is a BIG POINT, if God designed life directly he did so making it look evolved, not anything like we understand design.
yet swapped modules are a big part of mythology, chimeras like the sphinx are so naturally part of our human imagination, yet they never occur like this in nature. the designer doesn’t reuse good designed structures but rather redesigns and rebuilds the wheel over and over again.
Like or Dislike:
0
Dr. Levin,
I have not been able to keep up with all of the posts here, so hopefully this is not a duplicate question, so forgive me if I have missed something here.
I can understand the similarities between chimpanzees and man genetically, but what caused man to begin thinking, acting and living in ways that chimps still don’t? And why haven’t chimps progressed? And where are the evolving links between man and chimp, that are commonly called the ‘missing links’? Shouldn’t we be seeing some of those half man, half chimp type beings by now?
Like or Dislike:
0
I realize that ID doesn’t produce any testable hypothesis of their own, but I’m not sure what to do with the number of changes that would seem to be required in order for some new series of traits to become a new functional system. Take gills to lungs (or lungs to gills) for example. A simple random genetic mutation just doesn’t seem to explain that to me. Seems to me that changes of that magnitude would require some kind of cause or design. Can you address how to explain the large changes like that?
Like or Dislike:
0
The concept of irreducible complexity (IC) states that any system (molecular pathway or machine) that ceases to function when any of its parts are removed cannot possibly have evolved in a step-wise manner, because it will not function until the last part is in place. This is a barrier to step-wise evolution by natural selection because there is nothing to select for until the whole thing is in place.
There is an obvious logical flaw to this argument that, in effect, denies the possibility of evolution in its premise. The claim is basedon the assumption that the system has always existed as it does today, with all parts of the system being essential from the start. The moment one allows for the possibility that an essential component was not always essential, the claim implodes. The fact is that for each and every supposedly IC system trotted out by the ID folks, there exists a simpler system. Whether it’s the immune system, the blood clotting pathway, the bacterial flagellum, or anything else, we know of simpler systems. How can there exist simpler versions of an irreducibly complex system? The answer is that these systems have been built up over time from very simple systems by the addition of new parts that eventually became essential. You cannot look at a highly refined system as it exists today and assert that it could not have evolved from a much simpler system.
Like or Dislike:
0
I see. It is kinda like the arguments that try to show the extreme odds of the fine tuned universe. It assumes that all life must look like or be like OUR life.
Like or Dislike:
0
mbaker: “And where are the evolving links between man and chimp, that are commonly called the ‘missing links’? Shouldn’t we be seeing some of those half man, half chimp type beings by now?”
This is a common misperception of evolution. Man is not evolved from chimps. They both evolved from a common ancestor that is no longer living. Think of both modern forms at the ends of twigs that meet on a common branch of a tree and the common ancestor as the connecting point at the base of the twigs. Would you expect those two points at the tips to be connected? Of course not. We know of many transitional forms on the lineage to humans– Ardipithecus ramidus, Austalopithecus, Kenyanthropus, Paranthropus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, etc. These extinct species all reside along the length of the twig leading to modern humans after their divergence from the twig leading to modern chimps.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution
Like or Dislike:
0
Dr. Levin,
“Man is not evolved from chimps. They both evolved from a common ancestor that is no longer living.”
Interesting that you should say that, because that is what many of us wonder about the commonly supposed theory of evolution, at least as most of us have heard it, that we have evolved either from gorillas or chimps.
And that ”no living ancestor’ is what? I am not asking from defending the typical creationist viewpoint, but I think Darwinism has confused many of us, and turned us off from accepting any scientific point of view, so perhaps you can enlighten us.
Like or Dislike:
0
Dr Levin,
I have read a good deal of this exchange but have not commented here until now either. I haven’t read all of the back and forth you have had today. Just haven’t had time to keep up.
But I did notice that in one of your very first comments you made the remark that humans are descended from apes, but you are also saying we did not evolve from chimps.
I take it that you are saying that there was a definite ape of some sort in the distant past that both humans and chimps, and I would assume the other modern forms of apes, have descended from?
Like or Dislike:
0
Cherylu: “I take it that you are saying that there was a definite ape of some sort in the distant past that both humans and chimps, and I would assume the other modern forms of apes, have descended from?”
Exactly!
Like or Dislike:
0
Daniel: “Take gills to lungs (or lungs to gills) for example.”
I love these questions! I’m just trying to keep up. Lungs didn’t evolve from gills. The earliest “fishapods” (eg. Tiktaalik) had both lungs and gills. Lungs appear to have evolved from swim bladders, but that remains speculative.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik
Like or Dislike:
1
mbaker: “And that ”no living ancestor’ is what?”
Good question. The common ancestor between humans and chimps has not been found. The closest we have to that is two Ardipithecus species, both on the human lineage, which are dated to about 4.4 and 5.6 million years old. This is shortly after the divergence of the chimp and human lineages from each other at about 6 million years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardipithecus
Like or Dislike:
0
The Tiktaalik story is a very interesting one, because its discovery fulfilled another testable hypothesis set out by evolutionary theory. I can expand on this, if anyone is interested.
Like or Dislike:
0
Dr Levin,
If this common ancestor has not been found, how can you be so certain that it did indeed exist and that we do indeed come from this unknown ape from the past?
I understand what you said earlier about the chimp and human DNA unless you wrote more after I stopped reading because of time constraints. But if there is no visible proof of this common ancestor, may it not be true that there are other explanations for the DNA similarities then common ancestry?
If you have covered that in the comments I missed, please feel free to say so and I will find the time to look back until I find it.
Like or Dislike:
0
Thanks for the RE-education, Dr Levin. Too many of us have a closet full of straw men in our understanding of the topic. I appreciate your patience.
Like or Dislike:
0
Dr. Levin,
You said:
“Good question. The common ancestor between humans and chimps has not been found. The closest we have to that is two Ardipithecus species, both on the human lineage, which are dated to about 4.4 and 5.6 million years old. This is shortly after the divergence of the chimp and human lineages from each other at about 6 million years ago”
So what makes you so sure?
Like or Dislike:
2
I strongly agree with the original post here, but need to add that anti-evolutionary ideas are destructive and the extreme mangling of science and logic that is required to maintain young earth views in particular leads to dishonesty. Let me introduce you this idea with an essay that I wrote a while back. The quotations are not meant as arguments from authority, but as examples of traditional Christian thought. The references to the newness of ye theology are not meant to disparage it due to it’s first origins in a particular small denomination (The Seventh Day Adventists) and recent resurgence in the sixties after the demise of the young earth idea, but rather to remind us that other destructive Christian fads and misinterpretations have come and gone. As such, Christianity and the Gospel will withstand the cultural phenomena of anti-evolutionary ideas. The question is how many people will be hurt while we fight back the attacks on the gospel from YE followers?
“I don’t think that there’s any conflict at all between science today and the scriptures. I think that we have misinterpreted the Scriptures many times and we’ve tried to make the Scriptures say things they weren’t meant to say, I think that we have made a mistake by thinking the Bible is a scientific book. The Bible is not a book of science. The Bible is a book of Redemption, and of course I accept the Creation story. I believe that God did create the universe. I believe that God created man, and whether it came by an evolutionary process and at a certain point He took this person or being and made him a living soul or not, does not change the fact that God did create man whichever way God did it makes no difference as to what man is and man’s relationship to God.”
-The Rev. Billy Graham
I am an evolutionary creationist. As a follower of Christ, I believe that descent with modification speaks eloquently of the biblical God who created the system. As a scientifically literate person, I accept that natural selection has been overwhelmingly evidenced. Just as the validity of atomic theory is shown by the innovations which would not be possible if it were not true, evolutionary theory is proven accurate by the many advances and discoveries in genetics, epidemiology, medicine and other fields which would not be possible else wise. In example, the work of Dr. Francis Collins would not have been possible without tools that are only available if gradual descent with modification from common ancestors is true. Dr. Collins is an evangelical Christian who was the head of the international human genome mapping project and the team that first found genes for cystic fibrosis, Huntington’s disease and others. He now leads the NIH. Attempts by Christian anti-evolutionary theorists to pit the Bible against science are insulting to the creator, harmful to people, display a lack of familiarity with science and the Bible and, perhaps most importantly, demonstrate a lack of faith.
I believe that the founders of Answers in Genesis and similar anti-evolutionary organizations are well meaning brothers in Christ. But, we should be clear that their opinions are neither biblically, nor scientifically sound and are damaging. They seem to claim that in order for the Bible to be true, it must be read using their selective understanding of the intent and meaning of biblical passages. The “Statement of Faith” of Answers in Genesis reads “Scripture teaches a recent origin for man and the whole creation, spanning approximately 4,000 years from creation to Christ.” In order to sustain this idea, the evidence of physics, geology, anthropology, chemistry and biology must be ignored or rewritten. This can drive honest, thoughtful truth-seekers away. I was initially driven from belief in the biblical God. I was convinced by my church that I had to dispute clear and well documented science in order to consider the Bible truthful. I know many who would like to embrace Christ, but have not recovered from such teachings. In order to assign a length to the Biblical narrative one needs to make many assumptions about biblical genealogy and gaps without knowledge of their time-span. Anti-evolutionists have often attempted to suppress teaching of fields of science that call their claims into question. This is detrimental to society. Our country is sliding into scientific illiteracy. Countries that have embraced scientific education, such as Brazil, China and India are challenging our nation economically. Young-earth theorists also deprive their followers of the joy of seeing the beauty of dynamic creation, which illustrates the character of God.
It appears that the underlying theological error of the anti-evolutionary camp is a lack of faith. Their attempts to “prove” their philosophy seem motivated by a desire to prove God. It is the same error made by Christians who expect to see God frequently set aside the natural laws he created and perform indisputable miracles. Theologians have traditionally held that God does not often provide signs and wonders. The Bible is clear on this point. If God were to skywrite “I exist. This is how you should live” in a way that could not be understood as other than an act of God, free will would be violated and faith rendered moot. Christian belief is that we have the choice to believe. Requiring proof of God, rather than allowing choice, demonstrates a lack of faith. God has created a set of natural systems through which he usually chooses to act in such a way that we can see his nature, but not in such a way as to force us to believe. Why would we want to distort his image and force people to believe in a lesser God who does not desire us to seek him of our own free will?
If you have questions on how natural selection and other areas of science fit with the Bible or how they have been demonstrated to be reliable, a good place to start is with Dr. Collins BioLogos foundation. http://www.biologos.org If you have been told that there is scientific evidence for a young earth, there are innumerable Christian and non-sectarian publications that dispel such impressions. A traditional Christian analysis, that the first chapter of Genesis is an illustration of creation, rather than a textbook, can be documented at least as far back as the 2nd century writings of Origen. He was the theologian primarily responsible for the collection of the canonical New Testament. The modern anti-evolutionary movement began in 1961 with the publication of a book called “The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and its Implications.” It resurrected a largely forgotten young-earth timeline, once proposed by Ellen G. White of the 7th Day Adventists. Forty years of this mistake is too long. It is time to put this misleading and destructive Christian fad to rest.
Like or Dislike:
0
Also, for your consideration. I realize that many folks of the young earth and intelligent design persuasions have not considered how their views contradict basic Christian theology. So, I thought I’d share this with you as well.
Why Evolution is the system of creation that best fits with Christian ideas.
The traditional Christian view of God is that God is constantly involved with his creation on an intimate and routine level. At the same time, theologians have held that “miracles” in which God sets aside the routine workings of nature he devised are infrequent. By the way, I use “he” only in the universal sense here. The Bible does not attribute a gender to God, other than in clear metaphor, so far as I know. Frequent, incontrovertible miracles (or routine proof of God) are seen as violations of our free will to choose God and as events that would render faith moot. We are told that if God were to simply skywrite “I exist and this is what you must do” that we humans would have little choice, but to believe. Thus, we believe that weather patterns, in example, with their inherent stochastic noise are an example of a system that God created and can intervene in, but generally leaves to function as they were created. God is also seen as outside of time, space and the material universe, but able to interact with out physical world, as God chooses. We are also told, and I believe that, the wonders of our physical world, the intricate beauty, complexity and patterning speak of Gods creative nature, that our world is a canvas on which God is painting something beautiful, although many of the steps may be messy. Further, we postulate that the painting is alive.
On origins, Deists postulate a God who designed the laws of nature, but then left the mechanistic universe to function on its own, without further input. This is tied to Newton’s billiard ball, mechanistic view of the universe in which if you knew the original locations and trajectories of the universe you could start it in motion like clockwork and predict future actions backwards and forwards through time. We still hold some of that view, but have come to accept that, although we can increasingly know something of the mechanism, we often cannot know the specifics well enough to predict all of the outcomes. An anti-evolutionary perspective on biological creation is deistic. It postulates that God created the universe, the workings of nature and humans ex nihilo and other than miraculous interventions is no longer involved in creation.
A Deistic view presents a couple of challenges for Christian theology. If God is loving and designed the entire system to run precisely like clockwork without any trial and error elements, than he designed it badly. There have been many species that have died out. Perhaps more than currently exist. Why? Why create species that would not be a final product and whose genes may not have contributed to a final product? Questions like these are best understood by the nature of evolution. Deistic views also do not fit with an involved God and are a bit hard to reconcile with a God who allows choice.
“God of the Gaps” theories are theories that hold that Gods working exists only in places where the mechanistic laws and actions of life and the universe are not observable. Deism in both the humanistic and anti-evolution forms (such as young-earth anti-evolutionism) is by definition a God of the Gaps view that places God only at the start of creation. The form of anti-evolutionism known as intelligent design looks for areas in which we are, as of yet, unable to determine how nature might work and places God in those spaces by attributing miracles or proof of design only to the places in which we cannot yet understand cause and effect naturalist explanations. One of the problems with a God of the Gaps theories is that the parts we cannot describe naturalistically continue to get more distant as we understand more. Whether you place God, as creator, only at the beginning of the universe or in the questions on how evolution and other mechanisms work, God gets smaller and farther away as we learn more and the time “before” our knowledge is pushed farther back and the areas where we have unanswered questions on the mechanisms of creation get smaller. Another problem with any God of the Gaps view is that it violates classical Christian thinking on the nature of God by 1.) requiring God to supply “signs and wonders”, that is incontrovertible proof of Gods existence and 2.) removing God from the routine involvement with Gods creation when God chooses.
In contrast to Deist and God of the Gaps views, biological evolution provides a means for God to routinely be involved in dynamic creation on the physical plain and to do so without frequent events seen as miracles. That is to say biological evolution is uniquely suited to the historically postulated nature of the Christian God. Natural selection works on genetic variation. Genetic variation arises through recombination events, transposition and mutation. All of these are stochastic or chaotic events that we might call random. We can understand rules as to how they work and even look at forces that may drive them to one or more most likely ends, but we cannot predict which particular new genetic variation will occur. Given the evidence that on the subatomic level we will never be able to do more than statistically place an electron in a “cloud,” we may never be able to do more than give a statistical measurement of the likelihood of a given mutation or genetic outcome from recombination, much less a series of mutations and environmental pressure over evolutionary time. If God chooses one seemingly random mutation or linkage event over another, how would we know, especially if the system itself usually functions without Gods input. If over time those changes and other similar, seemingly stochastic processes, such as the rise of this disease or that local environmental event are used to sculpt a given, intended outcome, we’d be unable to tell. Dr. Kenneth Miller has described this as a tool by which God can make minute changes that can be subtly amplified to speciation and beyond in his book “Finding Darwin’s God.” This allows an area that is basic to the development of new species, where God can routinely work across deep stretches of time that are “but as a day to God” to develop creatures that God chooses without overly revealing Godself in too frequent miracles.
Natural selection itself and genetic drift provide additional opportunities for God to work behind the scenes and without disturbing the evolutionary mechanism God designed. If Dr. Simon Conway Morris, FRS is right that convergent evolution suggests that some traits such as camera like eyes and complex human like brains are favored by as yet un-elucidated selective mechanisms or “engineering requirements”, that and the design of the other mechanisms in nature is yet another (although first cause) place where God can work. In this view, based on evolutionary biology and other natural mechanisms with stochastic elements, God is indeed intimately and continuously at work at the basis of all creation. God can let the programs run their course or nudge them without flagrant intervention as often as the artist chooses.
Like or Dislike:
0
Please, do tell us more about the Tiktaalik. BTW: If you are on facebook and would like to join our facebook group, Celebrating Creation by Natural Selection, please do.
Like or Dislike:
0
Daniel,
Did you follow my posts on nested hierarchies? It’s not an easy concept to get across. I can take a different tack if my previous attempt did not resonate.
Like or Dislike:
2
Agree with “extreme mangling of science and logic that is required to maintain young earth views in particular leads to dishonesty”.
So much untruths (“discovery of noah’s ark”, “man & dinosaur footprint” and the alike) are being propagated within the evangelical churches in the name of the Truth, that I don’t know what kind of “lovers of Truth” we truly are.
Like or Dislike:
1
Cherylu: “If this common ancestor has not been found, how can you be so certain that it did indeed exist and that we do indeed come from this unknown ape from the past?”
We do not have to identify every intermediate form that ever existed to know that it existed. First, we have a large collection of transitional forms between the (as yet) unknown common ancestor and modern man, and a similar collection of transition forms between this common ancestor and modern chimps. With each new find we fill in another transitional form. Given that we have a lot of species along both branches after their divergence from the last common ancestor, what is it about the particular species that we would call the last common ancestor between chimps and humans that you imagine to be so important to the veracity of common ancestry?
Second, we know from the DNA evidence that chimps and humans evolved from a common ancestor. We do not need a fossil form of this extinct common ancestor to know that it existed. In fact, if we had no fossils at all, the genomic data would be sufficient to confirm common ancestry.
Like or Dislike:
1
mbaker: “So what makes you so sure?
That Ardipithecus is not the last common ancestor between chimps and humans? I am not a paleontologist, so I am not as familiar with this line of evidence as I am with others. However, as we walk backwards in time through the various transitional forms from modern humans to the unknown common ancestor and similarly from modern chimps, we see those forms converge on a sort of mix between the two. Note that the fossil forms have been dated independently, so their ages are known. As the known transitional forms approach that point of convergence, it is possible to construct a rough expectation of what that last common ancestor should look like. Of course, the more forms that are found, the more refined our expectation becomes. My understanding is that Ardipithecus is a more human-like than chimp-like hominid.
Like or Dislike:
1
David,
Thank you for the invitation. I don’t spend a lot of time on Facebook, but I might just do that.
About Tiktaalik, many creationists assert that evolutionary theory is not testable science, but that is a demonstrably false statement, as I hope my posts regarding the many testable and validated predictions of evolution are showing. Tiktaalik is another fine example of a prediction made by evolutionary theory that was validated by observation.
In 2004, Neil Shubin of the University of Chicago found the first fossils of this predicted transitional form between fish and terrestrial tetrapods in sedementary rocks of Ellesmere Island, Canada. This was not just a chance find. Shubin was looking for this predicted transitional form. The thinking was this: previous paleontological evidence suggested that the transition of lobe-finned fish to four-legged creatures happened between 365 to 380 million years ago. This came from the observations that fully formed early tetrapod fossils were known from rocks aged to 365 MYA, and lobe-finned fish fossils with hints of tetrapod features dated to 380 MYA. Shubin decided to look specifically in rock layers from ancient shallow waters that dated to 375 MYA. This is where they found Tiktaalik, which is a clear transitional form between lobe-finned fish and tetrapods.
http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/
This is a fine example of a testable hypothesis generated by evolutionary theory, followed by validation of that hypothesis by novel discovery.
Like or Dislike:
2
I am not sure if this is the correct place to post this comment. I don’t understand the controversy and amount of discussion given to creation vs evolution/science. I was brought up in a very devout protestant household (parent was a minister). I have always been able to separate my spiritual life from my physical life. Why would I deny what science is constantly learning in regards to how life has evolved? I surely depend on the miracles of science to solve my medical needs. I don’t think you can pick and choose. It is what it is ……the main thing is the main thing.
I don’t feel that in the large picture of our time in this life that God wants, needs, demands that we make science work in scripture. It seems that each one of us should somehow make our little tiny part of the world a little bit better than when we entered it. Spending so much time on this controversy may be keeping the scientist from the next great medical cure or the creationist from teaching a child to read.
Perhaps this is not an intellectual response, but I just think there are more important issues to solve.
Respectfully,
LP
Like or Dislike:
0
@Dr Levin: Yes, I believe I followed most of your stuff on nested hierarchies. Going to have to re-read it when my brain is a little fresher. Same goes for David E’s posts. Lots there to digest. I’d second Other David’s invite to the Facebook Group for folks interested in this topic. They’ve been very patient with some of my questions so far.
I do have a question along the line of Cheryl’s though. Hers was how do you know it exists if you don’t have it. Mine is how do you know you’ve actually found it? Considering that a lot of these finds are bone fragments that seem to lead to artist’s renderings of questionable accuracy, just how can you tell? Can you actually get DNA from the material? Is it primary dating of it that tells you when/where it falls in the family tree?
Like or Dislike:
1
re:
About Tiktaalik, many creationists assert that evolutionary theory is not testable science, but that is a demonstrably false statement, as I hope my posts regarding the many testable and validated predictions of evolution are showing. Tiktaalik is another fine example of a prediction made by evolutionary theory that was validated by observation.
the story of naked mole rats is another interesting prediction.
from:
http://ncse.com/rncse/17/4/predictive-power-evolutionary-biology-discovery-eusociality-
quote:
“Alexander described this social vertebrate in a series of guest lectures at North Carolina State University, University of Kansas, University of Texas, Colorado State University, Arizona State University, University of Arizona, and Northern Arizona University at Flagstaff in 1975 and 1976. At Flagstaff, mammalogist Terry Vaughan suggested to Alexander that his hypothetical eusocial rodent was a “perfect description” of the naked mole-rat Heterocephalus glaber.”
but read the whole essay.
Like or Dislike:
0
Daniel: “Mine is how do you know you’ve actually found it? Considering that a lot of these finds are bone fragments that seem to lead to artist’s renderings of questionable accuracy, just how can you tell? Can you actually get DNA from the material? Is it primary dating of it that tells you when/where it falls in the family tree?”
These are good questions. First, it is impossible to know if a particular fossil actually belongs to a direct lineal ancestor to modern species without its DNA. It may, for example, be from an individual that never reproduced and is therefore, not ancestral to anything. Alternatively, it may be from a very closely related species to the direct ancestor, but which is actually on an extinct lineage. Put simply, the goal of paleontology is to assemble as accurate a picture of the history of life on earth as is possible by identifying extinct life forms and fitting them into their proper place in the tree of life. It is not to find direct lineal ancestors of living species, as it is almost always impossible to do this.
In general, it is not possible to get DNA from fossils. Therefore, paleontology is based on the morphology gleened from the fossil forms. Obviously, the better the preservation of morphology, the more information a fossil provides. You are correct that in many cases, fossil finds are very fragmentary and are of limited value. However, in many other cases, highly preserved specimens provide a wealth of information. There are many examples of complete, or nearly complete fossil skeletons from a wide variety of species. Some even preserve the imprint of feathers or skin in the rock.
Second, primary dating is a very important tool to assist paleontologists to know where a particular fossil fits into the evolutionary scheme. Dating information is combined with morphological information to determine where a fossil fits into the tree.
Third, there are examples in which it has been possible to recover DNA from extinct species. Mammoth DNA has been sequenced. Perhaps more importantly, Neanderthal DNA has been isolated from 40,000 year-old bones and sequenced in its entirety recently.
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/retrieve/pii/S096098221101270X
There are some important insights from these data that tells us something about who they were and who they were not. One of which is that Neanderthals represent a separate human-like species with different mitochondrial DNA. But the genomic data now indicate that there was significant interbreeding between the two species.
Like or Dislike:
0
Richard,
Yes, the RNCSE piece you linked is very interesting. I had not seen it before. Thanks.
Like or Dislike:
1
Dr. Levin, #38/pg. 6: “In brief, my assessment of the Intelligent Design crowd is that they offer nothing but God-of-the-gaps arguments.”
Given your answer above and your lack of response to my earlier questions:
“Are you a follower and a disciple of Jesus Christ? If so, can you describe theologically where you are in your relationship to Jesus Christ?”
That you are not a theistic evolutionist or an evolutionary creationist (which seem to be interchangeable terms). [If you wish to make an outright denial, by all means, please do so.]
So, Dr. Levin, staunch atheistic evolutionist, what would you say to Dr. Copan who says: “I also mention in the book that the fundamental issue to discuss with scientifically-minded non-Christians—the main thing—is not “creation vs. evolution”; rather, it is the question of “God vs. no God.””
Dr. Copan to Dr. Levin: “The question is God vs. No God.”
Dr. Levin: ………..?
Like or Dislike:
2
If you have a problem with his facts, TUAD, address them. Otherwise, PLEASE stop the trolling and recognize from your past attempts at this line of interrogation that a man of science isn’t going to stoop to your fallacious tactics. As the recent Geisler fiasco shows, the level of one’s spirituality has nothing to do with the level of their accuracy. Perhaps you can learn something from that.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
4
the moralization of scientific epistemology.
one of the fascinating aspects of YECists argumentation is the constant desire to add a moral component to scientific epistemology, that is, unless one is a Christian, in fact one of their acceptable kinds of Christians, an unknowable small subset. they can not understand the world rightly.
and the answers to their provacative “are you a …. Chritian?” overrides all education, publications, hours of intense study etc etc. all that matters is you are their “right kind”
given that Christianity is fragmented into so many small competing pieces that claim to be following the Bible and science is this extraordinary human enterprise that transcends nation, language, ethnicity etc, i find their efforts odd.
i can go anywhere in the world and hear the same biology lecture, yet i can not go across the street from my church and hear a sermon that is even close to what i hear from my pastor.
do you really want to moralize scientific knowledge given the track record of the churches who are by Jesus’ very command to love one another? yet can not even approach the kind of unity seen in the world of science?
as far as i can tell, science has by far obeyed the Lord’s command to express unity than any church has ever approached. perhaps it has something to do with the questions it asks?
Like or Dislike:
2
Exactly right, Richard. Given the church’s past history on science, and given how the church can’t even agree on theology, it makes no sense to impose some kind of spiritual threshold that someone must exceed before we listen to their science. I hope every participant here has a personal relationship with Christ. But truth is not exclusive to someones preferred fundamentalist denomination. If Romans 1 tells us anything at all, it tells us that we can look at the creation for truth, and that truth is revealed to non-believers as well as believers.
Like or Dislike:
1
Dr. Levin,
In addition to #16/316 above, what would you say in reply to Dr. Copan when he says:
o “I typically highlight the following two points when speaking with naturalists.
1. If humans evolved from a single-celled organism over hundreds of millions of years, this is a remarkable argument from design!”
o “Many naturalists will simply deny design at every stage (and for all of them). It seems that no matter how much the odds are ramped up, design would never be acknowledged—an indication that the issue isn’t scientific after all. This is a theological and philosophical issue.”
o “At any rate, from the literal outset (the beginning of the universe) the falsity and folly of an “evolution did it all” explanation is apparent.”
Like or Dislike:
1
Evolution is a BIOLOGICAL model. It doesn’t even speak to the beginning of the universe. As Paul says, trying to come up with a biological cause for cosmology is “folly”. I do like your question on design though. I think the ID folks go too far in their alleged examples of design, but I do agree that the whole process seems too fantastic to just be random chance.
Like or Dislike:
0
TUAD,
With all the sycophantic adulation and idolatry of theistic and non-theistic evolutionary pandering here, your best bet is to move on. With Daniel as the self-appointed moderator and adjudicator of every single post, why waste your time?
Like or Dislike:
0
Steve,
Daniel may be moderator on another site connected with this, but it does not mean:
‘With Daniel as the self-appointed moderator and adjudicator of every single post, why waste your time”
Although Daniel and I don’t always agree, this is a particular interest of his, and I think he has asked honest questions, Why not answer him on that basis? Isn’t this what P and P is about in making this an open forum for everyone to do that?
Just want to ask you a question here: Why do you resort to ad hominem attacks instead of really dealing with the question Paul Copan has asked here on the OP?
Can’t you?
Like or Dislike:
0
@Mbaker: I don’t know of *anyone* that agrees with me all the time. LOL That’s fine though. It is what makes us individuals and not lemmings. That being said, had I been actually acting like a moderator around here, I would have handled things more differently than just some polite requests and reasoned arguments.
This is Michael’s site. He makes the rules. And since he ALSO created Theologica and laid out the rules there, I think it is safe to say that his goals for conversation are well documented. One of those primary goals is IRENIC conversation. As he defines it, “You are kind, gentle, respectful, and understanding, accurately representing opposing parties, even when you disagree.” Another is not being closed minded. Or, as he says it here (http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/blog-rules/), “In everything, be courteous and respectful. This does not mean that you agree, but take the extra time to write with tact, making the most of the opportunity.”
We ALL need to recognize that we are fallible and approach complex topics like this one that has such a long history of different views with the attitude of a humble student and not the all-knowing professor, and basically treat each other with respect. It is what Christ would do. And it is what Michael expects of us. Logical arguments and a loving spirit are going to win a lot more people than condemnation that does nothing more that stroke our own egos and cause division. We are called to defend our faith, not attack others for not having it.
Like or Dislike:
0
Not to sure whether I got spanked or what in that last post, but really don’t care. This is not personal to me but if I’m going to take up my valuable time to comment here, I would hope that we could all get back to the real issue of the OP, otherwise I’m not interested in continuing, because otherwise it does a disservice to Paul Copan and those of us who are interested in keeping the ‘main thing the main thing’ and not getting sidetracked in side issues.
Thanks.
Like or Dislike:
0
No spanking…just encouragement. And you were not the one needing it. LOL
I have another question for Dr Levin, if he hasn’t been chased off. You mentioned about how some dating methods are not valid on stuff under 2MY old. Can you discuss just how we know the accuracy of the dating methods? Just what are the assumptions involved in something dating to 100,000 years or so, and how can we really know if it is that old?
Like or Dislike:
0
Great conversation guys. Too much for Paul or I to moderate thought. You can continue this at our other community site http://theological.ning.com.
More Comments: