Origins TheologyForum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums.
Though I haven't read Collins' book, I understand he makes a god-of-the-gaps argument for God as the neocreationists do. Any comment on that?
__________________ We can allow satellites, planets, suns, universe, nay whole systems of universes, to be governed by laws, but the smallest insect, we wish to be created at once by special act.
Though I haven't read Collins' book, I understand he makes a god-of-the-gaps argument for God as the neocreationists do. Any comment on that?
I didn't catch that when I read it. I read it years ago and wasn't looking for that though, so maybe it is in there.
__________________ For free printable drum lessons with audio check out my website. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Though I haven't read Collins' book, I understand he makes a god-of-the-gaps argument for God as the neocreationists do. Any comment on that?
There are a lot of youtube videos of Francis Collins doing a presentation based on the same content of the book, in there (and i believe in the books) he even addresses the possibility of some of his statements being a "god of the gaps." He does give the clear impression that his belief in God isn't based on these ideals, but that as of current science they are things that point to a God. Like C.S Lewis (and he specifically quotes Lewis in a lot of cases) he believes that atheism is the most illogical of beliefs... that there is no supernatural divine... if it's supernatural then we can never prove or disprove it. We may see thi ngs that point to it but never confirm or completely deny it. So Collins would never suggest anything natural completely validates the supernatural.
Specifically this is some of his statements about the multiple constants in physics that must be amazingly precise for our universe to ever result in intelligent life like us... So he suggest that these constants at the point of the big bang may in fact be signs of God. The best thing about Collins is not only that he's one of the top geneticists in the world and a devout Christian (that combination lends Christianity a lot of street cred you can argue) but that he is a very reasonable and level headed person, I really enjoy watching his presentations, at least the online videos of them, (and enjoyed his writing) since he talks about things that he is educated on and he makes statements but doesn't try to cliam absolutes and exclude anyone completely.
Am going to read John Collins' The God of Miracles on my long plane flight tomorrow. Interesting fellow. The regulars will know that I use his exegesis of Genesis 1-4 quite heavily in my own origin theology.
He seems to come to a conclusion at the end of the book that the intelligent design programme is quite allowable. Scandalous!
__________________
And who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? - Origen, 215AD [De Principiis 4.1.16]
In all you do, do it for Christ and w/ Him in mind
35
Join Date: 12th April 2004
Location: Bossier City, LA (removed from his native South Carolina)
Posts: 9,760
Blessings: 7,305
My Mood
Reps: 390,015,776,044 (power: 390,015,791)
Originally Posted by ScottyK
Howdy all,
I accept evolution and an old earth as true. I don't have a problem with you if you disagree with me, but that's not the point of my post, so please hold your persuasion for another thread.
I have several friends, though, who are YECs. I was wondering if anyone knew of a good book (or books) that gives a wholly Christian perspective on evolution and an old earth.
What I've seen a lot of in books on this subject include:
Non-Christian or mixed-faith perspectives (Christian Buddhism, Unitarian Universalist, etc) that are not grounded in Scripture.
Disrespectful attitudes (Perhaps entertaining for an evolutionist to read, but such attitudes are not about to convince someone from the other tent).
Copious amounts of verbosity (400+ pages of Biblical commentary, analysis, and opinions).
I'd like to find a book that is reasonably short (200 pages or less, if possible), contains a respectful attitude toward YECs, and uses Biblically based arguments (in addition to solid science) to show how evolution and an old earth are true.
Does such a book exist?
Thank you in advance!
Scott
Hugh Ross' books discuss old earth theories.
John Sanford, a world renowned geneticist. writes a superb book on the genetics of evolution. It's called Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome. I highly recommend this book to those who have a little science background.
__________________
1 Cor 4:6 Do not go beyond what is written. Then you will not take pride in one man over against another.
"Don't be a system disciple. Be a disciple of Christ. You might get to Heaven & realize your system was not His system."-Wiersbe
It isn’t ‘giving in to sin’ to disagree w/ love & kindness. ‘Giving in to sin’ is speaking w/o love & kindness.
Love is our mandate. Eph 4:32 2Tim 4:2 1Cor 13
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Don't be afraid to read the standard college texts on evolution. Read both Christian sources and secular sources. Your best bet is to understand the subject from all perspectives and as thoroughly as possible. These texts will usually add a chapter or at least a few paragraphs ridiculing people of faith. Just skip these. It is important to understand the science. You just need to remember that all science is presented through the minds of people with biases and worldviews.
I use the term to refer to post-George McCready Price creationists who hold to his idea that the Bible is scientifically accurate and can be verified by using science. It's a term that encompasses most modern YECs, OECs, Gappers, etc., to the exclusion of evolutionary creationists.
What is a "god-of-the-gaps argument"?
It's an argument that takes the following form:
"Because structure X is complicated, it could not have evolved, and therefore must have been miraculously assembled by God."
Originally Posted by OrdinaryClay
These texts will usually add a chapter or at least a few paragraphs ridiculing people of faith.
In all my years in university, I have yet to see a single biology text that ridicules people of faith. Which texts are you referring to, specifically?
__________________ We can allow satellites, planets, suns, universe, nay whole systems of universes, to be governed by laws, but the smallest insect, we wish to be created at once by special act.
I use the term to refer to post-George McCready Price creationists who hold to his idea that the Bible is scientifically accurate and can be verified by using science. It's a term that encompasses most modern YECs, OECs, Gappers, etc., to the exclusion of evolutionary creationists.
Your clump in the first sentence does not seem to fit with your clump in the second sentence. Everyone outside of evolutionary creationists do not hold the Bible to be a science text. You seem to think that evolutionary creationists hold a privileged place in the world of biblical and scientific knowledge.
So you think Collins is a neocreationist?
It's an argument that takes the following form:
"Because structure X is complicated, it could not have evolved, and therefore must have been miraculously assembled by God."
What do you understand Collins to have made such an argument for?
Your definition allows miraculous gaps to still exist I assume? I mean it is easy to qualify the argument such that X is more then just complicated. Would you still call someone who believed in miraculous gaps a "gapper".
In all my years in university, I have yet to see a single biology text that ridicules people of faith. Which texts are you referring to, specifically?
Perhaps ridicule is a matter best resolved between the writer and the reader.
Last edited by OrdinaryClay; 6th July 2009 at 02:18 PM.
Reason: added neo
Your clump in the first sentence does not seem to fit with your clump in the second sentence. Everyone outside of evolutionary creationists do not hold the Bible to be a science text. You seem to think that evolutionary creationists hold a privileged place in the world of biblical and scientific knowledge.
YECs, OECs, Gappers, etc. by and large believe that the Bible describes a scientifically and historically accurate picture of the physical world. They just disagree about the details. This stems from their predisposition towards concordism. Evolutionary creationists, on the other hand, largely reject that hermeneutic and rely instead on an accommodationist approach to the Bible. So in this sense, yes, ECs are different.
So you think Collins is a creationist?
He is in the sense that he believes in a creator.
What do you understand Collins to have made such an argument for?
Like I said, I haven't read his book, so I don't know whether he makes such an argument or not. That's why I asked. I'm only going by what I've heard.
Your definition allows miraculous gaps to still exist I assume?
Certainly. But they tend to be filled quickly by scientific progress.
Would you still call someone who believed in miraculous gaps a "gapper".
My use of the word "gapper" refers to those who subscribe to gap theology in Genesis. Not to those who subscribe to God-of-the-gaps theology in general.
Perhaps ridicule is a matter best resolved between the writer and the reader.
Do you feel ridiculed when a science text posits a natural explanation for something you believe to be of miraculous origin?
__________________ We can allow satellites, planets, suns, universe, nay whole systems of universes, to be governed by laws, but the smallest insect, we wish to be created at once by special act.
Linear Mode
