Genesis, Evolution, and God the Creator

[Ariston]

@ Papias and gluadys

Thank you for your thoughts. I am well aware of the present consensus of the scientific community but on the basis of that purported consensus, I find evolutionary theory (for macro-evolution) to be problematic on the empirical evidence. The articles generally written are concerned primarily with adaptation within living species and the purported evidence within living species is undercut by paleontology. Paleontology is, so it seems to me, is in deep conflict with biology. So said Charles Darwin,

"The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, (must) be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."

So where are we one hundred and fifty years later?

1. There are a purported 8.7. million species today.
2. There are a predicted 1-4 billion extinct SPECIES (if macro-evolution is true).
3. There are countless billions of fossils in existence today.
4. There are only hundreds of possible transitional fossils.
5. Fossils regularly date back hundreds of millions of years (our oldest allegedly being 3.4 billion years old).

So the difficulty arises in that while we have countless fossils, many that are very, very old, we find over and over again, only species from (1, present day species). However, if macro-evolution is true, the vast majority of species that have ever lived, have lived prior to modern times. Thus, the majority or at least many many more species would be represented in the one place where macro-evolution could be empirically verified. So, we have apparently a blatant scientific falsification for macro-evolutionary through the absence of not finding support in the place where we should find verification (empirical evidence in the fossils. So, some of the leading paleontologist express this concern:

"The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be modified or discarded as a result of more detailed information. What appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and less gradualistic." - David M. Raup

I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualize such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it… Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin's authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils… It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favored by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test. - Colin Patterson (a correspondence letter from the senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History).

The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of
paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. - Stephen J. Gould

The gaps in the fossil record are real, however. The absence of a record of any important
branching is quite phenomenal. Species are usually static, or nearly so, for long periods, species seldom and genera never show evolution into new species or genera but replacement of one by another, and change is more or less abrupt. - Wesson

So, I am not Roman Catholic but I love to read the Church Fathers. (They thought through theology and articulated Christian doctrine far better than do modern theologians it seems). Often, they make reference to the various Greek philosophical schools of their day or to the ancient Greeks. And though it is not until Darwin that we have a documented theory on the basis of inference from empirical observation (changes within species), evolutionary belief as an explanation for the various species is to be attributed to the ancient Greek philosophers.

This is my point: if the secular scientists are largely philosophical naturalists (or theists who tend to only grant natural explanations or except macro-evolution since so do their colleagues who disbelieve in a God who acts within the world), then evolution will become a pillar of necessity to support a philosophical belief. There are no other games in town on naturalism. Christians do not have to, as a matter of principle, explain modern species and ourselves through gradualism and so can follow the evidence where it leads (even if it is against evolution). If the evidence for it is good, I say that we ought to accept it. But we do not have to accept it on the basis of philosophical necessity.

Here I am pointing out that there is a serious problem, not merely since I have Christian beliefs that appear to be in some tension with it at points (for example, humans as God's image bearers or the Fall, where God and his creation are separated as a result of iniquity) but because it appears to be a falsified on the natural sciences. (There is a lot to consider for me here in regarding theology). Nevertheless, the texts must be interpreted distinctly from any pressure from the natural sciences. The texts do not seem to me proper to be read in a straightforward literal fashion.

If one holds to naturalism fervently, then macro-evolution is true necessarily since there are no other possible explanations to life as we presently observe it. And so it appears to me to be held by its proponents as unfalsifiable dogma which is opposite to how the scientific method is suppose to proceed (where criticism is encouraged for revising theories). You will notice that no criticism of this theory is allowed, I think, since for the naturalist, it is the only theory acceptable. The concern for me in embracing macro-evolution is that it appears to be embraced regardless of evidence as a result of the assumption and belief in philosophical naturalism. Leading biologists who are educating the public on macro-evolution (Jerry Coyne and Richard Dawkins for example), and watch this very closely, will make the excuse in some form or another, that we should not have found these transitions anyway (not that we have many) for various reasons. But of course we should have found them - millions and millions of them. We have more fossils than we can cope with. The numbers do not merely not add up in support of macro-evolution. The evidence is in sharp contrast to what we should expect to see if this theory were right. So, what I am suggesting is that macro-evolution is held by naturalist as a necessary dogma indistinguishable from an article in the Apostles Creed. If the article is rejected, naturalism collapses. So many respectable Christian scientists believe in evolution as I well know but I think that this has more to do with assimilating naturalism with Christian belief (I think in some cases to avoid social conflict or tension with peers) than it does with the sciences themselves. So, it can hurt our witness since our culture sees the scientists as their authority. I understand the awful tension and appreciate that you and other Christians are aware of it. Nevertheless, that tension cannot be the grounds for me holding and teaching others that macro-evolution is true. My belief needs to correspond to the evidence on such a issue, regardless of consensus views (which never fare well with the times anyway). So it seems that paleontology has provided a falsification for macro-evolution or at least, the evidence needs to be stronger for macro-evolution for me to be convinced.

 

[Ariston]

@ gluadys

Very thoughtful and helpful points on the reading of the text and the discussion about mythic literature. However, I was not conflating science and philosophy. There is no tension with evolutionary theory and theism in my view. I was pointing out that there is at least apparent (perhaps superficial) tension between Christian theology and macro-evolution since questions regarding especially any notion of a Fall away from God seems meaningless if we accept macro-evolution. (Although perhaps there is other ways of apprehending the Fall). There are several views held by theologians but nevertheless, there is some tension. Was there never a world in harmony with God? Was there ever a Fall? What do we mean by a Fall? What about humans being God's image bearers? Does God uniquely impart a spirit to humans by which we can know him and choose good and evil when human species arrive on the scene? These ideas seem important to Christian doctrine and we have to think about whether they are in some way compatible with evolution if we think that evolution is true (which I highly doubt for reasons independent of my Christian beliefs).

 

[gluadys]

@ gluadys

Very thoughtful and helpful points on the reading of the text and the discussion about mythic literature. However, I was not conflating science and philosophy. There is no tension with evolutionary theory and theism in my view. I was pointing out that there is at least apparent (perhaps superficial) tension between Christian theology and macro-evolution since questions regarding especially any notion of a Fall away from God seems meaningless if we accept macro-evolution. (Although perhaps there is other ways of apprehending the Fall). There are several views held by theologians but nevertheless, there is some tension. Was there never a world in harmony with God? Was there ever a Fall? What do we mean by a Fall? What about humans being God's image bearers? Does God uniquely impart a spirit to humans by which we can know him and choose good and evil when human species arrive on the scene? These ideas seem important to Christian doctrine and we have to think about whether they are in some way compatible with evolution if we think that evolution is true (which I highly doubt for reasons independent of my Christian beliefs).

You seem to be making a distinction between "theory of evolution" and "macro-evolution". But theory of evolution includes macro-evolution and macro-evolution is directly implied by the theory of evolution. It is also supported by all the evidence we have about the process of evolution both in the present and from the past. So, the first thing I would say is that you are apparently trying to make a scientific distinction which it is not possible to make.

As regards the Fall, this brings in a theological truth about human nature (we are sinful beings in disaccord with the intention of our creator and prone to act against his will and to the detriment of our human and non-human neighbours.). There is nothing science has to say one way or another about that. So it is really improper in a sense to ask how macro-evolution does or does not fit with that concept.

What we can say is this; we have two truths. We have a scientific truth of evolution (including macro-evolution) and a theological truth of the fall of humanity away from fellowship with God. One does not cancel out the other. Macro-evolution is scientifically true, whether or not the Fall is true. And the Fall is theologically true, whether or not macro-evolution is true.
So, acceptance of the facts of science on macro-evolution means, for a Christian, that both are true and cannot be in contradiction.

So it is not a matter of "whether they are compatible with evolution". They must be compatible with evolution. No doubt it will take some deep thinking to bring that compatibility to light, but in the assurance that God is God of all truth, both scientific and theological, we can embark on the project of showing that is the case. You have already referred to some of the suggestions that are being made along this line.

 

[gluadys]

@ Papias and gluadys

Thank you for your thoughts. I am well aware of the present consensus of the scientific community but on the basis of that purported consensus, I find evolutionary theory (for macro-evolution) to be problematic on the empirical evidence. The articles generally written are concerned primarily with adaptation within living species and the purported evidence within living species is undercut by paleontology. Paleontology is, so it seems to me, is in deep conflict with biology.

Then you need to learn more about paleontology from paleontologists themselves. Paleontology is in no way contradictory to evolutionary biology and is an important part of it. You could begin by going to the original sources of the various citations you posted and reading these snippets in context. Indeed what most of your post tells me is that virtually all you have learned of paleontology you have gleaned from sources that rely on feeding you mined quotes and hiding the actual position on evolution which the paleontologists themselves hold.

Every single one of the items you posted are standard misrepresentations of actual science and if they are the source of your perplexities, the cure is to learn what these same scientists really intended you to hear.

One trick quote-miners use is to rely on the pattern of a scientific paper. The standard outline of a scientific paper is something like this:
a) set out a problem
b) refer to attempts to date to solve the problem
c) show how these attempts, while providing some knowledge, still leave one or more questions open.
d) outline a hypothesis that will shed light on at least one of these questions
e) describe how to put that hypothesis to the test through field work and/or experiment.
f) describe the actual implementation of the field work and/or experiment
g) record the data produced
h) analyze the data in relation to the hypothesis
i) develop a conclusion
j) outline additional research to be done in this area.

Obviously the most important part of such a paper are sections h) and i) This is where the scientist tells you what he or she has actually concluded based on the data gather in research.

But what quote-miners do is cite parts of a) b) and c). In short they focus on what the scientist says is a problem but don't tell you that the scientist has proposed a solution to that problem in the rest of the paper.

So take the citation from Darwin. Go to an online source of Origin of Species. Find the paragraph you cited, and you will quickly see that it occurs at the very beginning of his discussion of the fossil evidence--just where you would expect it in the outline above. Then keep on reading and look for how he provides an answer to this very problem.

Another technique of quote-miners is to take a citation about a particular issue in paleontology and imply that it undermines the whole theory of evolution. The citations from Raup, Gould, Patterson and Wesson fall into this category. In fact Gould was involved in two controversies at once, and they tended to get confused.

These citations are actually about "gradualism" (does evolution always occur gradually or does the rate of evolution vary according to circumstance? In the latter case, how much rapid evolution can we expect the fossil record to capture?") about the mode of speciation (cladistic or phenetic) and about the relative importance of natural selection vis-a-vis historical contingency in macro-evolution.

Taken in context all of these scientists actually agree that paleontology provides ample evidence of macro-evolution and are not arguing against it.

So don't rely on snippets supposedly showing shortcomings in evidence for macro-evolution. Almost invariably they will be misleading mined quotes whose alleged force against evolution will be dissipated by going to the source and reading in context. IOW don't quote Gould until you have read his own work for yourself and understood his position. He was most incensed at the way his work was misused by anti-evolution creationists. Same goes for the others. You might want to check out the whole story of the Patterson citation in The Quote Mine Project Quote Mine Project: "Large Gaps"

This is my point: if the secular scientists are largely philosophical naturalists (or theists who tend to only grant natural explanations or except macro-evolution since so do their colleagues who disbelieve in a God who acts within the world), then evolution will become a pillar of necessity to support a philosophical belief. There are no other games in town on naturalism.

Since this is a forum on theistic evolution, I don't know that the philosophical standpoint of secularists is relevant. It is not evolution as viewed by materialists that concerns us, but evolution as it may be legitimately viewed by Christians. However, your conclusion doesn't even hold for secularists. For example, the philosopher Michael Ruse, himself a secularist, published a work "Can a Darwinian be a Christian?" (Note the reversal of the usual order. Christians are wont to discuss whether Christians can be Darwinians, so it is interesting to see that one can also discuss the matter from the other direction.) He examined all the philosophical implications of evolution and compared them to the philosophical implications of Christian doctrine as expounded by the most renowned Christian theologians from Augustine through Aquinas up to modern times. And although he is not a believer himself, he could find no philosophical implication of evolution that is incompatible with Christian faith. So he would stand against the anti-religious philosophy of a Richard Dawkins and say there is nothing to prevent a Darwinian from also being a devout Christian. And he is not the only non-believer to take this position. So there is probably less pressure on Christian biologists and paleontologists that you are assuming.

Christians do not have to, as a matter of principle, explain modern species and ourselves through gradualism and so can follow the evidence where it leads (even if it is against evolution).

Well, that freedom is by no means limited to Christians. It is open to all scientists. The whole issue of gradualism in evolution became a cause celebre under the aegis of Stephen J. Gould and his colleague Niles Eldredge, neither of them Christian. Furthermore the issue of gradualism was never about being against evolution.

If the evidence for it is good, I say that we ought to accept it. But we do not have to accept it on the basis of philosophical necessity.

The evidence is very good or non-existent depending on what you understand macro-evolution to be. If your understanding of what macro-evolution is departs from what scientists understand it to be, the evidence will seem to you to be irrelevant and unconvincing. So the first thing is to clarify what you mean by "macro-evolution" and what you would see as convincing evidence.

Let me give you an example: Not too long ago a couple of anti-evolution creationists pooh-poohed the idea of transitional fossils because we had no example of a crocoduck (half crocodile-half duck). Even a competant lay person could have told them that if the theory of evolution is true, no crocoduck could possibly have existed ever. IOW, the very thing they demanded as evidence of macro-evolution is forbidden by the process of macro-evolution. They had a mistaken idea of what macro-evolution is.

So my question is whether your view of macro-evolution is any better than theirs. If it is not, then you will be looking for the wrong kind of evidence just as they were. And you will not be convinced by the actual evidence.

Here I am pointing out that there is a serious problem, not merely since I have Christian beliefs that appear to be in some tension with it at points (for example, humans as God's image bearers or the Fall, where God and his creation are separated as a result of iniquity) but because it appears to be a falsified on the natural sciences.(There is a lot to consider for me here in regarding theology). Nevertheless, the texts must be interpreted distinctly from any pressure from the natural sciences.

Yes, but not in opposition to them unless you can show the science is mistaken on scientific grounds. I spoke to this in my previous post.

If one holds to naturalism fervently, then macro-evolution is true necessarily since there are no other possible explanations to life as we presently observe it. And so it appears to me to be held by its proponents as unfalsifiable dogma which is opposite to how the scientific method is suppose to proceed (where criticism is encouraged for revising theories).

It is becoming too common to confuse philosophy with methodology. The methods of science were originally set up by Christians as a way to study creation and do not require commitment to any version of non-theist philosophy. You like to read the church Fathers. It is also worthwhile to read later Christian philosophers like Aquinas, Ockham, Galileo and Descartes who helped establish modern science as a Christian vocation. I fear we have lost a lot of historical Christian understanding on nature in the confusion over evolution. We don't even understand scientific and philosophical writings of the 18th and 19th centuries because we assume references to nature and natural process include anti-theistic overtones which were not part of the meaning at the time. For example, when Darwin referred to "natural selection" he was excluding man not God.

You will notice that no criticism of this theory is allowed, I think, since for the naturalist, it is the only theory acceptable.

Only if the naturalist is also an atheist. If your problem is with atheists, please say "atheists". In fact, Dawkins and Coyne have their critics even among atheists who may agree with their science but not their philosophies or their tactics. Generalizing from the poor examples of one or two people to a supposed conspiracy of suppression is poor logic and counter-factual.

The concern for me in embracing macro-evolution is that it appears to be embraced regardless of evidence as a result of the assumption and belief in philosophical naturalism.

So would you be willing to set aside your reservations on the ground of philosophy and look at the science? After all, regardless of which way philosophy is pushing, it can't decide what the genuine data-based scientific conclusions are. It can only use or misuse those conclusions.

If macro-evolution is a fact, all philosophies, Christian and non-Christian, theist and atheist, must acknowledge that. If it is not a fact, then you may be surprised at how many atheists are more committed to scientific accuracy than to philosophy.

But the only way to establish anything about macro-evolution is to look at science, not philosophy.

So many respectable Christian scientists believe in evolution as I well know but I think that this has more to do with assimilating naturalism with Christian belief (I think in some cases to avoid social conflict or tension with peers) than it does with the sciences themselves.

It is not so much that Christians in science are assimilating atheist naturalism as that, unlike certain segments of Christianity, they have never lost the great Christian theology of nature as God's general revelation to all of humanity in all times and places. They have never viewed natural explanations of causes and effects as anti-God or set up a false dichotomy of nature and God.

Unfortunately, many Christian lay-folk today,--even many clergy who should know better--react to terms relating to nature as if it meant "God had no hand in this." That is extraordinarily bad theology and the blame for it is squarely in our own court as Christians who failed to hold to the faith of our ancestors. We should stop blaming atheists for our own faults.

My belief need to correspond to the evidence on such a issue, regardless of consensus views (which never fare well with the times anyway). So it seems that paleontology has provided a falsification for macro-evolution or at least, the evidence needs to be stronger for macro-evolution, for me to be convinced.

Well, Papias and myself and many others here can show you that the evidence for macro-evolution is rock-solid scientifically and that the falsifications you attribute to paleontology are groundless and actually non-existent.

Our experience and that of many other Christians is that there is no tension between paleontology and other facets of evolutionary science, nor between macro-evolution and Christian theology. The only tension is the one you first set out: between one mode of interpreting scripture and the scientific view of the history of life on earth--including our own pre-human history.

 

[Ariston]

Ariston - a question for you. In your understanding of how to interpret Genesis, would you agree that the interpretation we arrive at should be the interpretation that the original audience (depending on when the oral tradition started, either the ancient Hebrews, or if the oral tradition started later, Israel, or maybe even only the Kingdom of Judah) would have understood? Genesis seems to contain two creation accounts stemming from two different traditions, if you follow source criticism.

I see that Genesis, and most of the bible, is like an onion with many layers. Perhaps the ancients understood only the surface level and there were deeper truths they missed? I'm not sure.

But the question is - are we to gleen from the text only the interpretation the ancients had, or, can we peel back the onion? And if we can peel back layers of the onion, are we able to (in a post enlightenment world) discard that outer layer?

I've asked this question of Christians before with a mixture of responses. Some have pointed to the original audience of Paul's writings on eschatology, and said that because they interpretted in error (they thought He would return in their lifetime) but were wrong in that interpretation, that any solid hermeneutic should not be wedded to the original audience's understanding.

As you can see, I'm a bit confused about what to do here.

Sorry Sayre. I just got to this. So here is my take. First off, I don't think that they were hopeful that Christ would return imminently. They lived there life with that hopeful expectation. I am not of the mind that they predicted a return in their lifetime. It is a timeless example for us I think. We should live like that. I am aware of the source criticism (Priestly, ch. 1, Yahwist, ch. 2). There would have been an original audience who would have read the text in a particular way and the text would have been compiled and read in a particular way and then served a particular function within the Jewish communities. One of the primary functions was that it functioned as a polemic against paganism. So for example: the moon and stars are not to be worshiped. The sun and moon are great lights, God made the stars also. Animals and humans are not to be worshiped. We do not make gods in our image. God made us in his image. The texts are concerned with a rejection of contemporary paganism and emphasizing the one God who by himself and for himself created through forming our world alone. He is a God who is involved in the world. It is important in communicating other important and timeless truths. The creation is sourced in God and thus matter is innately good, he delights in the things he has made, human being are valuable and we have a vocation to live in this world to rule over it; not as tyrants but as stewards - image bearing creatures who in the likeness of God reflect him back onto the creation and through whom he mediates to creation. But, from chapter 3 onwards, the story tells of how through celestial and human evil, the creation became the distorted and perverted mess that we find it in today.

On a side, these are some of the areas where the sciences will not help us at all. This is the importance of a revelatory theological narrative about God and us. But then something occurs before Christ. As if the Jews were looking forward to something they could not guess; they had a story without a climax and an ending, persons tried to understand what God was going to do about the powers that stood against them in their day (as we do today): "He freed us from Egypt, but we are still not really free from exile, being ruled by the oppressive Romans. When will the promise of the kingdom of God be fulfilled?"

After it was realized that Jesus was the Christ, the entirety of the Hebrew Scriptures are immediately read in new ways - not because the old ways were false but as if after groping in darkness, the sun rises, in light of him, everything is illuminated and read with new clarity. "Indeed to this very day, whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their minds; but when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed" (2 Cor. 3:15-16). And, "Then beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them the things about himself in all he Scriptures" (Lk. 24:27). Paradise, promise land, return from exile, the Kingdom of God: New creation has dawned and the kingdom has come in the resurrection of Jesus who is the image (think Adam) of the invisible God (Col. 1:15, 2 Cor. 4:4) In Jesus we see what Yahweh is like and so we see what it means to be image bearing creatures. Through faith in Jesus by the Spirit of grace, he is transforming us into that likeness which will be brought to completion on the Day. "If anybody be in Christ, he is a new creation" (2 Cor. 5:17).

So to answer the question without giving a sermon, let us take Ephesians and the instructions of marriage as an example of how Genesis 2 takes on new significance in light of Christ Jesus. It reads,

"Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the Church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the Church."

We now see that woman being taken out of man and the two being united in Genesis is a type of Christ and the Church where Christ is the head and source of the body (the Church) and where we are united to him. The allegory is demonstrated as the bridegroom and the bride elsewhere. No Jew will read the Torah in this way and yet they are reading it with complete propriety. Nevertheless, in light of Jesus, we read the text elucidated: we see Christ and the Church and through Christ as we are "new creation," the Eden story which depicts the harmony and walking with Yahweh God without shame (he bore our shame) as our present state of affairs in Jesus Christ, by whom we receive reconciliation with God. By the Spirit, we walk in the newness of life while we await the redemption of our bodies and the world to come. So there is a new interpretation in light of Christ that was unknown until the text was read through belief in Jesus. With that being said, I am not of the mind that our post-enlightenment culture provides any new perspectives on the text itself. I find it to be timeless and most transforming when we suppress the urge to reinterpret the text in light of modern culture. But that is not to say that we do not seriously need to think about how to relate Christ to an ever changing and confused post-modern culture. Discretion concerning culture is imperative but the message is timeless. Doctrine and practice are derived direct from Christ and the Apostolic preaching. That is my take. That was a bit long but I hope that helps.

 

[Gottservant]

This is false testimony on all five points.

Evolutionists do not say "we came from monkeys". They say we share a remote ancestor with monkeys.

Essentially the same thing. Your comment is reactionary (which is trite, for a "believer")

Evolutionists do not say "we can just mutate". They say we do mutate without our volition or knowledge.

Again which amounts to the same thing.

Evolutionists do not say "we don't sin". They make no statement about sin at all. They neither confirm nor deny that we sin.

You haven't asked them, have you? I have, without bias, and that is exactly what they said.

Frankly I'm offended that you think you can speak for Evolutionists and believers alike, so poorly.

Evolutionists do not say "our future is infinite". They recognize the possibility that the human species, like so many before it, may become extinct. They also recognize that all future evolution is constrained by past evolution and we cannot evolve out of our history.

A history which they distort, as if its nothing. Again which is much the same thing as I said.

Evolutionists do not say "we can do what we like". They do not set out moral boundaries nor say there are none.

When will you stop slandering evolution and evolutionists by claiming they make these statements when they do not?

Where there are no moral boundaries, the baseness of man compels him to sin.

It seems you are living in an illusion that your faith is respected by people who have no compunction, even to distinguish your Lord's mother from an ape. And you think I must respect you under the new commandment while you conduct yourself as such? A fool would scoff at both of us.

No, you are making company with the Devil and with Death and in your wilful ignorance the Second Death, so to them part company, if that is your desire.

 

[miamited]

@ Ted

I do not understand. You seem to be suggesting that if we are born-again, then we know that the text is to be read as literal history. Why do you think this?

Hi ariston,

Because my Lord has told me that it is his job to lead me into all truth.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Ariston]

@ Sayre

So this is in response to your critique of what I will call Paleontology vs. Evolution since that was my claim. These are consensus views observable to anyone regardless of religious belief or philosophical persuasion:

1. There are a purported 8.7. million species today.
2. There are a predicted 1-4 billion extinct SPECIES (if macro-evolution is true).
3. There are countless billions of fossils in existence today.
4. There are only hundreds of possible transitional fossils.
5. Fossils regularly date back hundreds of millions of years (our oldest allegedly being 3.4 billion years old).

Now clearly, it seems to me, we should expect to have either more extinct transitional species represented in our fossils than we have living fossils. At least we should find many. You claim that all of the snippets by leading experts in the field are invalid since in the context of their larger work they offer qualifiers. Certainly, if such qualifiers exists, then I would be delighted to be enlightened. So, what is the actual evidence from the fossils or what are the reasons for thinking that we ought not to have found them anyway? Thus far, I have heard no good reasons to account for this apparent conflict.

The quotes that are used do not appear problematic in making the very straightforward point that evolutionary theory is not supported by the fossils and leading biologists and paleontologists who believe in macro-evolution would not find this point disagreeable as far as I can tell. My point was not of course that any of the writers that are quoted find the fossil record problematic for evolution. My question is simply, why not? You did not find provide any answers to my objections and what I have heard from Coyne and Dawkins sound like poor excuses. But among anti-religious naturalists, we should expect the best possible answers. At any rate, I claimed that evolution stands as a pillar in the doctrine of philosophical naturalism and thus is held regardless of the evidence on the basis of necessity. Evolution, so I claimed, finds a defeater from paleontology and this appears to me to be correct.

I also claimed, that it is not open to criticism (not falsifiable) by most laypeople, naturalists or not, who hold it as as dogma. In your response, all I got were assertions that I was wrong. Show me that I am. I put up the original post, not because I thought I had the answers but because I want the right answers. Most scientist reject Goulds Punctuated Equilibrium in favor of gradualism. Clearly, the conflict which is raised here, is with gradualism in mind. Here, the evidence from fossils is not consistent with gradualism. I have no doubts that the naturalists can harmonize the data and conclude that we ought not to have empirical evidence anyway and write a book about it.

Now clearly, as a matter of scientific investigation, as I have previously stated, it is important to leave aside philosophical and theological positions in determining how to interpret the data. That will incidentally include naturalism. Though Aquinas, Ockham, Galileo, and Descartes are relevant to the relation of Christian belief and the natural sciences, they are irrelevant to Darwinism (here meaning evolution via natural selection including speciation) as distinguished from micro-evolution (variations within all living species) or the observation of adaptation within species if Dawinism (speciation or common decent) is not scientific which is what is being contested. So, the relation to Christian belief and the sciences, though important, is besides the point that is being raised. I entirely agree that evolution should be entirely a matter of scientific investigation. I am afraid that it is nothing of the sort. So, with that being said, besides the dogmatic assertions that I am wrong, can you please show me that I am, so that, if it so befitting, I can change my mind? Certainly assertions do not pass for good science. I want to be able to reason from the observable data and thus hold a belief on the basis of at least circumstantial evidence. I am not attacking a belief nor do I hold any position dogmatically. I simply want to know the truth.

 

[Ariston]

Hi ariston,

Because my Lord has told me that it is his job to lead me into all truth.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

The Spirit does lead us into all truth. But does he teach us the specific ways in which texts are suppose to be read? I find it very difficult to think about the days of creation as literal. God bless you in Christ too.

 

[miamited]

Hi again ariston,

Further, besides having the assurance that the Holy Spirit is doing in my life exactly what Jesus said, leading to all truth and convicting of sin and righteousness in my life, God has actually given a few clues in the account of the creation that 'locks' it in for me.

Those who don't know the truth will try to explain that they word 'yom' just can't be positively understood as meaning a roughly 24 hour day. They are correct! But God, who created all languages and nations knew that in the beginning, and so He used the same contextual clues that are still accepted today when Jews write the word 'yom'. He also knew that He was writing to mankind and since I know that it is one of His greatest desires that we know the truth, I fully and faithfully understand that He put those clues in there for the very purpose that we might know and understand the truth of 'how' we got here.

First, God numbers the days and still to this day any Jewish linguist will tell you that anytime the word 'yom' is associated with a number, that it is defining a roughly 24 hour day. EX: Three days in the tomb. Everyone understands that God didn't mean to infer that Jesus would be in the tomb for some unknown millennia of time. Three days. God said that the rains came down upon the earth for 40 days. He doesn't expect us to understand that it rained for some indefinite period of time that He was going to describe to us as 40 days. When Isaac was born, he was circumcised when he was eight days old. Not some undetermined period of time but after 8 rotations of the planet.

So when God's word says that on the first day... He meant for us to understand that it was a roughly 24 hour day. The first day never has been used to describe an indefinite period of time such as an age.

Secondly, God further defined each of those days as consisting of an evening and a morning. Never, ever, ever has the word 'yom' when defined as an evening and a morning ever, ever meant anything other than a natural day just as we have today.

Now, many clamor, but wait, wait... How can you have 'days' without a sun or moon to define those days or even to define the evening or the morning. Well, again let's look at what those words actually define. Jupiter has 63 moons, but if we want to know how long a day is on Jupiter do we wait and see when the sun rises on the horizon and then moon comes up and the sun rises again. NO! To determine the length of a day we merely mark a spot on the planet Jupiter and allow that spot to go around as the planet spins on its axis and when it gets back to the place where we first marked that spot we say that a day has passed.

The definition of a day, as far as length of time, has never had anything to do with the rising of the sun or moon. Neither has evening and morning had anything to do with the rising or setting of the sun or moon. Evening and morning are nothing more than two God ordained halves of the period of a day. As a matter of fact we still say good morning to people that we meet at 4 a.m. and the sun is nowhere in sight. How can it be morning if it is defined by the rising of the sun and the sun hasn't risen yet?

So, God has really given quite a few clues for us to be able to understand that the days of the creation were nothing more than the rotation of the earth upon its axis. Finally, we find that God did twice later use the very same example of the six days of creation later in His word.

Now, the reason people don't want to accept that God meant for us to understand the days of creation as real days, is because science claims to have proven that it is impossible. But, here again, God has given His children a fair warning about the wisdom of man. He has told us that He will make foolish the wisdom of the wise.

So, I have both the assurance of the Holy Spirit and God's word in agreement with each other. For the world that's of no consequence and even to be mocked, also what we are warned of in the Scriptures. Jesus also said about the world and the Holy Spirit that the world just doesn't understand.

So, is science wrong? Yes. They don't know it and you sure aren't going to convince them of such because these things are spiritually discerned. But yes, the scientific community is wrong. And there are those among us, just as there were those in the days of the disciples that Peter wrote to us of, who don't understand the things of God. Peter gave fair warning to these men that they distort the Scriptures to their own destruction. But be assured, that didn't stop those men that Peter was writing about in his day and it isn't going to stop those same people in these days. As a matter of fact, if we believe the Scriptures, it is going to be much, much worse as we move closer to the very last days.

The Scriptures foretell of a very great apostasy that will rise up in the last days. Now, I'm assured that this isn't going to be something that just pops up one day. No, not at all. This apostasy will begin small and grow and grow as more people begin to accept the lie rather than the truth.

There are more 'proofs' that I can give you, but honestly these require even greater conviction of the Holy Spirit than the ones I have mentioned here.

Just stick around and you'll see just exactly what I'm talking about as the responses to this pour in.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[miamited]

The Spirit does lead us into all truth. But does he teach us the specific ways in which texts are suppose to be read? I find it very difficult to think about the days of creation as literal. God bless you in Christ too.

Hi ariston,

Listen, you don't seem to understand. Truth is truth! God either did create this entire realm of existence in six days or He didn't. It has nothing to do with how you or I or anyone else 'reads' the text. It is either true that God created this realm in six days, each numbered and consisting of an evening and a morning, or it isn't.

How one chooses to 'interpret' the text, however, is always up for grabs. Don't confuse differing interpretations with 'truth'.

Your finding it difficult to believe, doesn't have any bearing on what is the truth? When I was born again I fell on my knees and I cried out to God to give me wisdom and understanding of His word by the power of the Holy Spirit. I mean I begged Him for days on end and still nearly every time I open the Scriptures to study I put out that same cry. You might try that if you'd really be interested in knowing the power of the Holy Spirit.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Sayre]

Is this a true myth?

...the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.(Luke 3:38)

I think that genealogy is allegorical.

Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. (Romans 5:14)

I see Adam as a type of all mankind - representative of me and you. Not literal (I don't believe in an actual Adam, he is just a character in a story).

God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation (Acts 17:24–26);

Not sure why you highlighted this passage to me. Is there something in here that an allegorical reading of Genesis 1 and 2 might make problematic?

But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. (2 Corinthians 11:3)

Paul draws an analogy here between Eve and us. The fact that Eve is a character in a story, like the boy who cried wolf is a character in a story, doesn't make the point any less valid.

For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. (1 Timothy 2:13–14)

I think to honour this text you need to put it in a broader context, because the surrounding verses explain how we are to interpret these verses.

Do you choose to deprecate the New Testament witness regarding creation along with the testimony of Moses, clearly written to be an historical narrative.

Depreciate? Not sure how I am depreciating anything. I note that my interpretation honours God as the Creator just as yours does. The narrative Moses (well... I reject Mosaic authorship, but that is for another thread) delivers is not depreciated because it is allegorical, otherwise... are you suggesting that Jesus teaching through parables is somehow inferior to teaching through history? Have you considered why Jesus chose to use parables to teach when He could have been more direct?

What are the hermeneutic principles that justifies calling the Old Testament a myth?

Yeah, I didn't say "The OT is a myth". It is quite annoying to have my claims sensationalised and made more emotive than they should be. But nonetheless, I will try to answer. Recognising the structure in Gen 1 is a good start. Recognising the context of the scriptures as pre enlightenment, in a time when creation stories were common, recognising how the original audience interpret the scriptures, etc. Also, literal interpretations contradict the very next chapter and I don't think the ancients were that stupid.

We are admonished to have nothing to do with myths in the New Testament:


nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. These promote controversies rather than God's work--which is by faith. (1 Timothy 1:4)

This is not what I mean when I say myth and I think the "myth of myth" has been adequately addressed already in this thread.

Have nothing to do with godless myths and old wives' tales; rather, train yourself to be godly. (1 Timothy 4:7)

as above

In between these two dire warnings to avoid godless myths Timothy teaches us from the Genesis account, specifically mentioning the order of creation. It hardly seems likely that Timothy regarded the Genesis account of creation as a myth. Luke calls Adam 'son of God', that is because he was created and had no earthly ancestry.

There are two options here. I prefer the first - that Luke is making a didactic point, drawing on a character in a familiar story, or second - that Luke was operating with the interpretation of the time, which could have been wrong. But if you read scripture for theology, and not for science, then there is no consequence of Luke being wrong about the science of creation so long as he is right about the theology of creation.

So I ask you, do you deprecate the testimony of the New Testimony along with the Genesis account of creation?

You are bordering on being a jerk now. The NT speaks frequently of God as the Creator and I believe He was the Creator. His identity as Creator is important for theology, how His creative actions played out is not important.

Is this a 'true myth'?

Now when He had spoken these things, while they watched, He was taken up, and a cloud received Him out of their sight. (Acts 1:9)

Clearly not.

Make no mistake, the worldly philosophies which are 'arguments of science, falsely so called' (1 Timothy 6:20), have produced a mythology that rivals that of any from the ancient world. Is this a 'true myth'?

BY firm immutable immortal laws
Impress'd on Nature by the GREAT FIRST CAUSE,
Say, MUSE! how rose from elemental strife
Organic forms, and kindled into life...

..."ORGANIC LIFE beneath the shoreless waves
Was born and nurs'd in Ocean's pearly caves;
First forms minute, unseen by spheric glass,
Move on the mud, or pierce the watery mass;
These, as successive generations bloom
New powers acquire, and larger limbs assume;
Whence countless groups of vegetation spring,
And breathing realms of fin, and feet, and wing.​

(The Temple of Nature, By Erasmus Darwin)
Have a nice day
Mark

Just so you know, I am not an inerranist. I don't go to church or otherwise participate in the body of believers outside of my own personal study. I'm simply a Christian "seeker", and interacting with boffins like you who sensationalise my comments and fail to rationally address the topic makes me very hesitant to join in fully in the Church. As much as people like glaudys makes me feel like I can personally be intellectually honest in my search, people like you make me feel like my honest search will never be tolerated within the walls of the church building. Even if all these issues were to be sorted out and we could prove without a doubt that evolution and Christian faith were compatible, it is clear that being right, and being welcomed, are not the same thing.

I guess that was a long way for me to say... please try not to be such a pompous jerk next time.

 

[Sayre]

@ Sayre

So this is in response to your critique of what I will call Paleontology vs. Evolution since that was my claim. These are consensus views observable to anyone regardless of religious belief or philosophical persuasion:

1. There are a purported 8.7. million species today.
2. There are a predicted 1-4 billion extinct SPECIES (if macro-evolution is true).
3. There are countless billions of fossils in existence today.
4. There are only hundreds of possible transitional fossils.
5. Fossils regularly date back hundreds of millions of years (our oldest allegedly being 3.4 billion years old).

Now clearly, it seems to me, we should expect to have either more extinct transitional species represented in our fossils than we have living fossils. At least we should find many. You claim that all of the snippets by leading experts in the field are invalid since in the context of their larger work they offer qualifiers. Certainly, if such qualifiers exists, then I would be delighted to be enlightened. So, what is the actual evidence from the fossils or what are the reasons for thinking that we ought not to have found them anyway? Thus far, I have heard no good reasons to account for this apparent conflict.

The quotes that are used do not appear problematic in making the very straightforward point that evolutionary theory is not supported by the fossils and leading biologists and paleontologists who believe in macro-evolution would not find this point disagreeable as far as I can tell. My point was not of course that any of the writers that are quoted find the fossil record problematic for evolution. My question is simply, why not? You did not find provide any answers to my objections and what I have heard from Coyne and Dawkins sound like poor excuses. But among anti-religious naturalists, we should expect the best possible answers. At any rate, I claimed that evolution stands as a pillar in the doctrine of philosophical naturalism and thus is held regardless of the evidence on the basis of necessity. Evolution, so I claimed, finds a defeater from paleontology and this appears to me to be correct.

I also claimed, that it is not open to criticism (not falsifiable) by most laypeople, naturalists or not, who hold it as as dogma. In your response, all I got were assertions that I was wrong. Show me that I am. I put up the original post, not because I thought I had the answers but because I want the right answers. Most scientist reject Goulds Punctuated Equilibrium in favor of gradualism. Clearly, the conflict which is raised here, is with gradualism in mind. Here, the evidence from fossils is not consistent with gradualism. I have no doubts that the naturalists can harmonize the data and conclude that we ought not to have empirical evidence anyway and write a book about it.

Now clearly, as a matter of scientific investigation, as I have previously stated, it is important to leave aside philosophical and theological positions in determining how to interpret the data. That will incidentally include naturalism. Though Aquinas, Ockham, Galileo, and Descartes are relevant to the relation of Christian belief and the natural sciences, they are irrelevant to Darwinism (here meaning evolution via natural selection including speciation) as distinguished from micro-evolution (variations within all living species) or the observation of adaptation within species if Dawinism (speciation or common decent) is not scientific which is what is being contested. So, the relation to Christian belief and the sciences, though important, is besides the point that is being raised. I entirely agree that evolution should be entirely a matter of scientific investigation. I am afraid that it is nothing of the sort. So, with that being said, besides the dogmatic assertions that I am wrong, can you please show me that I am, so that, if it so befitting, I can change my mind? Certainly assertions do not pass for good science. I want to be able to reason from the observable data and thus hold a belief on the basis of at least circumstantial evidence. I am not attacking a belief nor do I hold any position dogmatically. I simply want to know the truth.

Hey - I think this might be directed towards the wrong person .

 

[Papias]

Ariston, thanks for the detailed response.

First:

Ariston wrote

I am not Roman Catholic but I love to read the Church Fathers.

Oh, Sorry. My mistake.

Thank you for your thoughts. I am well aware of the present consensus of the scientific community but on the basis of that purported consensus, I find evolutionary theory (for macro-evolution) to be problematic on the empirical evidence.

But being that it takes a career in a scientific field to understand a fraction of the evidence in just that one field, much less the huge body of knowledge when you add all the other fields, you cannot possibly know much of the empircal evidence.

David M. Raup.... Patterson

Um, these are (well known, and often debunked) creationist quote mines - where creationists have taken lines out of context so as to deceive (in addition to them both being out of date - they're from the 1970s). I'm sorry that you have been fooled by the liars who quotemined these and presented them to you as relevant.

I could give the the details, but you are clearly a thoughtful and intelligent person, and would probably rather investigate them yourself. I encourage you to do so.

What to the geologist actually say about the fossil record? Here is a consensus statement from a the Geological Society of America, which includes many thousands of geologists and is the main geological society in the world.

The rock record is a treasure trove of fossils, and by 1841, eighteen years before Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species, geologists had not only assembled much of the geologic time scale from physical relationships among bodies of rock, but they had also recognized that fossils document profound changes in life throughout Earth's history. Darwin showed that biological evolution provides an explanation for these changes. Since the time of Darwin, geologists have continued to uncover details of life's history, and biologists have continued to elucidate the process of evolution. Thus, our understanding of life's evolution has expanded through diverse kinds of research, much of it in fields unknown to Darwin such as genetics, biochemistry, and micropaleontology. In short, the concept of organic evolution has not only withstood the test of time — the ultimate test of any scientific construct — but it has been greatly enriched.
​

The upshot is that if geologists really did see any kind of significant mismatch between universal common ancestry (evolution) and the geological record, they would have mentioned it, instead of saying the opposite.

The articles generally written are concerned primarily with adaptation within living species and the purported evidence within living species is undercut by paleontology. Paleontology is, so it seems to me, is in deep conflict with biology.

Which articles? Most of them? There are literally hundreds of paleonlological articles published every year (maybe every month). How many have you read that you are basing this on? Do you mean now to talk about biological articles (since only a small percentage of paleontological articles talk about intra-species evolution, most are at least between species, and often families, genera, and so on). There are tons of biological articles demonstrating macroevolution (at the species level or higher). I can provide some if you like.

So said Charles Darwin,

"The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, (must) be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."

So where are we one hundred and fifty years later?

As shown above, after 150 years the fossil record has spectacularly confirmed common ancestry. There are abundant cases of clear transitions confirming the family tree of all life found using other methods. In fact, all fossils found have been consistent with the overall prediction of this tree of life.

"Transitional fossils" are common depending on defintion. Many, many fossils show the expected biological transitions, such as from reptile to bird, reptile to mammal, early mammals to today's families, and so on. Because all fossils fit into the tree of life in expected ways, most of them show transitional features and are thus transition fossils.

1. There are a purported 8.7. million species today.
2. There are a predicted 1-4 billion extinct SPECIES (if macro-evolution is true).
3. There are countless billions of fossils in existence today.
4. There are only hundreds of possible transitional fossils.
5. Fossils regularly date back hundreds of millions of years (our oldest allegedly being 3.4 billion years old).

So the difficulty arises in that while we have countless fossils, many that are very, very old, we find over and over again, only species from (1, present day species).

What? There are tyrannosaurs, tiktaaliks, pteronodons, etc, alive today? Please, take me to your zoo! I must have misunderstood what you meant.

Thus, the majority or at least many many more species would be represented

Remember that fossilization is rare. Only a tiny fraction of animals (and plants) alive at a given time are fossilized. Nonetheless


in the one place where macro-evolution could be empirically verified.

No, univerisal common ancestry (UCA) would be well confirmed even if there were no fossils let today. A plethora of other scientific fields confirm not just UCA, but the same family tree of life. These include biochemistry, anatomy, physiology, genetics, and many more.

This is my point: if the secular scientists are largely philosophical naturalists

I'm not sure that's true. Why do you think scientists today are "largely philosophical naturalists"?

(or theists who tend to only grant natural explanations or except macro-evolution since so do their colleagues who disbelieve in a God who acts within the world),

I'm sorry, I couldn't sort that out. I belive as per Heb. 1:3 that so called "natural" processes are indeed the hand of God. So how would my belief fit, if I were a biologist?

Christians do not have to, as a matter of principle, explain modern species and ourselves through gradualism and so can follow the evidence where it leads (even if it is against evolution). If the evidence for it is good, I say that we ought to accept it. But we do not have to accept it on the basis of philosophical necessity.

Nor does anyone else. They can always say "we don't know", which is what they said for hundreds of years before Darwin anyway. From a Christian standpoint, we are in the same boat as to "how did God create?"

not merely since I have Christian beliefs that appear to be in some tension with it at points (for example, humans as God's image bearers or the Fall, where God and his creation are separated as a result of iniquity) but because it appears to be a falsified on the natural sciences. (There is a lot to consider for me here in regarding theology). Nevertheless, the texts must be interpreted distinctly from any pressure from the natural sciences. The texts do not seem to me proper to be read in a straightforward literal fashion.

If you are interested, I can explain how I see the texts to be in perfect accord with the findings of science, including the fall, Adam and Eve, God's sovreignty, etc. That can all be different from Christian to Christian of course as well.

You will notice that no criticism of this theory is allowed, I think, since for the naturalist, it is the only theory acceptable.

Are you kidding me? There have been all kinds of criticisms over the years (such as Lamarckian evolution, blending inheritance, and many others), especially other naturalistic ideas. The fact that they haven't held up to scrutiny is hardly the fault of common descent itself.

I think that we have different information, and as such have come to different conclusions. I look forward to the chance to look over some of this information with you, and discuss it in fellowship.

In Christ-

Papias

 

[Ariston]

@ Papias

So I guess I was interested in you giving me reasons to show my position is presently wrong. You say fossilization is rare. You mean that fossilization is rare in comparison to how many animals would not have been fossilized. I agree. But certainly it is not too rare that we cannot verify macro-evolution if we have countless billions of fossils on the planet today. So where are the 1-4 billion extinct species? Why are almost all of them identical to living species when the oldest purported fossil is dated to be 3.4 billion years old?

My mistake in saying that we only find living species. Of course there are some other extinct species found (as you pointed out in the case of dinosaurs), but that does not seem relevant to the point that I was raising at all. My point is not that species do not go extinct but rather that there is an apparent conflict between what we ought to see (if evolutionary theory is true on empirical evidence and what we do see in the fossils. You do make a good point here,

"But being that it takes a career in a scientific field to understand a fraction of the evidence in just that one field, much less the huge body of knowledge when you add all the other fields, you cannot possibly know much of the empircal evidence."

Nothing I offered concerning empirical evidence was wrong. In fact, the numbers offered were on the basis of persons that have spent their entire careers observing fossils. So as non-professionals we have to take the empirical data that they put forth seriously and do the best that we can. You quote an article that says,

"Since the time of Darwin, geologists have continued to uncover details of life's history...it has been greatly enriched."

Now of course only the quotations I put forth are invalid quote mines. But seriously, this is obviously not true if we only have hundreds of possible transitional fossils out of billions (more than can be counted) of fossils on the earth today. This is not data that can be interpreted as evidence. It is just an assertion. You say,

"In fact, all fossils found have been consistent with the overall prediction of this tree of life."

That does not seem right. Think it through. If we only have roughly 9 million species out of a tree that totals (on macro-evolutionary theory) 1-4 billion species, then we do not have a tree. As Gould correctly points out, we have the tips. From the tips, the tree is constructed on inference. So if we assume that evolution is true, and we place the living species where we think it be best assuming that this tree exists, we can most certainly account for all the branches. But this is clearly begging the question in favor of evolution (assuming what you are trying to prove). You ask,

"Why do you think scientists today are "largely philosophical naturalists"?

Well, the ratio is something like this: 45% atheist, 40% believers in a god, 15% agnostic. But of the 40% of believers, we get deist and panentheists (like Einstein for example). All scientist work through the scientific method (methodological naturalism) which assumes the regularities in nature that are necessary to allow the sciences to observe the world and make predictions that can either be verified or falsified. This being the case, it is not hard to see how evolutionary theory is going to be a default position. Further it is easy to see that the vast majority of scientists are taught their practice but it is not the case that their practice has brought them to their position. As I pointed out, evolution is a pillar in naturalism regardless of the evidence (there can be no other explanation for them). As the Harvard geneticist, Richard Lewontin explains,

"When science speaks to members of the general public the problem is to get them to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world, the demons that exist only in their imaginations, and to accept a social intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth. . . . We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

You also write,

"There have been all kinds of criticisms over the years (such as Lamarckian evolution, blending inheritance, and many others), especially other naturalistic ideas."

I know. My point is not to say there have been many other forms of proposed evolutionary theories. I am sure there have been plenty but my concern is rather that evolutionary theory is not falsifiable to devout evolutionists (non-scientific dogma) or falsified by the sciences on the basis of paleontology. I am interested in evidence for my beliefs rather than claims that there is evidence for your beliefs. Though the absence of evidence is not necessarily the evidence of absence, thus far, you have not offered any reasons for evolutionary belief and perhaps that is perhaps more telling than your assertions that I am wrong.

I think that we are both smart enough to acknowledge that we cannot live in a world where we believe things merely because persons in positions of authority are telling us so. Most historians reject the historicity of Jesus’ Resurrection but that is no defeater for my belief that “he was declared to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead.” In the case of observable data, this is appropriate however, and the fossils are the only directly observable way by which common decent could be verified (but it is apparently falsified here). Everything else (biochemistry, anatomy, physiology, genetics) does not give us direct empirical data that demands speciation. If I am mistaken, please offer up the evidence from these fields in support of common decent or speciation.

I am well aware of how one could harmonize evolution with theological ideas since that was at one time, the position that I took to be correct. They certainly can be harmonized on some level. However, putting theology aside, and the task of harmonizing the two areas of study, I simply want to know if there is any reason to think that there is any substance to the beliefs that supposedly need to be harmonized with theology or rather what that data might be. If the reasons for believing in macro-evolution are pretty weak, then I see no need to even attempt a harmonization.

 

[Ariston]

My mistake Sayre

@ Gluady's. So this is in response to your critique of what I will call Paleontology vs. Evolution since that was my claim. These are consensus views observable to anyone regardless of religious belief or philosophical persuasion:

1. There are a purported 8.7. million species today.
2. There are a predicted 1-4 billion extinct SPECIES (if macro-evolution is true).
3. There are countless billions of fossils in existence today.
4. There are only hundreds of possible transitional fossils.
5. Fossils regularly date back hundreds of millions of years (our oldest allegedly being 3.4 billion years old).

Now clearly, it seems to me, we should expect to have either more extinct transitional species represented in our fossils than we have living fossils. At least we should find many. You claim that all of the snippets by leading experts in the field are invalid since in the context of their larger work they offer qualifiers. Certainly, if such qualifiers exists, then I would be delighted to be enlightened. So, what is the actual evidence from the fossils or what are the reasons for thinking that we ought not to have found them anyway? Thus far, I have heard no good reasons to account for this apparent conflict.

The quotes that are used do not appear problematic in making the very straightforward point that evolutionary theory is not supported by the fossils and leading biologists and paleontologists who believe in macro-evolution would not find this point disagreeable as far as I can tell. My point was not of course that any of the writers that are quoted find the fossil record problematic for evolution. My question is simply, why not? You did not find provide any answers to my objections and what I have heard from Coyne and Dawkins sound like poor excuses. But among anti-religious naturalists, we should expect the best possible answers. At any rate, I claimed that evolution stands as a pillar in the doctrine of philosophical naturalism and thus is held regardless of the evidence on the basis of necessity. Evolution, so I claimed, finds a defeater from paleontology and this appears to me to be correct.

I also claimed, that it is not open to criticism (not falsifiable) by most laypeople, naturalists or not, who hold it as as dogma. In your response, all I got were assertions that I was wrong. Show me that I am. I put up the original post, not because I thought I had the answers but because I want the right answers. Most scientist reject Goulds Punctuated Equilibrium in favor of gradualism. Clearly, the conflict which is raised here, is with gradualism in mind. Here, the evidence from fossils is not consistent with gradualism. I have no doubts that the naturalists can harmonize the data and conclude that we ought not to have empirical evidence anyway and write a book about it.

Now clearly, as a matter of scientific investigation, as I have previously stated, it is important to leave aside philosophical and theological positions in determining how to interpret the data. That will incidentally include naturalism. Though Aquinas, Ockham, Galileo, and Descartes are relevant to the relation of Christian belief and the natural sciences, they are irrelevant to Darwinism (here meaning evolution via natural selection including speciation/common descent) as distinguished from micro-evolution (variations within all living species) or the observation of adaptation within species if Dawinism is not scientific which is what is being contested. So, the relation to Christian belief and the sciences, though important, is besides the point that is being raised. I entirely agree that evolution should be entirely a matter of scientific investigation. I am afraid that it is nothing of the sort. So, with that being said, besides the dogmatic assertions that I am wrong, can you please show me that I am, so that, if it so befitting, I can change my mind? Certainly assertions do not pass for good science. I want to be able to reason from the observable data and thus hold a belief on the basis of at least circumstantial evidence. I am not attacking a belief nor do I hold any position dogmatically. I simply want to know the truth.

 

[gluadys]

Essentially the same thing. Your comment is reactionary (which is trite, for a "believer")

Only if the evolutionary ancestor of monkeys were also monkeys. So, no, not the same thing.

Again which amounts to the same thing.

No "can" implies we can decide to mutate and have the power to bring about what we have decided to do. That is not the case. What is the case is that we DO mutate and we cannot prevent mutation from happening.

You haven't asked them, have you? I have, without bias, and that is exactly what they said.

Yes, I have asked. And those who are Christian say "of course we sin". But they don't say we sin because of evolution. Those who say we don't sin, do so for reasons that have nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is a scientific observation. Sin is a spiritual problem. They don't connect with each other.

A history which they distort, as if its nothing. Again which is much the same thing as I said.

A throw-away, irrelevant answer. It still remains the case that you have asserted "evolutionists say...X" when they do not say X.

 

[Papias]

Hi Ariston.

you wrote:

@ Papias

So I guess I was interested in you giving me reasons to show my position is presently wrong.

I did. In post 15 I gave a link to a huge list of evidence, from many different scientific feilds, showing that evolution (UCA) was well established. I also gave you evidence in the form of official statements from geological societies that paleontology has confirmed UCA as well.

Why are almost all of them identical to living species when the oldest purported fossil is dated to be 3.4 billion years old?

I'm still wondering where you get this. You seem to have brushed off the dinosaurs, even though there are at least hundreds to thousands of species there, none of which are like today's species. It's true that some fossils are similar to today's species (such as dragonflies), but to say that "almost all" fossils are identical to living species makes me wonder what you are basing that on. Can you produce any evidence - even a statement from a geologist - that almost all extinct species are identical to living ones?

but rather that there is an apparent conflict between what we ought to see (if evolutionary theory is true on empirical evidence and what we do see in the fossils.

Which, as pointed out by the geolgists, is simply wrong. I gave the statement from geologists that paleontology confirms UCA. Isn't that enough? All you gave suggesting otherwise were some irrelevant quote mines.

You say fossilization is rare. You mean that fossilization is rare in comparison to how many animals would not have been fossilized. I agree. But certainly it is not too rare that we cannot verify macro-evolution if we have countless billions of fossils on the planet today.

Right. Which is why the fossils clearly confirm UCA, as the geologists have stated.

So where are the 1-4 billion extinct species?

We don't need to find every dead body. Finding the thousands we have is enought to establish the trend beyond a reasonable doubt. For instance, let's say that I claimed that in the Norther Hemisphere, there farther north a city was, the colder it was on average. There are millions of cities in the Northern Hemisphere. If I randomly selected just a few hundred - a tiny fraction of the total, it would be clear that the farther north they were, the colder they were. I wouldn't have to check them all.

Nothing I offered concerning empirical evidence was wrong.

Yes, it was. You stated that the empircal fossil record did not confirm evolution (UCA), when it does do so. As pointed out above, the numbers of dead species are irrelevant.

"Since the time of Darwin, geologists have continued to uncover details of life's history...it has been greatly enriched."

Now of course only the quotations I put forth are invalid quote mines. But seriously, this is obviously not true if we only have hundreds of possible transitional fossils out of billions (more than can be counted) of fossils on the earth today.

Yes it is. Please see my cities illustration above. As explained earlier, nearly all fossils are transitional.

This is not data that can be interpreted as evidence. It is just an assertion.

An official statement from the largest geological society in the world, made up of 25,000 scientists, is indeed evidence, and not "just an assertion".

More later. Gotta go.

In Christ-

Papias

Oh, I'm still waiting for a source for this:

"

Why do you think scientists today are "largely philosophical naturalists"?

Well, the ratio is something like this: 45% atheist, 40% believers in a god, 15% agnostic.

 

[Ariston]

@ Papias

It is easy enough to refer a person to a website and claim that all of your opponents sources are flawed in one way or another. No creationist would have any problem with providing a defeater for your positions in this way. There appears to be discrepancies with some of the most philosophically driven atheistic biologists who would have every imaginable reason to argue that we have good evidence from the fossil record. On the contrary, they do not claim that there exist good fossil support and have a tendency to discourage (or even scorn) paleontology as being an unproductive science for providing evidence for macro-evolution. Thank you for your time but I have tremendous difficulty with seeing how to move off of position number (4) from my original post on the basis of these responses.

 

[KWCrazy]

....But what quote-miners do is cite parts of a) b) and c). In short they focus on what the scientist says is a problem but don't tell you that the scientist has proposed a solution to that problem in the rest of the paper.

The problem with the whole concept of "quote mining," is that merely a term used to slander people who cite the exact same problem but have a different interpretation of of either its resolution or its implications. That doesn't make them a liar. The liar in that instance is the person who accuses them of using a quote to attempt to disprove evolution. In doing so, it is the accusers who have intentionally taken the work out of context.

Example. Darwin said, "Why then is not every geological formation full of such intermediate links. Geology assuredly does not reveal any finely graduated organic change, and this is the most obvious and serious objection that can be urged against the theory". That is the problem stated. Now he may have offered his explanation, or 50 others may have offered their explanation, but none of that changed the fact that the quote (which is presumably an actual quote) really DID make a point, nor does it invalidate the conclusion of anyone else who cited the exact problem and came to a completely opposing conclusion.

Evolution believers seem to think that they have the exclusive right to all data, but they do not. Everyone looks at the same evidence, but not everyone has the same conclusion. Is that dishonesty? Absolutely... on the part of the accuser.