How an Evangelical Creationist Accepted Evolution

[essentialsaltes]

After college, Kramer went to seminary to study ways to read Genesis through a different lens, taking the view that you can reconcile faith and science without forcing the two to cohere line by line. By 2009, he had done a complete reversal: “[W]e should proceed with extreme caution when trying to understand science through the writings of an ancient culture that looked at life poetically, not scientifically,” he wrote in an op-ed supporting evolution from a Christian perspective. In 2014, Kramer became managing editor at BioLogos. This year, he started a blog called “The Evolving Evangelical.” Today he still considers himself a creationist—just one who happens to embrace evolution and who helps others do the same.

“We call ourselves creationists, and we’re stubborn about that,” says Kramer of BioLogos. “We purposely live between the cultural categories, because we disagree with the way in which the lines are drawn.” If you asked Kramer whether he believes in the words of Genesis or the words of Origin of Species, in the biblical God or the science of evolution, he knows what he would choose. It’s the same answer he’d give if you asked him whether the recent Homo naledi discovery is scientific or divine, or whether his 2-year-old daughter Josephine is a gift from God or nature. “I’d say both,” he says. “One hundred percent both.”

 

[Not_By_Chance]

when trying to understand science through the writings of an ancient culture that looked at life poetically, not scientifically

I feel sorry for him as he's obviously a very confused individual. He seems to have forgotten that the author of the Holy Bible is God and that He knows everything. Job for instance, wrote down things he would not have understood (e.g., the earth hanging on nothing) because he trusted God, who knows everything since He created everything. I think his text ought to be rewritten as [W]e should proceed with extreme caution when trying to understand science through the theories of a modern culture that looks at life without considering any possibility of a divine origin for the wonders that we see around us.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

I feel sorry for him as he's obviously a very confused individual.

Or an intellectually honest person who could no longer reject the overwhelming evidence.

Job for instance, wrote down things he would not have understood (e.g., the earth hanging on nothing) because he trusted God, who knows everything

The Earth orbits the sun at over 66,000 MPH, it is not 'hanging'. There is also this thing called gravity. Objects with mass displace and stretch space. To say the earth hangs on nothing is demonstrably wrong.

[W]e should proceed with extreme caution when trying to understand science through the theories of a modern culture that looks at life without considering any possibility of a divine origin for the wonders that we see around us.

What tests would you run to determine a divine being was the cause of a new discovery? What is the falsifiable test you'd run to make sure you weren't wrong? Just recently, scientists were able to observe a new planet forming in a distant solar system and have images of dust and gas particles coming together to make a planet. This is taking place naturally with no evidence of a divine being in charge of it.
http://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-have-observed-a-planet-forming-for-the-first-time-ever

 

[AV1611VET]

After college, Kramer went to seminary to study ways to read Genesis through a different lens, taking the view that you can reconcile faith and science without forcing the two to cohere line by line. By 2009, he had done a complete reversal: “[W]e should proceed with extreme caution when trying to understand science through the writings of an ancient culture that looked at life poetically, not scientifically,” he wrote in an op-ed supporting evolution from a Christian perspective. In 2014, Kramer became managing editor at BioLogos. This year, he started a blog called “The Evolving Evangelical.” Today he still considers himself a creationist—just one who happens to embrace evolution and who helps others do the same.

“We call ourselves creationists, and we’re stubborn about that,” says Kramer of BioLogos. “We purposely live between the cultural categories, because we disagree with the way in which the lines are drawn.” If you asked Kramer whether he believes in the words of Genesis or the words of Origin of Species, in the biblical God or the science of evolution, he knows what he would choose. It’s the same answer he’d give if you asked him whether the recent Homo naledi discovery is scientific or divine, or whether his 2-year-old daughter Josephine is a gift from God or nature. “I’d say both,” he says. “One hundred percent both.”

You could almost supplant "Kramer" with "Nimrod," who at one point was a "mighty hunter before the LORD," but later went apostate.

 

[AV1611VET]

The Earth orbits the sun at over 66,000 MPH, it is not 'hanging'.

Someone doesn't know what a suspended roller coaster is, does he?

 

[Not_By_Chance]

Or an intellectually honest person who could no longer reject the overwhelming evidence.

I don't see any "overwhelming" evidence - just lots of wild speculation to gain what? 4% knowledge of the universe. Doesn't sound too impressive to me. I prefer to put my faith in "In the beginning, God created..."

The Earth orbits the sun at over 66,000 MPH, it is not 'hanging'. There is also this thing called gravity. Objects with mass displace and stretch space. To say the earth hangs on nothing is demonstrably wrong.

From a visible point of view, the earth does indeed appear to be hanging on nothing (not held up by any mythical figure such as the ancient Greeks' Atlas).

What tests would you run to determine a divine being was the cause of a new discovery?

It's not possible to test for God - He has to be accepted (or rejected) on faith, but He has given us enough clues in His creation to be able to say, "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." Romans 1:20
The article you referred to, even if it turns out to be a correct assumption of what the scientists are seeing, proves nothing about how the universe could have formed from nothing or even from a subsequent gas cloud.

 

[ScottA]

Or an intellectually honest person who could no longer reject the overwhelming evidence.

Gather every intellectual bit of evidence about the inner net...and it shows a non-substantive, ageless, timeline-based created universe within a greater actual reality, whose self-evidence proves someone created it (that there is a creator)...that only SOME people can interface with.

The reality of the realm of science is no different. But even having participated in making the perfect example (the inner net) of a created universe...there is NO intellectual honesty to admit it even being a possibility coming from the scientific community. None.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

I don't see any "overwhelming" evidence - just lots of wild speculation to gain what? 4% knowledge of the universe.

This thread is about evolution. The overwhelming evidence can be found in DNA and molecular genetics, embryology, comparative anatomy, geographical distribution of species, fossil record, etc.

I prefer to put my faith in "In the beginning, God created..."

So you'd rather believe based on no evidence. You're going to go with "it's true because it says it's true"? That is circular reasoning and a logical fallacy. I care about what's true though, not what I want to be true. I don't think faith is a virtue. I think it's a good way to often get things wrong.

From a visible point of view, the earth does indeed appear to be hanging on nothing

But it's not. The bible got it wrong here.

It's not possible to test for God - He has to be accepted (or rejected) on faith

If we cannot observe or test something, it is by definition, imaginary.

but He has given us enough clues in His creation to be able to say, "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." Romans 1:20

But wait, I thought you said that you can't test for God? But now you're saying there are clues. Then we should be able to test them. You then quote a bible verse, resorting to the "it's true because it say's its true" fallacy.

The article you referred to, even if it turns out to be a correct assumption of what the scientists are seeing, proves nothing about how the universe could have formed from nothing or even from a subsequent gas cloud.

Correct assumption? Ummmm they have observed it. They are WATCHING IT HAPPEN. I never said it proved that the universe can from from nothing. I am saying that it demonstrates that planets can form without any divine intervention. It sounds like this OBSERVATION scientists made scares you a little bit since you went right into defensive mode by saying "assumption".

 

[-57]

This thread is about evolution. The overwhelming evidence can be found in DNA and molecular genetics, embryology, comparative anatomy, geographical distribution of species, fossil record, etc.

Why is it when I post about ID...show the organelle inside of a cell.....then ask how they evolved via a process that uses random chance to change the information in the DNA code...all I hear is crickets?

 

[-57]

Why is it biologos can't explain how sin and death entered into the "evolving" primates?

 

[AV1611VET]

Why is it biologos can't explain how sin and death entered into the "evolving" primates?

I'd like to see them explain how angels came about sans evolution?

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Why is it when I post about ID...show the organelle inside of a cell.....then ask how they evolved via a process that uses random chance to change the information in the DNA code...all I hear is crickets?

Natural selection is not random. Genetic mutations are random. We have directly observed it in the lab and in nature. Do you have a definition for information?

 

[-57]

Natural selection is not random. Genetic mutations are random. We have directly observed it in the lab and in nature. Do you have a definition for information?

Mutations are random.
The information is the DNA code instructions.

 

[lesliedellow]

You seem to have rattled the creationists' cages.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Mutations are random.
The information is the DNA code instructions.

Once again, natural selection is not random. When you combine a random event with a nonrandom force the result is not random. There will be some order from those actions. And we know how new information enters the genome. Perhaps you could ask politely.

 

[Job8]

“I’d say both,” he says. “One hundred percent both.”

That would be 200%. Good fence-sitter math.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

To the average person evolution and creation are equally mysterious, and belief in either requires faith. Personally speaking creation lies more comfortably in my mind. I don't get the warm fuzzies when thinking about evolution.

"Ve get so soon oldt und so late schmardt, better ve chust go fishing." (Old German proverb.)

 

[pat34lee]

Once again, natural selection is not random. When you combine a random event with a nonrandom force the result is not random. There will be some order from those actions. And we know how new information enters the genome. Perhaps you could ask politely.

Natural selection is not evolution. That is part of genetics and heredity.
Mutations are not smart enough for evolution. All they can lead to is
sterility and death.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Natural selection is not evolution. That is part of genetics and heredity.
Mutations are not smart enough for evolution. All they can lead to is
sterility and death.

I never claimed that it is. Natural selection is one of the tools of evolution. Surely you know that by now?

 

[driewerf]

To the average person evolution and creation are equally mysterious, and belief in either requires faith. Personally speaking creation lies more comfortably in my mind. I don't get the warm fuzzies when thinking about evolution.

"Ve get so soon oldt und so late schmardt, better ve chust go fishing." (Old German proverb.)

1) Evolution isn't mysterious. It can be explained very easily.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01

2) The ToE is a scientific theory. It doesn't requires faith. Just some time to study it. You are right about creationism though. That can only be accepted on faith.

3) A scientific theory is not accepted by some vague notion as "comfort in the mind", neither on the warm fuzzies it gives. It is acepted based on what the evidence says.

In a nutshell, OlWiseGuy, you have given the best post possible about why creationism and science are complete opposite.