Misconceptions about Evolutionary Creationism (or Theistic Evolution)

[2PhiloVoid]

And what precisely is your question or questions. I seem to be having some difficulties on this end.

I'm here to help.

Allow me to rearticulate my intended question(S):

Would you please cite the sources of evolutionary creationism which influenced your perspective up until (i.e. before), last summer?

And then, would you please cite the sources that later, during last summer, influenced your understanding of Genesis 1-11?

 

[sfs]

Why should I listen to Origen?

Because he was an intelligent, devout reader whose culture, while certainly not the same as that of the authors of Genesis, was closer to it than yours is. He spent more time in the scriptures than you or I ever will, and he was probably the most influential Christian interpreter of the Old Testament in the early centuries of Christianity after the NT authors. If his obvious, natural reading of the text is diametrically opposite to your obvious, natural reading, then it might trigger just a pinch of humility about your own ability to be the arbiter of what the text means.

He was the father of Arianism (the Son was inferior to the Father) and accused of heretical doctrine.

Neither has anything to do with being a competent reader of Hebrew scriptures. (And the former isn't really accurate -- if you count Origen as proto-Arian, you also have to throw out people like Tertullian.)

For me, reading the early chapters of Genesis and concluding that it's supposed to be a literal, historical account of anything is mind-boggling. A wide range of modern scholars would agree, including Roman Catholic and Reformed scholars and theologians and everything in between.

 

[HarleyER]

Allow me to rearticulate my intended question(S):

Would you please cite the sources of evolutionary creationism which influenced your perspective up until (i.e. before), last summer?

And then, would you please cite the sources that later, during last summer, influenced your understanding of Genesis 1-11?

"Would you please cite the sources of evolutionary creationism which influenced your perspective up until (i.e. before), last summer?"

Secular textbooks, secular schools and academia educators, people in general, various authors against creation (e.g. atheists, people of various evolutionary persuasions). Things one hear day in and day out taken as fact.​

"would you please cite the sources that later, during last summer, influenced your understanding of Genesis 1-11?"

The Bible, people on the young earth advocates side of the fence (e.g. people such as John MacArthur, Henry Morris, RC Sproul, various creationist websites, etc.), various articles of persecution and discrimination in academia and secular society of those who wish to present any view on Intelligent Design. (Just Google-one such article: Contemporary Religious Discrimination Against Creationist in Academia -https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1119&context=icc_proceedings).​

​

Does that help? The problem with trying to present an Intelligent Design perspective is that publishing houses, including religious publishing houses, will not publish any books or articles on the subject. Consequently, all one hears is one side of an argument that a secular society wants one to hear-evolution.​

​

Some very good sermons by John MacArthur on young earth creation which can be found here:​

​

Sermons

www.gty.org

As mentioned, this was not the only source used, but is probably one of the most comprehensive set of sermons on the subject.​

 

[2PhiloVoid]

"Would you please cite the sources of evolutionary creationism which influenced your perspective up until (i.e. before), last summer?"

Secular textbooks, secular schools and academia educators, people in general, various authors against creation (e.g. atheists, people of various evolutionary persuasions). Things one hear day in and day out taken as fact.​

Do you mean you read folks like Francis Collins and other, similar scientists, maybe some who belong to his BioLogos organization?

"would you please cite the sources that later, during last summer, influenced your understanding of Genesis 1-11?"

The Bible, people on the young earth advocates side of the fence (e.g. people such as John MacArthur, Henry Morris, RC Sproul, various creationist websites, etc.), various articles of persecution and discrimination in academia and secular society of those who wish to present any view on Intelligent Design. (Just Google-one such article: Contemporary Religious Discrimination Against Creationist in Academia -https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1119&context=icc_proceedings).​

​

Does that help? The problem with trying to present an Intelligent Design perspective is that publishing houses, including religious publishing houses, will not publish any books or articles on the subject. Consequently, all one hears is one side of an argument that a secular society wants one to hear-evolution.​

​

Some very good sermons by John MacArthur on young earth creation which can be found here:​

​

Sermons

www.gty.org

As mentioned, this was not the only source used, but is probably one of the most comprehensive set of sermons on the subject.​

Don't worry about describing Intelligent Design to me. That's ok. You don't need to go into details for my sake.

 

[HarleyER]

Because he was an intelligent, devout reader whose culture, while certainly not the same as that of the authors of Genesis, was closer to it than yours is. He spent more time in the scriptures than you or I ever will, and he was probably the most influential Christian interpreter of the Old Testament in the early centuries of Christianity after the NT authors. If his obvious, natural reading of the text is diametrically opposite to your obvious, natural reading, then it might trigger just a pinch of humility about your own ability to be the arbiter of what the text means.

Neither has anything to do with being a competent reader of Hebrew scriptures. (And the former isn't really accurate -- if you count Origen as proto-Arian, you also have to throw out people like Tertullian.)

For me, reading the early chapters of Genesis and concluding that it's supposed to be a literal, historical account of anything is mind-boggling. A wide range of modern scholars would agree, including Roman Catholic and Reformed scholars and theologians and everything in between.

Do you believe in Noah and the flood as a historical event? Christ and Peter both refers to the event. How about God creating man and woman? Christ did. Paul compares Christ to the first Adam. Jude talks about Enoch.

The first eleven chapters are referenced over 65 times in the New Testament (not to mention the Old Testament). And these references are not in some poetic fashion but taken as historical fact. What is mind-boggling is how Christians can accept the New Testament while dismissing the first eleven chapters of Genesis as some fairy tale. I'm not sure how they could make heads or tails out of the scriptures. As for the Reformed scholars your talking about, I'm not sure who your talking about but they're probably not worth their weigh in salt. But, quite frankly, there aren't very many good "modern scholars" these days.

1. Matthew 19:4 Created male and female (Genesis) 1:27, 5:2
2. Matt. 19: 5-6 Cleave to his wife; become one flesh 2:24
3. Matt. 23:35 Righteous Abel 4:4
4. Matt. 24:37-39 Noah and the flood 6:1-22, 7:1-24, 8:1-22
5. Mark 10:6 Created male and female 1:27, 5:2
6. Mark 10:7-9 Cleave to his wife, become one flesh 2:4
7. Mark 13:19 Since the beginning of the creation which God created 1:1, 2:4
8. Luke 3:34-36 Genealogies: Abraham to Shem 11:10-26
9. Luke 3:36-38 Genealogies: Noah to Adam to God 5:3-29
10. Luke 11:51 Blood of Abel 4:8-11
11. Luke 17:27 The flood came and destroyed them all 7:10-23
12. John 1:1-3 In the beginning 1:1
13. John 8:44 Father of lies (Satan) 3:4-5
14. Acts 14:15 Who made the heaven and the earth 2:1
15. Acts 17:24 God made all things 1:1-31
16. Romans 1:20 The creation of the world 1:31, 2:4
17. Romans 4:17 God can create out of nothing 1:1-31
18. Romans 5:12 Death entered the world by sin 2:16-17, 3:19
19. Romans 5:14-19 Death reigned from Adam 2:17
20. Romans 8:20-22 Creation corrupted 3:17-18
21. 1 Corinthians 6:16 Two will become one flesh 2:24
22. 1 Cor. 11:3 Head of the woman 3:16
23. 1 Cor. 11:7 In the image of God 1:27, 5:1
24. 1 Cor. 11:18 Woman from man 2:22-23
25. 1 Cor. 11:9 Woman for the man 2:18
26. 1 Cor. 15:21-22 By a man came death 2:16-17, 3:19
27. 1 Cor. 15:38-39 To each … seeds of its own (kind) 1:11, 1:21, 1:24
28. 1 Cor. 15:45 Adam became a living being 2:
29. 1 Cor. 15:47 Man from the earth 3:23
30. 2 Cor. 4:6 Light out of darkness 1:3-5
31. 2 Cor. 11:3 Serpent deceived Eve 3:1-6, 3:13
32. Ephesians 3:9 Created all things 1:1-31, 2:1-3
33. Ephesians 5:30-31 Cleave to his wife, become one flesh 2:4
34. Colossians 1:16 All things created by Him 1:1-31, 2:1-3
35. Colossians 3:10 Created in His image 1:27
36. 1 Timothy 2:13-14 Adam was created first 2:18-23
37. 1 Timothy 2:14 Woman was deceived 3:1-6, 3:13
38. 1 Timothy 4:4 Everything created by God is good 1:10-31
39. Hebrews 1:10 In the beginning God made heaven & earth 1:1
40. Heb. 2:7-8 All things in subjection under man 1:26-30, 9:2-3
41. Heb. 4:3 Works were finished 2:1
42. Heb. 4:4 Rest on the seventh day 2:2-3
43. Heb. 4:10 Rest from His works 2:2-3
44. Heb. 11:3 Creation of the universe 1:1
45. Heb. 11:4 Abel offered a better sacrifice 4:3-5
46. Heb. 11:5 Enoch taken up 5:21-24
47. Heb. 11:7 Noah’s household saved 7:1
48. Heb. 12:48 Blood of Abel 4:10
49. James 3:9 Men in the likeness of God 1:17, 5:1
50. 1 Peter 3:20 Construction of the Ark, eight saved 6:14-16, 7:13
51. 2 Peter 2:5 A flood upon the ungodly, eight saved 6:8-12, 7:1-24
52. 2 Pet. 3:4-5 Earth formed out of water and by water 1:6-7
53. 2 Pet. 3:6 The world destroyed by water 7:17-24
54. 1 John 3:8 Devil sinned from the beginning 3:14
55. 1 John 3:12 Cain slew his brother 4:8, 4:25
56. Jude 11 The way of Cain 4:8, 4:16, 4:25
57. Jude 14 Enoch, the seventh generation from Adam 5:3-24
58. Revelation 2:7 Tree of life 2:9
59. Rev. 3:14 Beginning of the Creation of God 1:1-31, 2:1-4
60. Rev. 4:11 Created all things 1:1-31, 2:1-3
61. Rev. 10:6 Who created heaven . . . and the earth 1:1, 2:1
62. Rev. 14:7 Who made the heaven and the earth 1:1, 2:1, 2:4
63. Rev. 20:2 The serpent of old, who is the devil 3:1, 3:14
64. Rev. 21:1 First heaven and first earth 2:1
65. Rev. 21:4 No more death, sorrow, crying or pain 3:17-19
66. Rev. 22:2 Fruit of the tree of life 3:22
67. Rev. 22:3 No more curse 3:14-19
68. Rev. 22:14 The tree of life 2:9

 

[HarleyER]

Do you mean you read folks like Francis Collins and other, similar scientists, maybe some who belong to his BioLogos organization?


Don't worry about describing Intelligent Design to me. That's ok. You don't need to go into details for my sake.

There is plenty to be read on theistic evolution. Whether I read articles or papers by Francis Collins I'm not sure. Whatever the case, I have forsaken that view as I believe it is wrong and not what scripture teaches.

I am sure you understand Intelligent Design. What is not widely broadcast is that scientists who believe in Intelligent Design will not be published, face ruined careers, and are subject to persecution. Hardly the "objective" science that is often portrayed. It's like Climate Change or Homosexuality. Speak out against one of those and you’re either a "Climate Denier" or a "Homophob". One must get with the secular program or else. My definition after careful consideration: theistic evolution is Christianity trying to adapt and accommodate a secular worldview that rejects the Bible.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

There is plenty to be read on theistic evolution. Whether I read articles or papers by Francis Collins I'm not sure. Whatever the case, I have forsaken that view as I believe it is wrong and not what scripture teaches.

Ok.

I am sure you understand Intelligent Design. What is not widely broadcast is that scientists who believe in Intelligent Design will not be published, face ruined careers, and are subject to persecution. Hardly the "objective" science that is often portrayed. It's like Climate Change or Homosexuality. Speak out against one of those and you’re either a "Climate Denier" or a "Homophob". One must get with the secular program or else. My definition after careful consideration: theistic evolution is Christianity trying to adapt and accommodate a secular worldview that rejects the Bible.

You do realize that some Intelligent Design advocates are evolutionists, don't you?

Are you sure you're not confusing Intelligent Design with various forms of Biblical Creationism like "Creation Science" or "Literal Creationism"?

 

[HarleyER]

Ok.

You do realize that some Intelligent Design advocates are evolutionists, don't you?

Are you sure you're not confusing Intelligent Design with various forms of Biblical Creationism like "Creation Science" or "Literal Creationism"?

Yes, I realize Intelligent Design isn't just an either-or. It is more like a continuum with various views. However, the more one leans towards a theistic design, the more one experience persecution.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yes, I realize Intelligent Design isn't just an either-or. It is more like a continuum with various views. However, the more one leans towards a theistic design, the more one experience persecution.

I don't think Michael Behe is persecuted. He's published. He may criticized by mainstream evolutionists, particularly atheistic ones, but I don't think we should conflate scholarly criticism of someone like Behe with persecution, per say.

Ken Ham also is criticized. So is Henry Morris and his group. This doesn't really equate to persecution. At least, not yet.

Usually what receives the main backlash is when Christians bring their more Legal (i.e. from the OT) style interpretations into the political realm. Then, we see sparks beginning to fly.

 

[sfs]

Do you believe in Noah and the flood as a historical event?

Not even remotely.

Christ and Peter both refers to the event.

I know. People often refer to events that didn't happen.

How about God creating man and woman?

I believe God creates all men and women. Don't you?

Jude talks about Enoch.

He not only talks about Enoch, he quotes from I Enoch as if it had been written by Enoch. Do you believe Enoch wrote I Enoch?

 

[HarleyER]

I don't think Michael Behe is persecuted. He's published. He may criticized by mainstream evolutionists, particularly atheistic ones, but I don't think we should conflate scholarly criticism of someone like Behe with persecution, per say.

Ken Ham also is criticized. So is Henry Morris and his group. This doesn't really equate to persecution. At least, not yet.

Usually what receives the main backlash is when Christians bring their more Legal (i.e. from the OT) style interpretations into the political realm. Then, we see sparks beginning to fly.

And what are your sources for your opinion?

From Wikipedia:

Michael Joseph Behe is an American biochemist and an advocate of the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design (ID)​

​

Hardly a ringing endorsement. Persecution comes in many forms including denegrating people who have a difference of opinon. This only prove my point.

 

[HarleyER]

Not even remotely.

I know. People often refer to events that didn't happen.

I believe God creates all men and women. Don't you?

He not only talks about Enoch, he quotes from I Enoch as if it had been written by Enoch. Do you believe Enoch wrote I Enoch?

Wow! Then why are you on "Christian Forums" if you believe our Lord Jesus Christ or all the other biblical writers referred to events that didn't happen. What other things did they referred to that "didn't happen"? Might as well cut those out of your Bible.

I believe what is written in Jude is inspired and truthful.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

And what are your sources for your opinion?

I have a lot of them being that I accumulated quite a few when working through my undergrad and graduate work, but a handful of them are listed on my CF personal page. You can see them there if you're interested. If you're not interested in any of that, then be blessed in your own views on Genesis 1-11.

From Wikipedia:

Michael Joseph Behe is an American biochemist and an advocate of the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design (ID)​

​

Hardly a ringing endorsement. Persecution comes in many forms including denegrating people who have a difference of opinon. This only prove my point.

I wouldn't count that as persecution, although I might count that as an uncharitable description of Behe's thought. I'd prefer to call Behe's position a philosophical one, as in "one of various positions one might take within the study of the field of the Philosophy of Science." His is not the one I prefer, but even so, that doesn't mean I'd denigrate his attempt to offer an explanation for what he thinks are indications of "design" within nature.

Anyway, if you're authentic in your new Christian position, then I don't think I feel the need to needle you about it any further.

 

[HarleyER]

I have a lot of them being that I accumulated quite a few when working through my undergrad and graduate work, but a handful of them are listed on my CF personal page. You can see them there if you're interested. If you're not interested in any of that, then be blessed in your own views on Genesis 1-11.


I wouldn't count that as persecution, although I might count that as an uncharitable description of Behe's thought. I'd prefer to call Behe's position a philosophical one, as in "one of various positions one might take within the study of the field of the Philosophy of Science." His is not the one I prefer, but even so, that doesn't mean I'd denigrate his attempt to offer an explanation for what he thinks are indications of "design" within nature.

Anyway, if you're authentic in your new Christian position, then I don't think I feel the need to needle you about it any further.

I have a lot of them being that I accumulated quite a few when working through my undergrad and graduate work, but a handful of them are listed on my CF personal page. You can see them there if you're interested. If you're not interested in any of that, then be blessed in your own views on Genesis 1-11.


I wouldn't count that as persecution, although I might count that as an uncharitable description of Behe's thought. I'd prefer to call Behe's position a philosophical one, as in "one of various positions one might take within the study of the field of the Philosophy of Science." His is not the one I prefer, but even so, that doesn't mean I'd denigrate his attempt to offer an explanation for what he thinks are indications of "design" within nature.

Anyway, if you're authentic in your new Christian position, then I don't think I feel the need to needle you about it any further.

Would you go to a pseudo-cancer specialist? Why not? Pseudoscience according to the dictionary means "a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method." So, the insertion of this into Mr. Behe’s description is simply meant to discredit him and any legitimate research he might present. Of course, this is blatant persecution despite what you might feel. And just the fact that you consider his or any “Intelligent Design” as a “philosophical one” and not based on research of these scientists, indicates that you’ve bought into this propaganda. You don't consider their scientific analysis but instead believe their research as a philosophy.

This is what the “Age of Reason” has become. Instead of looking at all facts and information, making informed decisions, people pick and choose what “facts” they want to believe and discard any facts that doesn’t relate to their paradigm. We see the results of this working itself out in our society today.

Everyone does what is right in their own eyes.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Would you go to a pseudo-cancer specialist? Why not? Pseudoscience according to the dictionary means "a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method." So, the insertion of this into Mr. Behe’s description is simply meant to discredit him and any legitimate research he might present. Of course, this is blatant persecution despite what you might feel. And just the fact that you consider his or any “Intelligent Design” as a “philosophical one” and not based on research of these scientists, indicates that you’ve bought into this propaganda. You don't consider their scientific analysis but instead believe their research as a philosophy.

You do realize that your argument here is a Straw-man, don't you? Simply because I might not think Behe's theory is strong enough for me to yet be convinced by his explanation of "irreducible complexity" doesn't also mean that I've "bought into" secular propaganda. You don't get to show up and re-engineer reality, or definitions, on a whim, Harley.

One doesn't have to agree with every scientist out there, since, well, they disagree with each other on various aspects of how to conceptualize and measure the world around us. Besides, in science, 'truth' is provisional, it's supposed to always be open to testing, criticism and, when enough additional evidence is gathered over time, corrected.

Who knows? Maybe someday Behe will be a national hero. Until that day, I'm sticking with all that I've learned in my own life, through my education and by my books and sources, all folded up within the epistemological and psychological limits of my own perception of the world.

But, don't doubt me when I say I'm a Christian! Just because I don't start with the Bible doesn't mean I don't value it. It may simply be that I have an different philosophical analysis about "how" perception and belief work out and become faith in Christ.

One doesn't have to presuppose the Bible to see that it expresses some possible truth about Reality. But I know, some people (a lot of people, really these days), DO in fact think you have to do just that ...

This is what the “Age of Reason” has become. Instead of looking at all facts and information, making informed decisions, people pick and choose what “facts” they want to believe and discard any facts that doesn’t relate to their paradigm. We see the results of this working itself out in our society today.

Everyone does what is right in their own eyes.

You have no evidence that I've done that. You're just shooting out rhetoric, troll-style. You might want to consider, too, that being that I'm older and have studied quite a bit, looking at evidences and science from various competing angles, I might very well have taken into account multitudes of facts and information and made an informed decision on what and how I "BELIEVE." Moreover, to my mind, it becomes very wanting on the part of others when they point a finger in my direction and claim I'm shortsighted when, all along, they refuse to engage my worldview ... and rather, instead, and from a distance, they merely shoot blanks at my worldview, dismissing me out of hand. The thing is, I haven't dismissed their views out of hand----------------I've engaged them, read them, run through them and evaluated them.

Still, I agree with you on one point: There is a bit of folks "doing whatever is right in their own eyes" going around. Sometimes that's a good thing. Sometimes that's a very bad thing. It all depends on what it is that any one person is dissenting from ... God? Or the World.

 

[sfs]

Wow! Then why are you on "Christian Forums" if you believe our Lord Jesus Christ or all the other biblical writers referred to events that didn't happen.

Because I'm a follower of Jesus Christ as my lord and savior. You really think that a requirement for being a Christian is thinking that Paul was infallible? Do you think that if I refer to King Arther, I necessarily believe in his historical existence? Have you read anything from any of the numerous scholars from a wide range of Christian traditions who don't take the creation accounts in Genesis as accurate historical narratives?

I believe what is written in Jude is inspired and truthful.

That seems to evade the question: do you think Enoch wrote the book of I Enoch?

 

[HarleyER]

You do realize that your argument here is a Straw-man, don't you? Simply because I might not think Behe's theory is strong enough for me to yet be convinced by his explanation of "irreducible complexity" doesn't also mean that I've "bought into" secular propaganda. You don't get to show up and re-engineer reality, or definitions, on a whim, Harley.

One doesn't have to agree with every scientist out there, since, well, they disagree with each other on various aspects of how to conceptualize and measure the world around us. Besides, in science, 'truth' is provisional, it's supposed to always be open to testing, criticism and, when enough additional evidence is gathered over time, corrected.

Who knows? Maybe someday Behe will be a national hero. Until that day, I'm sticking with all that I've learned in my own life, through my education and by my books and sources, all folded up within the epistemological and psychological limits of my own perception of the world.

But, don't doubt me when I say I'm a Christian! Just because I don't start with the Bible doesn't mean I don't value it. It may simply be that I have an different philosophical analysis about "how" perception and belief work out and become faith in Christ.

One doesn't have to presuppose the Bible to see that it expresses some possible truth about Reality. But I know, some people (a lot of people, really these days), DO in fact think you have to do just that ...




You have no evidence that I've done that. You're just shooting out rhetoric, troll-style. You might want to consider, too, that being that I'm older and have studied quite a bit, looking at evidences and science from various competing angles, I might very well have taken into account multitudes of facts and information and made an informed decision on what and how I "BELIEVE." Moreover, to my mind, it becomes very wanting on the part of others when they point a finger in my direction and claim I'm shortsighted when, all along, they refuse to engage my worldview ... and rather, instead, and from a distance, they merely shoot blanks at my worldview, dismissing me out of hand. The thing is, I haven't dismissed their views out of hand----------------I've engaged them, read them, run through them and evaluated them.

Still, I agree with you on one point: There is a bit of folks "doing whatever is right in their own eyes" going around. Sometimes that's a good thing. Sometimes that's a very bad thing. It all depends on what it is that any one person is dissenting from ... God? Or the World.

I appreciate your view but you're the one who said Behe's view was philosophical rather than scientific. You might not agree with his conclusions based on scientific principles, but that doesn't mean he isn't applying a scientific model. If you had stated up front that your not convinced by Behe’s scientific reasoning, well, that’s a more honest and understandable response.

As for "re-engineering" definitions, I'm not that smart. I simply go and pull them out of dictionary. What does the Bible has to say about insulting or mocking someone (e.g. Wikipedia saying Mr. Behe is a pseudoscientist)?

"Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when men cast insults at you, and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely, on account of Me" (Matt. 5:10-11).​

Please read “Three Kinds of Persecution” by Matthew Dowling

Three Kinds of Persecution

I never question anyone's salvation. That is not my job and I take everyone at face value. What is the responsibility of any believer, and I’m required to do as best as I can, is to point out to people where I think they might be in error. And, likewise, I appreciate people pointing out to me where I might be in error. I have been known to change my position if someone presents to me a fair argument. Our goal as Christians, after all, should be to strive to keep our doctrine pure so that we don't propagate error and we reflect God's light to this world.

As far as being "older" and the amount of studying one has done, that makes no difference. It was the younger Elihu that rebuked Job and his friends for their misconceptions. There are many kings in scriptures, David, Asa, Uzziah, Josiah, etc. who, in their later years stumbled and committed grave sins. Just because we're older, don't think we're not capable of going off the rails.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I appreciate your view but you're the one who said Behe's view was philosophical rather than scientific. You might not agree with his conclusions based on scientific principles, but that doesn't mean he isn't applying a scientific model. If you had stated up front that your not convinced by Behe’s scientific reasoning, well, that’s a more honest and understandable response.

As for "re-engineering" definitions, I'm not that smart. I simply go and pull them out of dictionary. What does the Bible has to say about insulting or mocking someone (e.g. Wikipedia saying Mr. Behe is a pseudoscientist)?

"Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when men cast insults at you, and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely, on account of Me" (Matt. 5:10-11).​

You've committed a fallacy here in citing and applying scripture to a philosophical situation in science involving Michael Behe.

Do you see your error?

Additionally, keep in mind that where denotations and connotations of words are concerned, dictionaries don't determine definitions. Rather, they report various, common usages of those words.

Please read “Three Kinds of Persecution” by Matthew Dowling

Three Kinds of Persecution

I never question anyone's salvation. That is not my job and I take everyone at face value. What is the responsibility of any believer, and I’m required to do as best as I can, is to point out to people where I think they might be in error. And, likewise, I appreciate people pointing out to me where I might be in error. I have been known to change my position if someone presents to me a fair argument. Our goal as Christians, after all, should be to strive to keep our doctrine pure so that we don't propagate error and we reflect God's light to this world.

As far as being "older" and the amount of studying one has done, that makes no difference. It was the younger Elihu that rebuked Job and his friends for their misconceptions. There are many kings in scriptures, David, Asa, Uzziah, Josiah, etc. who, in their later years stumbled and committed grave sins. Just because we're older, don't think we're not capable of going off the rails.

In your view, what is the difference between "criticism of another point of view" and "pointing out where you think another person may be in error"? Is one a form of persecution and the other not persecution?

 

[HarleyER]

Because I'm a follower of Jesus Christ as my lord and savior. You really think that a requirement for being a Christian is thinking that Paul was infallible? Do you think that if I refer to King Arther, I necessarily believe in his historical existence? Have you read anything from any of the numerous scholars from a wide range of Christian traditions who don't take the creation accounts in Genesis as accurate historical narratives?

That seems to evade the question: do you think Enoch wrote the book of I Enoch?

Do I think that Paul was infallible? No. Do I think what Paul wrote in scripture is infallible? Yes.

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;​

Of course, if one believes that Paul goofed up his letters, then the above scripture really doesn't mean anything.

As far as King Arthur, I haven't a clue since he's not listed in scripture.

Who wrote the book of Enoch? I don't know. There is no one ascribed to who wrote the book. It's like the Book of Hebrews. But unlike the Book of Enoch, the Book of Hebrews is considered inspired (see 2 Timothy 3:16). Only the Enoch quote from Jude can be considered inspired.

You say you're a follower of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. I take you at your word. But what exactly are you basing your faith on? A flawed document that you believe might not be true in spots? The Bible was given to us by God so that we can measure everything else in this world. If we want to believe it's like "Of Mice and Men" or "Great Expectations", or even the Book of Mormons, then we have nothing to base our faith on.

Two weeks after I became a Christian, my Sunday School teacher stated the virgin birth was a myth. I challenged her on that from scripture. I walked out of there thinking that even if I didn't understand something, I would accept the scriptures as my guide and parked the questions until I did understand the scriptures better. That was over fifty years ago. I can tell you that the Bible has never let me down. Over time, I found things that I thought were wrong was simply my own lack of understanding or my ignorance of sound doctrine. There are still some things I don't understand. But one thing I do know, the Bible is the true Word of God, inerrant and infallible, and we should be very thankful we have it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Please read “Three Kinds of Persecution” by Matthew Dowling

Three Kinds of Persecution

I never question anyone's salvation. That is not my job and I take everyone at face value. What is the responsibility of any believer, and I’m required to do as best as I can, is to point out to people where I think they might be in error. And, likewise, I appreciate people pointing out to me where I might be in error. I have been known to change my position if someone presents to me a fair argument. Our goal as Christians, after all, should be to strive to keep our doctrine pure so that we don't propagate error and we reflect God's light to this world.

ok. I've read the essay you've presented from Matthew Dowling.

Now, here is an article some time back by Mano Singham, and I think he does a decent job of describing the intrinsic, conceptual problems with asserting that Intelligent Design, or even Creation Science, is science and not pseudo-science. The article is a little on the older side now, but it gets at the heart of the problem. Of course, it's also not the last word on this debate and there is so very much more that could be added from my sources. But for now, this article will suffice as an ice-breaker ...

... where I.D. is concerned, we're in an open, ongoing discussion, despite what Philosophical Naturalists or Philosophical Design advocates may want to aver for otherwise:

Philosophy Is Essential to the Intelligent Design Debate​

Singham, Mano. "Philosophy is essential to the intelligent design debate." Physics Today 55, no. 6 (2002): 48-50.​