Using science to spread the gospel?

[jds1977]

Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

Peter 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

We are commanded to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ to all the world and to be ready to defend our faith. This forum is full of debate among the Christian brethren, and I thought it would be nice for a change of atmosphere. No doubt, there are a lot of intelligent people here. I'm curious to know how everyone here is able to use this knowledge for witnessing and spreading the gospel, and if you have been, maybe a testimony or two. How will God use you ( or how do you hope God will use you?)​

 

[Mallon]

I don't think we ought to use science to spread the gospel. There is nothing inherent in science that would allow us to (science is limited to methodological naturalism). Note that Jesus didn't say, "Go, and preach science to all creation."
I think the most convincing case a Christian can make for Christ is personal testimony about how Christ's love is a motivator for our own love, kindness, and all those other fruits of the spirit.
All this isn't to say that I wouldn't give glory to God for His creation, if it ever came up. But the "good news" is Christ's sacrificial love and redemption, not Einstein's theory of relativity.

 

[Assyrian]

I think Christians who study microbiology and genetics and are trying to find a cure for diseases are showing the love of God in action. Of course we must not make the mistake of thinking only believers can love their fellow man.

I think as well it is important to show how Christians and Christianity is at home and comfortable in the world of science, because, well, it is the world our Father created.

One of the biggest arguments against Christianity to day is that the modern scientific understanding of the world gets rid of God. The greatest argument against this are fervent believers equally at home with the knowledge that the universe is 14.7 billion years old, and that the same universe we see declares the glory of the Lord.

 

[SuperSaint4GodDBZStyle]

I do share my faith with others and I do use science to show how God did this and that. But God created all of us and everything for his pleasure. I'm glad that God created me even though I didn't ask him too. It amazes me when God does things especially in science. Like how living things obtain energy. Even when the environment of the organism looks uninhabital.

 

[TySJI]

Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.​

Peter 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:​

We are commanded to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ to all the world and to be ready to defend our faith. This forum is full of debate among the Christian brethren, and I thought it would be nice for a change of atmosphere. No doubt, there are a lot of intelligent people here. I'm curious to know how everyone here is able to use this knowledge for witnessing and spreading the gospel, and if you have been, maybe a testimony or two. How will God use you ( or how do you hope God will use you?)​

It's not so much science (at least hard science) in and of itself (which only deals with the present and universal, natural phenomena)--but, rather, how scientific propositions can be used with good assumptions (i.e. better than naturalistic ones) to make an intelligible origins story.

At 14 I dedicated my life to Christ after reading about the impossibilities of biochemical evolution. (Especially the interdependant nature of various complexe organs, and animal relationships--which require different complexe organs and animals to mutate into existance simultaneously).

I think origins can be even more foundational (though much less important!) than religion even. After all, how can you trust the Bible if you can't God at His word when he's speaking literally? How much less incentive is there to entertain the Bible if we believe everything could come into existance and evolve to their present state without the Christian God (or any god)!

On a tangent, if I ever decided to marry, I don't think I could marry anyone but a young-earth creationist. By extention (it's ultimately about the authority of Scripture and skepticism of conventional wisdom)--it's that important to me.

 

[Melethiel]

I think origins can be even more foundational (though much less important!) than religion even. After all, how can you trust the Bible if you can't God at His word when he's speaking literally? How much less incentive is there to entertain the Bible if we believe everything could come into existance and evolve to their present state without the Christian God (or any god)!

How do you know when He's speaking literally?

This is what I don't understand about YECism...the insistence that a literal reading of Genesis is somehow foundational to Christianity. And here I was always taught in church that it's the Gospel of Christ that is foundational.

 

[gluadys]

It's not so much science (at least hard science) in and of itself (which only deals with the present and universal, natural phenomena)--but, rather, how scientific propositions can be used with good assumptions (i.e. better than naturalistic ones) to make an intelligible origins story.

At 14 I dedicated my life to Christ after reading about the impossibilities of biochemical evolution. (Especially the interdependant nature of various complexe organs, and animal relationships--which require different complexe organs and animals to mutate into existance simultaneously).

With a few exceptions among bacteria (such as the nylon bug) species do not "mutate into existence". So no, simultaneous mutations are not necessary to the building of symbiotic relationships. There is such a thing as co-evolution or the adaptation of species to each other, but it does not require simultaneous or instantaneous change.

After all, how can you trust the Bible if you can't God at His word when he's speaking literally?

There is no hard and fast rule for determining when God is speaking literally and when he is speaking figuratively. Nor is there any rule that says literal speech is more authoritative or truthful than figurative speech. The equation of "truth" solely with "objective factual data" is a modern prejudice that did not exist at the time the bible was written. Indeed, for most of church history, allegorical truth was valued more highly than literal truth. IMO both prejudices are just that--prejudices.

The point is, when people opt for a figurative over a literal reading, they are not rejecting the truth or authority of scripture. They are not choosing unbelief over belief. They are simply recognizing that a coherent world-view requires accepting the evidence of God's creation as well as the revelation of scripture. After all, all truth comes ultimately from God and that includes the truth of the age of the earth and of evolution.

How much less incentive is there to entertain the Bible if we believe everything could come into existance and evolve to their present state without the Christian God (or any god)!

Are you forgetting that you are speaking to Christians here? No one here is suggesting that anything could come into existence or evolve to their present state without God.

 

[Melethiel]

I call Poe's Law.

 

[Mallon]

I call Poe's Law.

With a name like "DynamiteAbortion", I second that.

 

[TySJI]

How do you know when He's speaking literally?

When God speaks like this. With no mention of allegory or hyperbole. When other texts in the Bible including those by Jesus and Peter (e.g. 2 Peter 3:4-6 which talks about early Genesis 1 and the Flood as literal events. This verse should put chills down the spine of a naturalist because it starts by setting their position up.)

This is what I don't understand about YECism...the insistence that a literal reading of Genesis is somehow foundational to Christianity. And here I was always taught in church that it's the Gospel of Christ that is foundational.

In my post I told you why. So you can believe the Bible is coherent, and then believe the Gospel that saves.
Now, if a person can believe in ignorance that the clear words of Genesis mean otherwise and justify their belief in the gospel then origins is not foundational.

 

[Melethiel]

When God speaks like this. With no mention of allegory or hyperbole. When other texts in the Bible including those by Jesus and Peter (e.g. 2 Peter 3:4-6 which talks about early Genesis 1 and the Flood as literal events. This verse should put chills down the spine of a naturalist because it starts by setting their position up.)

It mentions Genesis 1 and the Flood. It doesn't necessarily mean the events are literal...it is very possible that he is alluding to a very well known story. (FTR, I believe that there was a Flood, but not global).

In my post I told you why. So you can believe the Bible is coherent, and then believe the Gospel that saves.
Now, if a person can believe in ignorance that the clear words of Genesis mean otherwise and justify their belief in the gospel then origins is not foundational.

So, the Bible is not allowed to use myth or allegory, or else it is not coherent. Nope, still don't get it. If only, my faith in Christ and His Gospel has become stronger since I abandoned the narrow outlook of YECism.

 

[TySJI]

With a few exceptions among bacteria (such as the nylon bug) species do not "mutate into existence". So no, simultaneous mutations are not necessary to the building of symbiotic relationships. There is such a thing as co-evolution or the adaptation of species to each other, but it does not require simultaneous or instantaneous change.

1) To bring simple life to complicated, 'higher' life mutation must take place to bring about an increase of genetic information. Adaption (genetic variation), and change through genetic deletion are also called mutation by evolutionists and creationists.

2) Sometimes "co-evolution or the adaptation of species to each other" this can be conjectured. Other times it's unreasonable; for example, if evolution were true originally asexual creatures would have had to mutate into sexual creatures. What good is a male's reproductive organs though if it doesn't need a female, and vise versa to create? If an asexual creature developed a male's gear there is no reason to believe that a female's would have simultaneously developed and still be functional. Both of these incredibly complex sets of organs would have to develop completely, independantly, and yet simultaneously to have the purpose they're built for and maintain it (e.g. why put the body through the energy consuming task of building sperm if nothing could use it? Wouldn't natural selection grant more efficient creatures--that is ones that didn't waste energy trying to vainly procreate sexually--a lineage back to asexuality?)

There is no hard and fast rule for determining when God is speaking literally and when he is speaking figuratively. Nor is there any rule that says literal speech is more authoritative or truthful than figurative speech.

1) God never spoke of early Genesis as an allegory, story, or hyperbole. He spoke it as His own truth. As I mentioned to an above poster, all the New Testament writers who refered back to early Genesis regarded it as literal (e.g. Mark 10:5-7. Note that Jesus never speaks of Genesis as being literal and that people were made at the beginning of creation--and not after billions of years) and make no mention of it as a parable or some other non-literal meaning.

2) I don't know why you'd bring up the second sentance. I absolutely agree. They're both equally authoritive. My position is it's God's literal Word in early Genesis (authoritive) vs. man's convention wisdom (false) -or sometimes- vs. misinterpretation of Genesis.

The point is, when people opt for a figurative over a literal reading, they are not rejecting the truth or authority of scripture. They are not choosing unbelief over belief. They are simply recognizing that a coherent world-view requires accepting the evidence of God's creation as well as the revelation of scripture. After all, all truth comes ultimately from God and that includes the truth of the age of the earth and of evolution.

But scientific ideas (especially outside of the hard sciences!) are not synonymous with truth. This is the fallacy. By elavating these ideas to truth, they murder the clear interpretation of Scripture to create a worldview in line with the conventional wisdom of the day.

Are you forgetting that you are speaking to Christians here? No one here is suggesting that anything could come into existence or evolve to their present state without God.

A lot (as in some, not all) of theistic evolutionists are just God-of-the-gappers who are as naturalistic in their worldview as possible. I don't merely oppose pure evolutionary conjecture, but partial evolutionary conjecture as well. (By evolution I mean creation of genetic information to build new organs and processes which cannot be created via variation and deletion of information.)

 

[TySJI]

It mentions Genesis 1 and the Flood. It doesn't necessarily mean the events are literal...it is very possible that he is alluding to a very well known story. (FTR, I believe that there was a Flood, but not global).

Yes, but are any clear statement literal at that point? When Jesus made a parable he told us so. Why does nobody, ever tell us early Genesis is non-literal; but, rather, they speak straight-forwardly about it?

When you claim early Genesis is a story of something that didn't actually occur (as it says it occured) when nobody, ever said that it was an allegory is to make them Biblical authors look deceptive. And for what? To be reconciled with the conventional wisdom of the day?

Can we take anything at face value at that point? Why are you taking my posts literally?

So, the Bible is not allowed to use myth or allegory, or else it is not coherent. Nope, still don't get it. If only, my faith in Christ and His Gospel has become stronger since I abandoned the narrow outlook of YECism.

Totally misunderstood my simple statement. When did I ever say that the Bible cannot, as a principal, use myth or allegory. It can and does. But the context decides how we should interpret a Scripture, not some desire to be in line with modern "science". Moses, Jesus, and Peter are clear: this isn't an allegory.

Paul says, "Let God be true, and every man a liar." Indeed father Paul! (Yes I know he wasn't talking about interpreting Genesis, but it shows how God feels about the judgement of men.)

 

[Melethiel]

1) To bring simple life to complicated, 'higher' life mutation must take place to bring about an increase of genetic information. Adaption (genetic variation), and change through genetic deletion are also called mutation by evolutionists and creationists.

I have yet to see a good definition of "genetic information." If you define it as "base pairs," then an amoeba actually has more than a human.

2) Sometimes "co-evolution or the adaptation of species to each other" this can be conjectured. Other times it's unreasonable; for example, if evolution were true originally asexual creatures would have had to mutate into sexual creatures. What good is a male's reproductive organs though if it doesn't need a female, and vise versa to create? If an asexual creature developed a male's gear there is no reason to believe that a female's would have simultaneously developed and still be functional. Both of these incredibly complex sets of organs would have to develop completely, independantly, and yet simultaneously to have the purpose they're built for and maintain it (e.g. why put the body through the energy consuming task of building sperm if nothing could use it? Wouldn't natural selection grant more efficient creatures--that is ones that didn't waste energy trying to vainly procreate sexually--a lineage back to asexuality?)

The advantage of sexual reproduction is the greater variation it introduces into the genome, which in turn furthers the survival of the species. The beginnings of this exchange of genetic information can be seen in bacteria, and all stages after that.

A lot (as in some, not all) of theistic evolutionists are just God-of-the-gappers who are as naturalistic in their worldview as possible. I don't merely oppose pure evolutionary conjecture, but partial evolutionary conjecture as well. (By evolution I mean creation of genetic information to build new organs and processes which cannot be created via variation and deletion of information.)

This is not the definition of evolution used by the scientific community. Incidentally, could you please define what you are referring to when you say "information"?

Yes, but are any clear statement literal at that point? When Jesus made a parable he told us so. Why does nobody, ever tell us early Genesis is non-literal; but, rather, they speak straight-forwardly about it?

Jesus told us so? Not that I can find - he simply tells the story, and expects the audience to know that it's a parable. If you read the Gospels, the distinction is usually put in by the Gospel writers - "And then He told them a parable..."

When you claim early Genesis is a story of something that didn't actually occur (as it says it occured) when nobody, ever said that it was an allegory is to make them Biblical authors look deceptive. And for what? To be reconciled with the conventional wisdom of the day?

I don't see that the Bible authors are deceptive if they use stories..."fiction" is not synonymous to "lie." Jesus often used stories to illustrate a spiritual point - that does not make Him deceptive, does it?

Totally misunderstood my simple statement. When did I ever say that the Bible cannot, as a principal, use myth or allegory. It can and does. But the context decides how we should interpret a Scripture, not some desire to be in line with modern "science". Moses, Jesus, and Peter are clear: this isn't an allegory.

You are correct - context decides. I see nothing in the context that mandates that Genesis be literal. It is not because of modern science either - many of the Church Fathers wrote about allegorial readings of Genesis long before modern science ever came into the picture.

 

[Mallon]

Welcome, TySJI. Haven't seen you around before.

1) To bring simple life to complicated, 'higher' life mutation must take place to bring about an increase of genetic information. Adaption (genetic variation), and change through genetic deletion are also called mutation by evolutionists and creationists.

Re: your usage of the term genetic "information", I hope you will stick around and read previous posts made recently on the subject. It seems most YECs are unable to define the term (like "kinds"), and so it becomes meaningless.
Second, you are incorrect in thinking that adaptation (not "adaption") and variation are synonymous. They are not. This is simply a conflation of words used by anti-evolutionists to make them sound more scientific. An adaptation, as defined by biologists, is a phenotype that has evolved over a period of time by the process of natural selection such that it increases the expected long-term reproductive success of the organism. Genetic variation, as defined by biologists, is the intraspecific variation present within the genetic code upon which natural selection may act, bringing about new adaptations. You might want to tell the folks in the YEC subforum as much. I would tell them myself, but I'm not allowed.
Moreover, you also conflate the words "mutation" and "genetic deletion". This, too, is wrong. Biologists do not use these words synonymously. Yes, mutations may lead to genetic deletions, but they are also able to lead to duplications of genetic info (take vertebrate Hox genes, for example). You can read more on the subject here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_duplication

What good is a male's reproductive organs though if it doesn't need a female, and vise versa to create?

There has been much study about the evolution of sex, and many of your questions have already been answered. A good place to start is here, though be sure to check out the references as well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sex

1) God never spoke of early Genesis as an allegory, story, or hyperbole. He spoke it as His own truth.

Why are you equating truth with history? Jesus didn't.

A lot (as in some, not all) of theistic evolutionists are just God-of-the-gappers who are as naturalistic in their worldview as possible.

But... didn't God create a universe that operates according to natural laws? The only thing TEs are interested in is working out the laws God created. They are not trying to push God into any gaps, so I don't know why you would suggest this. Do you know what God-of-the-gaps is?
(It's also worth pointing out that all TEs I'm aware of fully accept miracles, too.)

 

[Melethiel]

(It's also worth pointing out that all TEs I'm aware of fully accept miracles, too.)

Just to add to this, I find it interesting that a significant percentage of TEs also accept some form of Eucharistic presence and Baptismal regeneration, which the YEC community tends to reject. (Exceptions exist, of course.)

 

[TySJI]

I have yet to see a good definition of "genetic information." If you define it as "base pairs," then an amoeba actually has more than a human.

10 copies of Britannica have 10 copies of 1 set of informaion. In a round-about way this is an ameoba's situation.

Information is 1) interpretable by another medium for some function (e.g. DNA makes--by extention (i.e. via RNA)--proteins with unique functions), and 2) inordinarily complex in arrangement (as in they are not the same medium (atoms, letters, etc) repeating over and over). This writing is specifically (interpretable by you--at least potentially) complexe (non-repeating).

The advantage of sexual reproduction is the greater variation it introduces into the genome, which in turn furthers the survival of the species. The beginnings of this exchange of genetic information can be seen in bacteria, and all stages after that.

I know what the advantage is. I know that genetic information is passed between different creatures. But the first is irrelevant to the discussion, and the second is a far cry (and not necessarily evolved itself) from sexual reproduction.

This is not the definition of evolution used by the scientific community. Incidentally, could you please define what you are referring to when you say "information"?

Evolution is used very generally to refer to many things by most of the scientific community. I agree. That's why I defined (note: I didn't redefine it, but used one of the word's many definitions) it for the purposes of this conversation.

Definition of information is above.

Jesus told us so? Not that I can find - he simply tells the story, and expects the audience to know that it's a parable. If you read the Gospels, the distinction is usually put in by the Gospel writers - "And then He told them a parable..."

Why would Jesus just expect the audience to know it's a parable? Because almost all Jews thought this at the time? That's a bald assertion.

Then why didn't the gospel writers--who were writing to new converts and wouldn't likely be 'enlightened' by this allegorial view--say this was a parable too? Were they not under Divine Guidance like Jesus? Why bring this point up?

I don't see that the Bible authors are deceptive if they use stories..."fiction" is not synonymous to "lie." Jesus often used stories to illustrate a spiritual point - that does not make Him deceptive, does it?

I never made "fiction" to be synonymous with "lie". I said that if it is fiction, and it is never explained to be fiction but always presented like I am talking here and now (i.e. straight-forwardly) by many Bible authors, it makes them look deceptive.

You are correct - context decides. I see nothing in the context that mandates that Genesis be literal. It is not because of modern science either - many of the Church Fathers wrote about allegorial readings of Genesis long before modern science ever came into the picture.

1) A lot of us believe many of the Church Father's were influenced by the conventional wisdom of their day: Hellenism.
2) Though you didn't say otherwise, it can't be forgotten that many CFs also spoke in favour of Creationism.
Consider:
Basil's position on the length of the creation days is seen in his exposition of Genesis 1:5.

"And there was evening and morning, one day." Why did he say "one" and not "first"? . . . He said "one" because he was defining the measure of day and night . . . , since the twenty-four hours fill up the interval of one day
​

Who can argue with that logic? "Basil the great" indeed. People influenced by the aforementioned conventional wisdom of his day (hellenism). Basil admonished,

Let us hear . . . the words of truth expressed not in the persuasive language of human wisdom but in the teachings of the Spirit, whose end is not praise from those hearing, but the salvation of those taught. . . . The wise men of the Greeks wrote many works about nature, but not one account among them remained unaltered and firmly established, for the later account always overthrew the preceding one.
​

3) Now I'm a Traditionalist and not a follower of Martin Luther, but these are wise words: "Whenever we observe that the opinions of the Fathers disagree with Scripture, we reparably bear with them and acknowledge them to be our elders, nevertheless we do not depart from the authority of Scripture for their sake."

I used to be a Catholic, I know if can be quite a shock to not take Augustine and Aquinas (yes I know he's not a Father) on a magical level between man and gospel.



On a tangent, if you are 16 like it reads to the left, I'm very impressed by your ability to reason and articulate your thoughts.

 

[Melethiel]

10 copies of Britannica have 10 copies of 1 set of informaion. In a round-about way this is an ameoba's situation.

Information is 1) interpretable by another medium for some function (e.g. DNA makes--by extention (i.e. via RNA)--proteins with unique functions), and 2) inordinarily complex in arrangement (as in they are not the same medium (atoms, letters, etc) repeating over and over). This writing is specifically (interpretable by you--at least potentially) complexe (non-repeating).

Could you please expand on the bolded section? I'm not quite sure I understand what you are saying.

I never made "fiction" to be synonymous with "lie". I said that if it is fiction, and it is never explained to be fiction but always presented like I am talking here and now (i.e. straight-forwardly) by many Bible authors, it makes them look deceptive.

Why would it have to be explained to be fiction? People often use elements of story in everyday, straight-forward speech. For example, the Pastor at my church often begins a sermon with a story that somehow relates to his sermon. Sometimes the story is made up, sometimes it actually happened. He never clarifies, and you can't always tell.

In addition, writings of the pre-Enlightenment period rarely make a clear distinction between story and what we would call "history." On my bookshelf, I have a copy of one of the foremost chronicles of medieval Rus. It transitions seamlessly from what we would call legend to what we would call history. They simply didn't care.

3) Now I'm a Traditionalist and not a follower of Martin Luther, but these are wise words: "Whenever we observe that the opinions of the Fathers disagree with Scripture, we reparably bear with them and acknowledge them to be our elders, nevertheless we do not depart from the authority of Scripture for their sake."

As a Lutheran, I absolutely agree with this statement. We just disagree on what Scripture actually says. And I do find the CFs to be very useful reading for many things.

On a tangent, if you are 16 like it reads to the left, I'm very impressed by your ability to reason and articulate your thoughts.

Aww, thanks. I try.

 

[TySJI]

Re: your usage of the term genetic "information", I hope you will stick around and read previous posts made recently on the subject. It seems most YECs are unable to define the term (like "kinds"), and so it becomes meaningless.

I've given a definition of information a couple times around these boards (please see my last post above). Yesterday I defined "kinds" in the creationist subforum:
http://www.christianforums.com/t4700740-creationists-lingo.html

Second, you are incorrect in thinking that adaptation (not "adaption")

You're right there. Adaptation unlike adaption has a specific definition for biology. My mistake.

and variation are synonymous. They are not. This is simply a conflation of words used by anti-evolutionists to make them sound more scientific. An adaptation, as defined by biologists, is a phenotype that has evolved over a period of time by the process of natural selection such that it increases the expected long-term reproductive success of the organism. Genetic variation, as defined by biologists, is the intraspecific variation present within the genetic code upon which natural selection may act, bringing about new adaptations. You might want to tell the folks in the YEC subforum as much. I would tell them myself, but I'm not allowed.

I don't remember saying that genetic variation always leads to adaptation. If I did imply them synonymous it was probably to help keep in mind the genetic foundation of adaptation.

Moreover, you also conflate the words "mutation" and "genetic deletion". This, too, is wrong. Biologists do not use these words synonymously. Yes, mutations may lead to genetic deletions, but they are also able to lead to duplications of genetic info (take vertebrate Hox genes, for example). You can read more on the subject here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_duplication

This one I object to, and think you were reading into what I was saying (perhaps based on some prejudice that creationists don't know hardly anything about biology?) I know mutations can result in (at least) duplication, deletion, and substitution.

There has been much study about the evolution of sex, and many of your questions have already been answered. A good place to start is here, though be sure to check out the references as well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sex

Nothing personal, but I refuse to chase links around for a third party's apologetics. It takes up too much time.

Why are you equating truth with history? Jesus didn't.

History as what? History as man's conjecture? I agree. History from Scripture, by way of being Scripture, he defended.

But... didn't God create a universe that operates according to natural laws? The only thing TEs are interested in is working out the laws God created. They are not trying to push God into any gaps, so I don't know why you would suggest this. Do you know what God-of-the-gaps is?
(It's also worth pointing out that all TEs I'm aware of fully accept miracles, too.)

"The god of the gaps argument is one used to contrast faith-based explanations for nature with those derived from science." Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God-of-the-Gaps . Even though TEs wont admit to it, when they deny the clear context of early Genesis for "science" and--worse yet--something whimsical called "general revelation" their worldview often, though not always, reflects it.

 

[gluadys]

1) To bring simple life to complicated, 'higher' life mutation must take place to bring about an increase of genetic information. Adaption (genetic variation), and change through genetic deletion are also called mutation by evolutionists and creationists.

Never said mutation doesn't happen. What I said is the mostly species do not "mutate into existence". The evolution of a new species in complex organisms is a relatively gradual process that only occurs with a lot of variation (which may include new mutations) and a lot of natural selection. You don't usually get a new species with just a mutation, or even just a series of mutations.

And you also err in saying that evolutionists call adaptation mutation, or even genetic variation. Genetic variation alone does not create adaptation.

2) Sometimes "co-evolution or the adaptation of species to each other" this can be conjectured. Other times it's unreasonable; for example, if evolution were true originally asexual creatures would have had to mutate into sexual creatures. What good is a male's reproductive organs though if it doesn't need a female, and vise versa to create? If an asexual creature developed a male's gear there is no reason to believe that a female's would have simultaneously developed and still be functional. Both of these incredibly complex sets of organs would have to develop completely, independantly, and yet simultaneously to have the purpose they're built for and maintain it (e.g. why put the body through the energy consuming task of building sperm if nothing could use it? Wouldn't natural selection grant more efficient creatures--that is ones that didn't waste energy trying to vainly procreate sexually--a lineage back to asexuality?)

Check out some of the links you have been given on the evolution of sex. Sex existed before gender. Beyond bacteria there are many examples of sexual reproduction when there is no distinction of male or female. There are also examples of plants and animals that are both male and female, and some are even auto-hermaphroditic--able to fertilize their own eggs with their own sperm. So there are many modes of reproduction intermediate between asexuality and gendered sexuality. So while we don't have a full story yet on how species developed male and female genders, it is well within the feasibility of co-evolution.

1) God never spoke of early Genesis as an allegory, story, or hyperbole. He spoke it as His own truth.

Are you suggesting that a God-given allegory or story is not God's own truth?

As I mentioned to an above poster, all the New Testament writers who refered back to early Genesis regarded it as literal (e.g. Mark 10:5-7.)

What makes you think their references to the OT mean they regarded it as literal? Why and how would they change their wording if they regarded it as non-literal?

Note that Jesus never speaks of Genesis as being literal

I don't think you meant to say this, but I agree entirely.

and that people were made at the beginning of creation--and not after billions of years) and make no mention of it as a parable or some other non-literal meaning.

It seems to me he was referring to the creation of people. I doubt that he was making any comment on the age of the earth.

2) I don't know why you'd bring up the second sentance. I absolutely agree. They're both equally authoritive.

My position is it's God's literal Word in early Genesis (authoritive) vs. man's convention wisdom (false) -or sometimes- vs. misinterpretation of Genesis.

But why are you assuming that early Genesis must be literal? Since you agree that figurative language can also be authoritative and truthful, why does a literal interpretation become a sine qua non? How do you know that the literal interpretation is not the misinterpretation?

But scientific ideas (especially outside of the hard sciences!) are not synonymous with truth. This is the fallacy. By elavating these ideas to truth, they murder the clear interpretation of Scripture to create a worldview in line with the conventional wisdom of the day.

Scientific ideas which have been multiply tested against the evidence by many different researchers and many different methods are very probably true. What else would you teach as scientific truth?

Is the literal interpretation of Scripture really that clear? I find it very problematical. I found that when I learned I could leave some literal interpretations behind, that the meaning of scripture was easier to understand. It became more coherent and more meaningful to me.

Also, I came to this conclusion from studing scripture, long before I became interested in science. C. S. Lewis was a stronger influence in weaning me from literalism than evolution ever was.

A lot (as in some, not all) of theistic evolutionists are just God-of-the-gappers who are as naturalistic in their worldview as possible.

I find the opposite. I find most creationists are god-of-the-gappers and TEs are usually opposed to this perspective. Yes, I would say TEs respect the processes of nature. But it is more often creationists who see nature as excluding God. To me, as a TE, discovering natural explanations of what happens in creation is equivalent to discovering how God works in nature. No gaps.

I don't merely oppose pure evolutionary conjecture, but partial evolutionary conjecture as well. (By evolution I mean creation of genetic information to build new organs and processes which cannot be created via variation and deletion of information.)

We have had some very interesting discussions on the whole question of genetic information recently. I would be interested in your comments on what has already been posted.