Theistic Evolutionists: Let us reason!!!!

[Mallon]

you show a God that used "language" to explain a young earth model, when he did it another way. That would be a lie, not a simple "explain it how they'll get it" tactic.

Do you believe the sun revolves around the earth?

 

[Uphill Battle]

Do you believe the sun revolves around the earth?

no. relevance?

 

[Mallon]

no. relevance?

The authors of Scripture speak very much as though the sun did revolve around the earth (Joshua 10:12, Psalm 19:4-6, Ecclesiastes 1:5, Habakkuk 3:11). No doubt, you will argue that they were simply speaking from their limited, earth-bound perspective, much as we do today. I don't think you would hold that God was using them to lie about the state of our solar system. Instead, He used this earth-bound interpretation in order to tell of His glory (e.g., Psalm 19:4-6).
In much the same way, I think the framework of the Genesis creation account reflects man's limited understanding of the state of the earth, but that God used this timely framework through which to deliver His timeless message of creation, purpose, and salvation. This doesn't make God a liar any more than describing the movement of the sun around the earth makes God a liar.

 

[Uphill Battle]

The authors of Scripture speak very much as though the sun did revolve around the earth (Joshua 10:12, Psalm 19:4-6, Ecclesiastes 1:5, Habakkuk 3:11). No doubt, you will argue that they were simply speaking from their limited, earth-bound perspective, much as we do today. I don't think you would hold that God was using them to lie about the state of our solar system. Instead, He used this earth-bound interpretation in order to tell of His glory (e.g., Psalm 19:4-6).
In much the same way, I think the framework of the Genesis creation account reflects man's limited understanding of the state of the earth, but that God used this timely framework throug to deliver His timeless message of creation, purpose, and salvation. This doesn't make God a liar any more than describing the movement of the sun around the earth makes God a liar.

I'll get back to you after I look at those scriptures.

 

[WileyCoyote]

I think there are some misunderstandings here about what evolutionary creationism (or theistic evolution) is and isn't. Hopefully, I can add my two cents and clarify.
EC isn't an attempt to read evolution or deep time into the Bible. We seek no means of reconciling what science has to say about the history of the earth with the Scriptures because the Scriptures were not written to speak of science. They were written to tell of God's existence, character, and plan for salvation. Spiritual matters. The Bible itself claims to be nothing other than this.
With this in mind, ECs at large (with a few exceptions) subscribe to an accomodationalist reading of the Bible. That is, they understand the Scriptures to have been written using the language and science of the day in order to deliver God's timeless spiritual message. Yes, God could have framed the creation account within an evolutionary framework. But considering that the theory of evolution -- even the notion of deep time -- didn't come about for another several thousand years, it is little surprise that God spoke to those first Hebrews using a framework they were familiar with: a young, small earth, at the middle of the universe, with a solid dome over top and pillars underneath. This was the science of the time, and this is the vessel God used to counter the rampant polytheism of the surrounding cultures.
There is thus no difficulty with reconciling the Bible with evolution because, again, they speak of very different things. Genesis seeks to expound upon the nature of God, why He created us, and our relationship with Him as a result. Evolutionary theory simply seeks to describe how God created us, with reference to the physical evidence He left here for us to find.

It's easy how God created us. He spoke us into existence, just as He spoke the universe into existence. No need for anything to evolve. So did God create us as monkeys first? If so, how are we made in God's image if we started out as monkeys?

 

[Mallon]

It's easy how God created us. He spoke us into existence, just as He spoke the universe into existence. No need for anything to evolve.

If that's what you want to believe, then fine. But I hope you would never forward that as a scientific hypothesis worthy of being taught in the science classroom. Again, I don't subscribe to your particular concordist approach to Genesis, so we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

So did God create us as monkeys first?

Not ex nihilo, no. We are descended from apes (not monkeys), which are descended from mammals, which are descended from amniotes, which are descended from tetrapods, etc.

If so, how are we made in God's image if we started out as monkeys?

Being made in God's image has nothing to do with sharing His physical characteristics (God is a spirit), so having descended from apes poses no threat to our bearing His image.

 

[WileyCoyote]

If that's what you want to believe, then fine. But I hope you would never forward that as a scientific hypothesis worthy of being taught in the science classroom. Again, I don't subscribe to your particular concordist approach to Genesis, so we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.


Not ex nihilo, no. We are descended from apes (not monkeys), which are descended from mammals, which are descended from amniotes, which are descended from tetrapods, etc.


Being made in God's image has nothing to do with sharing His physical characteristics (God is a spirit), so having descended from apes poses no threat to our bearing His image.

Ahem. ADAM AND EVE WERE NOT APES. Adam and Eve were described as man and woman. It never says they started out as anything but that. I put my trust in the Bible, not science. Science gives glory to man. The Bible gives glory to God.

So if Adam and Eve weren't 'apes', the only way theistic evolution could make any sense would be if there was a 'pre-adamite' species. Nobody addressed that in my first post. So if there was a pre-adamite species, the descendents of Adam and Eve rule over this species since Adam and Eve were given dominion over ALL of God's species. My question is, providing you believe in a pre-adamite species, HOW can we tell the difference between a descendent of Adam and Eve's lineage and a person who evolved from apes? How do we know which groups of people possess dominion and which are subjected to dominance? Are there any spiritual, or physical characteristics?

 

[gluadys]

I've been curious as to what makes a Christian believe in evolution.

It's not so difficult.
First we believe in a Creator.
Then we believe that what he creates is real, not an illusion.
We believe he created us and endowed us with sensory capacities and the power of reason.
We believe God gave us these endowments for the purpose of putting them to use.
So we put them to use both in studying the scripture and in studying the creation God made.
In the creation God gave us we find evidence that evolution happens. End of story.

There is no mention of evolution anywhere in the Bible.

Well the bible is not an encyclopedia. There is a lot of information it does not mention.

I've heard theistic evolutionists say the days God created the earth weren't 24 hour days but spanned many years and evolution happened in between.

Actually, you may have been listening to old-earth creationists of the day-age variety. Theistic evolution does not require trying to match up the days of genesis with periods of geological history.

Adam and Eve were described as man and woman, not monkeys.

Because they weren't. They were man and woman.

How do I tell if I'm a descendent of Adam and Eve or not?

All living humans are descended from humans. In fact, evidence indicates that all living humans are descended from a particular man who lived about 60,000 years ago and a particular woman who lived about 140,000 years ago.

Kind after kind is what the Bible teaches.

So does evolution, actually. That's why we get a nested hierarchy which includes all known species present and past.

I must admit, I don't know everything about evolution.

Hmm... looks like that needs a bit of editing. Here, I'll fix it.

I must admit, I know nothing about evolution.

That's better.

 

[Mallon]

Ahem. ADAM AND EVE WERE NOT APES. Adam and Eve were described as man and woman.

I would advocate that not only were Adam and Eve both apes, but we are, too. It's a natural consequence of the nested hierarchy into which life is arranged. We are humans, apes, mammals, vertebrates, animals, etc. Regardless, your contention that being an ape somehow negates our man- or womanhood is misplaced. We can still be apes and humans at the same time, just as we can be vertebrates and humans, too.

I put my trust in the Bible, not science. Science gives glory to man. The Bible gives glory to God.

What do you mean by you put your trust "in the Bible"? Who's interpretation of the Bible do you put your trust in?
Personally, I put my trust in God, and I use science (even evolutionary science) to bring Him glory. Again, the Bible doesn't speak to science, and was never meant to, so there's nothing that science can say that will ever contradict the teachings of the Bible (unless, of course, you want to read the Bible as a science textbook).

My question is, providing you believe in a pre-adamite species, HOW can we tell the difference between a descendent of Adam and Eve's lineage and a person who evolved from apes? How do we know which groups of people possess dominion and which are subjected to dominance? Are there any spiritual, or physical characteristics?

I'm not sure if I understand your question. You seem to think that evolutionary creationists advocate a diphyletic origin of the human species (that is, they evolved from different ancestors). This is wrong. We advocate the common ancestry of all humans. We are all descendants of a first population of humans ("Adam and Eve", if you will). That said, our species as a whole is indeed descended from a stock of "lower" apes (probably australopithecines), and if you're asking how we are able to differentiate humans bearing God's image from other apes in the fossil record, the answer is: we can't. Again, bearing the image of God invokes spiritual connotations, not morphological ones. We'll very likely never be able to identify the first human bearing the image of God in the fossil record. But this isn't something that keeps me up at night. Like all of God's mysteries, I can only trust that we'll find out in heaven some day.

 

[WileyCoyote]

It's not so difficult.
First we believe in a Creator.

Ok.

Then we believe that what he creates is real, not an illusion.

OK.

We believe he created us and endowed us with sensory capacities and the power of reason.

Ok.

We believe God gave us these endowments for the purpose of putting them to use.
So we put them to use both in studying the scripture and in studying the creation God made.
In the creation God gave us we find evidence that evolution happens. End of story.

No you don't. You borrowed your beliefs from a man who was an agnostic and added a Christian 'twist' to it.

Well the bible is not an encyclopedia. There is a lot of information it does not mention.

No, but the Bible IS God's Word. And if it says He created the earth in six days and rested on the seventh, I'm going to believe it.

Actually, you may have been listening to old-earth creationists of the day-age variety. Theistic evolution does not require trying to match up the days of genesis with periods of geological history.

Oh really? So how DO you reconcile the days in Genesis with the BILLIONS of years it would take for evolution to be real? (Furthermore, Jesus speaks of creating a new heaven and a new earth. Is this process going to follow a billion year evolutionary process as well?)

Because they weren't. They were man and woman.

EXACTLY

All living humans are descended from humans. In fact, evidence indicates that all living humans are descended from a particular man who lived about 60,000 years ago and a particular woman who lived about 140,000 years ago.

What evidence?

That's better.

Even many scientists (secular, not Creationist scientists) have confirmed that the theory hasn't produced much evidence in the last 150 years. All of the explanations for evolution today are just spin-offs of what Darwin said in the 1800's.

Scientists Speak On Evolution​

"Paleontologists [fossil experts] have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study."—*Steven Jay Gould, The Panda's Thumb (1982), pp. 181-182 [Harvard professor and the leading evolutionary spokesman of the latter half of the twentieth century].

"The problem of the origin of species has not advanced in the last 150 years. One hundred and fifty years have already passed during which it has been said that the evolution of the species is a fact but, without giving real proofs of it and without even a principle of explaining it. During the last one hundred and fifty years of research that has been carried out along this line [in order to prove the theory], there has been no discovery of anything. It is simply a repetition in different ways of what Darwin said in 1859. This lack of results is unforgivable in a day when molecular biology has really opened the veil covering the mystery of reproduction and heredity . .
"Finally, there is only one attitude which is possible as I have just shown: It consists in affirming that intelligence comes before life. Many people will say this is not science, it is philosophy. The only thing I am interested in is fact, and this conclusion comes out of an analysis and observation of the facts."—*G. Salet, Hasard et Certitude: Le Transformisme devant la Biologie Actuelle (1973), p. 331.

"The theories of evolution, with which our studious youth have been deceived, constitute actually a dogma that all the world continues to teach; but each, in his specialty, the zoologist or the botanist, ascertains that none of the explanations furnished is adequate . . It results from this summary, that the theory of evolution is impossible."—*P. Lemoine, "Introduction: De L' Evolution?" Encyclopedie Francaise, Vol. 5 (1937), p. 6.

"Darwinism is a creed not only with scientists committed to document the all-purpose role of natural selection. It is a creed with masses of people who have at best a vague notion of the mechanism of evolution as proposed by Darwin, let alone as further complicated by his successors. Clearly, the appeal cannot be that of a scientific truth but of a philosophical belief which is not difficult to identify. Darwinism is a belief in the meaninglessness of existence."—*R. Kirk, "The Rediscovery of Creation," in National Review, (May 27, 1983), p. 641.

"I have always been slightly suspicious of the theory of evolution because of its ability to account for any property of living beings (the long neck of the giraffe, for example). I have therefore tried to see whether biological discoveries over the last thirty years or so fit in with Darwin's theory. I do not think that they do. To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physic Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.

"Evolution is baseless and quite incredible."—*John Ambrose Fleming, President, British Association for Advancement of Science, in "The Unleashing of Evolutionary Thought."

"Unfortunately, in the field of evolution most explanations are not good. As a matter of fact, they hardly qualify as explanations at all; they are suggestions, hunches, pipe dreams, hardly worthy of being called hypotheses."—*Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried (1971), p. 147.

"It is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end—no matter which illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers. On the contrary, it is expected that scientists recognize the patently obvious impossibility of Darwin's pronouncements and predictions . . Let's cut the umbilical cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back."—I.L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities (1985).

"This general tendency to eliminate, by means of unverifiable speculations, the limits of the categories Nature presents to us, is the inheritance of biology from The Origin of Species. To establish the continuity required by theory, historical arguments are invoked, even though historical evidence is lacking. Thus are engendered those fragile towers of hypothesis based on hypothesis, where fact and fiction intermingle in an inextricable confusion."—*W.R. Thompson, "Introduction," to Everyman's Library issue of *Charles Darwin's, Origin of Species (1956 edition).

" `Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact.' A tangled mishmash of guessing games and figure juggling [Tahmisian called it]."—*The Fresno Bee, August 20, 1959, p. 1-B [quoting T.N. Tahmisian, physiologist for the Atomic Energy Commission].

" `The theory [of evolution] is a scientific mistake.' "—*Louis Agassiz, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation, (1966), p. 139. [Agassiz was a Harvard University professor and the pioneer in glaciation.]

"[In Darwin's writings] possibilities were assumed to add up to probability, and probabilities then were promoted to certitudes."—*Agassiz, op. cit., p. 335.

"The origin of all diversity among living beings remains a mystery as totally unexplained as if the book of Mr. Darwin had never been written, for no theory unsupported by fact, however plausible it may appear, can be admitted in science."—L. Agassiz on the Origin of Species, American Journal of Science, 30 (1860), p. 154. [Darwin's book was published in 1859.]

"[Darwin could] summon up enough general, vague and conjectural reasons to account for this fact, and if these were not taken seriously, he could come up with a different, but equally general, vague and conjectural set of reasons."—*Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and Darwinian Revolution (1968), p. 319.

"Ultimately the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century . . the origin of life and of new beings on earth is still largely as enigmatic as when Darwin set sail on the [ship] Beagle."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 358.

"It has been estimated that no fewer than 800 phrases in the subjunctive mood (such as `Let us assume,' or `We may well suppose,' etc.) are to be found between the covers of Darwin's Origin of Species alone."—L. Merson Davies [British scientist], Modern Science (1953), p. 7.

"I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know."—*Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," Discover 2(5):34-37 (1981).

"Unfortunately for Darwin's future reputation, his life was spent on the problem of evolution which is deductive by nature . . It is absurd to expect that many facts will not always be irreconcilable with any theory of evolution and, today, every one of his theories is contradicted by facts."—*P.T. Mora, The Dogma of Evolution, p. 194.

"Darwinism is a creed not only with scientists committed to document the all-purpose role of natural selection. It is a creed with masses of people who have, at best, a vague notion of the mechanism of evolution as proposed by Darwin, let alone as further complicated by his successors."—*S. Jaki, Cosmos and Creator (1982).

"In essence, we contend that neo-Darwinism is a theory of differential survival and not one of origin . .
"We are certainly not arguing here that differential survival of whole organisms does not occur. This must inevitably happen [i.e. some species become extinct]. The question that we must ask is, does this represent the controlling dynamic of organic evolution? Cannot a similar argument be equally well-constructed to `explain' any frequency distribution? For example, consider rocks which vary in hardness and also persist through time. Clearly the harder rocks are better `adapted' to survive harsh climatic conditions. As Lewontin points out, a similar story can be told about political parties, rumors, jokes, stars, and discarded soft drink containers."—*A.J. Hughes and *D. Lambert, "Functionalism, Structuralism, `Ways of Seeing,' " Journal of Theoretical Biology, 787 (1984), pp. 796-797.

"Biologists have indeed built their advances in evolutionary theory on the Darwinian foundation, not realizing that the foundation is about to topple because of Darwin's three mistakes.
"George Bernard Shaw wisecracked once that Darwin had the luck to please everybody who had an axe to grind. Well, I also have an axe to grind, but I am not pleased. We have suffered through two world wars and are threatened by an Armageddon. We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy."—*Kenneth Hsu, "Reply," Geology, 15 (1987), p. 177.

"Therefore, a grotesque account of a period some thousands of years ago is taken seriously though it be built by piling special assumptions on special assumptions, ad hoc hypothesis [invented for a purpose] on ad hoc hypothesis, and tearing apart the fabric of science whenever it appears convenient. The result is a fantasia which is neither history nor science."—*James Conant [chemist and former president, Harvard University], quoted in Origins Research, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1982, p. 2.

"It is inherent in any definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not really saying anything—or at least they are not science." —*George G. Simpson, "The Nonprevalence of Humanoids," in Science, 143 (1964) p. 770.

"In accepting evolution as fact, how many biologists pause to reflect that science is built upon theories that have been proved by experiment to be correct or remember that the theory of animal evolution has never been thus approved."—*L.H. Matthews, "Introduction," Origin of Species, Charles Darwin (1971 edition).

"Present-day ultra-Darwinism, which is so sure of itself, impresses incompletely informed biologists, misleads them, and inspires fallacious interpretations . .
"Through use and abuse of hidden postulates, of bold, often ill-founded extrapolations, a pseudoscience has been created. It is taking root in the very heart of biology and is leading astray many biochemists and biologists, who sincerely believe that the accuracy of fundamental concepts has been demonstrated, which is not the case."—*Pierre P. de Grasse, The Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 202.

"The over-riding supremacy of the myth [of evolution] has created a widespread illusion that the theory of evolution was all but proved one hundred years ago and that all subsequent biological research—paleontological, zoological and in the newer branches of genetics and molecular biology—has provided ever-increasing evidence for Darwinian ideas. Nothing could be further from the truth.
[In a letter to Asa Gray, a Harvard professor of biology, Darwin wrote:] "I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."—*Charles Darwin, quoted in *N.C. Gillespie, Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation (1979), p. 2 [University of Chicago book].

"The fact is that the evidence was so patchy one hundred years ago that even Darwin himself had increasing doubts as to the validity of his views, and the only aspect of his theory which has received any support over the past century is where it applies to microevolutionary phenomena. His general theory, that all life on earth had originated and evolved by a gradual successive accumulation of fortuitous mutations, is still, as it was in Darwin's time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual support and very far from that self-evident axiom some of its more aggressive advocates would have us believe."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 77.

 

[WileyCoyote]

I would advocate that not only were Adam and Eve both apes, but we are, too. It's a natural consequence of the nested hierarchy into which life is arranged. We are humans, apes, mammals, vertebrates, animals, etc. Regardless, your contention that being an ape somehow negates our man- or womanhood is misplaced. We can still be apes and humans at the same time, just as we can be vertebrates and humans, too.


What do you mean by you put your trust "in the Bible"? Who's interpretation of the Bible do you put your trust in?
Personally, I put my trust in God, and I use science (even evolutionary science) to bring Him glory. Again, the Bible doesn't speak to science, and was never meant to, so there's nothing that science can say that will ever contradict the teachings of the Bible (unless, of course, you want to read the Bible as a science textbook).


I'm not sure if I understand your question. You seem to think that evolutionary creationists advocate a diphyletic origin of the human species (that is, they evolved from different ancestors). This is wrong. We advocate the common ancestry of all humans. We are all descendants of a first population of humans ("Adam and Eve", if you will). That said, our species as a whole is indeed descended from a stock of "lower" apes (probably australopithecines), and if you're asking how we are able to differentiate humans bearing God's image from other apes in the fossil record, the answer is: we can't. Again, bearing the image of God invokes spiritual connotations, not morphological ones. We'll very likely never be able to identify the first human bearing the image of God in the fossil record. But this isn't something that keeps me up at night. Like all of God's mysteries, I can only trust that we'll find out in heaven some day.

I'm sorry. I stopped reading after you said Adam and Eve were apes. Unless you can prove this, you have absolutely NO argument.

 

[Melethiel]

I'm sorry. I stopped reading after you said Adam and Eve were apes. Unless you can prove this, you have absolutely NO argument.

It would have helped you to keep on reading, where he makes the case that you and I are also apes (I would say "primates"), as a result of the nested hierarchy. An introductory biology textbook would help.

No you don't. You borrowed your beliefs from a man who was an agnostic and added a Christian 'twist' to it.

Where do you get off telling people what they believe? I think we know what we believe better than you know what we believe.

The entire Bible wasn't meant to be taken literally - Scripture contains a number of literary styles, and there is much myth (which is NOT synonymous to "fiction"), allegory, and poetry. There is no need to somehow "fit" billions of years into Genesis - we'll all agree that within the context of Genesis, "days" are literal days. What we'll disagree on is what Genesis 1 is attempting to tell - a newspaper account of creation, or a hymn about the power of the Creator?

What evidence?

DNA evidence. Google "mitochondrial Eve" or "Y-chromosome Adam".

 

[Mallon]

I'm sorry. I stopped reading after you said Adam and Eve were apes. Unless you can prove this, you have absolutely NO argument.

To be honest, I'm not terribly concerned. You obviously already have your mind made up, so I'm not going to spend my time trying to convince you of something you won't even listen to.
Does make me wonder why you started a thread asking evolutionary creationists about their beliefs, though... Maybe you were more interested in chiding us than listening to us?

 

[gluadys]

Ok. OK. Ok. No you don't. You borrowed your beliefs from a man who was an agnostic and added a Christian 'twist' to it.

Evidence is not borrowed. It is observed.

No, but the Bible IS God's Word. And if it says He created the earth in six days and rested on the seventh, I'm going to believe it.

Even inspired scriptures need to be interpreted by fallible human minds. It was not God who told you the days were calendar days.

Oh really? So how DO you reconcile the days in Genesis with the BILLIONS of years it would take for evolution to be real?

The days of Genesis are found in Genesis. Nowhere else.

(Furthermore, Jesus speaks of creating a new heaven and a new earth. Is this process going to follow a billion year evolutionary process as well?)

Coincidentally, I've just been reading The God of Hope and the End of the World by John Polkinghorne. He is both a physicist and a theologian who has written a lot on science and faith.

Worth reading on this topic, as usual.

What evidence?

Genetic evidence. Check out mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosome Adam.

Even many scientists (secular, not Creationist scientists) have confirmed that the theory hasn't produced much evidence in the last 150 years.

Scientists Speak On Evolution​

Wow, thirty prize gems from the quote mines! I'll comment on just a few.

"Paleontologists [fossil experts] have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study."—*Steven Jay Gould, The Panda's Thumb (1982), pp. 181-182 [Harvard professor and the leading evolutionary spokesman of the latter half of the twentieth century].

Misrepresentation of Gould's true position


"The theories of evolution, with which our studious youth have been deceived, constitute actually a dogma that all the world continues to teach; but each, in his specialty, the zoologist or the botanist, ascertains that none of the explanations furnished is adequate . . It results from this summary, that the theory of evolution is impossible."—*P. Lemoine, "Introduction: De L' Evolution?" Encyclopedie Francaise, Vol. 5 (1937), p. 6.

Wow! really up-to-date!

"I have always been slightly suspicious of the theory of evolution because of its ability to account for any property of living beings (the long neck of the giraffe, for example). I have therefore tried to see whether biological discoveries over the last thirty years or so fit in with Darwin's theory. I do not think that they do. To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physic Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.

Physicists and engineers seem to have a really hard time deciphering biology. Probably why they chose to be physicists and engineers in stead of biologists.

Anyway, the rule applies that an expert is only an expert in his own field. He may be a great physicist, but his opinion on biology is worth no more than mine.

"Evolution is baseless and quite incredible."—*John Ambrose Fleming, President, British Association for Advancement of Science, in "The Unleashing of Evolutionary Thought."

Date?


" `Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact.' A tangled mishmash of guessing games and figure juggling [Tahmisian called it]."—*The Fresno Bee, August 20, 1959, p. 1-B [quoting T.N. Tahmisian, physiologist for the Atomic Energy Commission].

Not only a physicist, but a 1959 quote.

" `The theory [of evolution] is a scientific mistake.' "—*Louis Agassiz, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation, (1966), p. 139. [Agassiz was a Harvard University professor and the pioneer in glaciation.]

"[In Darwin's writings] possibilities were assumed to add up to probability, and probabilities then were promoted to certitudes."—*Agassiz, op. cit., p. 335.

"The origin of all diversity among living beings remains a mystery as totally unexplained as if the book of Mr. Darwin had never been written, for no theory unsupported by fact, however plausible it may appear, can be admitted in science."—L. Agassiz on the Origin of Species, American Journal of Science, 30 (1860), p. 154. [Darwin's book was published in 1859.]



Bingo, you finally found a genuine anti-evolutionist. Of course, he was a contemporary of Darwin. Note that the second quote dates from 1860, only a year after the publication of Origin of Species. And he had what he thought were some sound reasons to oppose the new theory.

He wasn't able to convince his PhD students though. All of them, on studying the evidence, decided their professor was wrong and Darwin was right. Even his own son. Read the whole story in Darwin's Forgotten Defenders by David N. Livingstone.



"It has been estimated that no fewer than 800 phrases in the subjunctive mood (such as `Let us assume,' or `We may well suppose,' etc.) are to be found between the covers of Darwin's Origin of Species alone."—L. Merson Davies [British scientist], Modern Science (1953), p. 7.

And there is supposed to be something wrong with this when one is proposing a new hypothesis? Meaningless objection. A hypothesis is supposed to be hypothetical and the subjunctive mood (do you even know what that is?) is the appropriate one for the context.

"I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know."—*Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," Discover 2(5):34-37 (1981).

I should hope so. Any scientific hypothesis or theory is supposed to be falsifiable. If one could not envision observations and experiments that would disprove evolution it would not be acceptable as a scientific theory.

"In essence, we contend that neo-Darwinism is a theory of differential survival and not one of origin . .

It always was.


"We are certainly not arguing here that differential survival of whole organisms does not occur. This must inevitably happen [i.e. some species become extinct]. The question that we must ask is, does this represent the controlling dynamic of organic evolution? Cannot a similar argument be equally well-constructed to `explain' any frequency distribution? For example, consider rocks which vary in hardness and also persist through time. Clearly the harder rocks are better `adapted' to survive harsh climatic conditions. As Lewontin points out, a similar story can be told about political parties, rumors, jokes, stars, and discarded soft drink containers."—*A.J. Hughes and *D. Lambert, "Functionalism, Structuralism, `Ways of Seeing,' " Journal of Theoretical Biology, 787 (1984), pp. 796-797.

I suspect this is another misrepresentation of the author's true position. Have you read the original article and seen this quote in context?



"It is inherent in any definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not really saying anything—or at least they are not science." —*George G. Simpson, "The Nonprevalence of Humanoids," in Science, 143 (1964) p. 770.

The stated principle is sound. But I very much doubt that 40 years after this book was published one can speak about the "nonprevalence" of humanoids.


The most interesting thing about all these citations is that not one of them deals with concrete evidence. Not to say the books they came from don't. But if all you have read are the out-of-context quotes you really don't know what the basis for the statements are. In many cases you don't even know the actual subject matter.

 

[Uphill Battle]

An incredible tempest in a teapot, really.

I don't believe in Theist evolution myself, but I understand why some would.

but really, do you think Jesus would turn away one who did, if it were not true?

or, perhaps, that there would be great loss for YEC, if it were in fact true?

I've begun to realize this is one of the more petty arguments out there.

 

[Melethiel]

An incredible tempest in a teapot, really.

I don't believe in Theist evolution myself, but I understand why some would.

but really, do you think Jesus would turn away one who did, if it were not true?

or, perhaps, that there would be great loss for YEC, if it were in fact true?

I've begun to realize this is one of the more petty arguments out there.

It always was a petty argument. Most of us wouldn't care less if we weren't constantly told by the YEC camp that we're Not True Christians (TM).

 

[Uphill Battle]

It always was a petty argument. Most of us wouldn't care less if we weren't constantly told by the YEC camp that we're Not True Christians (TM).

fair enough. I'm sure that would be pleasing to have them stop saying that.

much like the YEC camp would enjoy not being treated like mouth breathing idiots from time to time.

ah well, we can hope.

 

[Uphill Battle]

sorry for the much delayed response. Exhaustion from overwork left me feeling like I'd best not do any real serious study/posting on the matter without sleeping first, for fear of either missing the point, or getting snarky about things.

The authors of Scripture speak very much as though the sun did revolve around the earth (Joshua 10:12, Psalm 19:4-6, Ecclesiastes 1:5, Habakkuk 3:11). No doubt, you will argue that they were simply speaking from their limited, earth-bound perspective, much as we do today. I don't think you would hold that God was using them to lie about the state of our solar system. Instead, He used this earth-bound interpretation in order to tell of His glory (e.g., Psalm 19:4-6).

to a degree. I don't see anywhere scripturally where God explained the function of the sun in relation to the earth.

In much the same way, I think the framework of the Genesis creation account reflects man's limited understanding of the state of the earth, but that God used this timely framework through which to deliver His timeless message of creation, purpose, and salvation. This doesn't make God a liar any more than describing the movement of the sun around the earth makes God a liar.

but In my opinion, this is vastly different.

in the sun moving examples, you have something that scripture didn't address, I.E., nowhere did God tell them how he set the earth revolving around the sun, as opposed to the opposite.

In the TE example, you have God creating the heavens and the earth. You have a timeline. 6 days. You have Adam and Eve being formed from the dust of the earth, and then the rib of a man. None of that fits an allegorical representation of evolutionary process.

Tell me, from the TE perspective, at what point did mankind gain a soul? was there a literal Adam and Eve at all? Were they just the most "advanced" apes, and God chose them? What of the proto-humans that preceded them?

 

[Mallon]

sorry for the much delayed response. Exhaustion from overwork left me feeling like I'd best not do any real serious study/posting on the matter without sleeping first, for fear of either missing the point, or getting snarky about things.

I could probably take a lesson from you!

to a degree. I don't see anywhere scripturally where God explained the function of the sun in relation to the earth...

Psalm 19:4-6 comes pretty close:

In the heavens he has pitched a tent for the sun, which is like a bridegroom coming forth from his pavilion, like a champion rejoicing to run his course. It rises at one end of the heavens and makes its circuit to the other; nothing is hidden from its heat.

Regardless, I should point out that Genesis never really goes into detail about how the ground and water produced beasts and birds, either. Using your own standard, we might rule out the Garden of Eden story as a literal account, too.

But the point I'm trying to make is this: The Bible does speak of the rotation of the sun about the Earth from a very human perspective. I am suggesting that Genesis is similarly written from a very human perspective, using a familiar literary style of the time (mythology), so that the people God inspired to write the account could relate to it.

in the sun moving examples, you have something that scripture didn't address, I.E., nowhere did God tell them how he set the earth revolving around the sun, as opposed to the opposite.

Let me ask you this, then...
In 1 Sam 2:8, Job 9:6, Job 38:4, Psalm 75:3, and Psalm 104:5 we are told that the earth rests on a foundation of pillars. And we are told how it got there: God set the earth upon them. Given that we are told how the earth was set on pillars, should we therefore take this bit of Hebrew cosmology literally as well?

In the TE example, you have God creating the heavens and the earth. You have a timeline. 6 days. You have Adam and Eve being formed from the dust of the earth, and then the rib of a man. None of that fits an allegorical representation of evolutionary process.

Again, no one here is suggesting that we try to somehow cram evolutionary theory into Genesis. The Bible is not a science textbook, so we should not try reading it as such. You seem to be trying to pin us all as concordists like yourself. We are not. We are accomodationalists. If you're unsure as to what I am talking about, I highly recommend the following essay:
http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/3EvoCr.htm

Tell me, from the TE perspective, at what point did mankind gain a soul?

Don't know. Very likely at the point when man was first capable of recognizing God. As to exactly when this happened, I don't know. And I suggest it doesn't really matter.

was there a literal Adam and Eve at all?

Depends on who you ask. Keep in mind that there is no one "TE perspective". The term "TE" simply refers to a Christian who accepts evolutionary theory. We share many theological differences aside from that (as do special creationists).

Were they just the most "advanced" apes, and God chose them? What of the proto-humans that preceded them?

These are admittedly hard questions to answer. Just like, "Why did God create Homo floresiensis or Neanderthal?" But again, I suggest that they make little difference as far as our salvation and relationship with God is concerned.

 

[Uphill Battle]

I could probably take a lesson from you!

please don't. I more often than not serve as a bad example.

Psalm 19:4-6 comes pretty close:

In the heavens he has pitched a tent for the sun, which is like a bridegroom coming forth from his pavilion, like a champion rejoicing to run his course. It rises at one end of the heavens and makes its circuit to the other; nothing is hidden from its heat.

true. I am sure that you are prepared for me to attribute that to David's poetic license. Even today, we talk of sunrise and sunset... in which really doesn't happen.

Regardless, I should point out that Genesis never really goes into detail about how the ground and water produced beasts and birds, either. Using your own standard, we might rule out the Garden of Eden story as a literal account, too.

It states "God formed." that's about as detailed as it gets.

But the point I'm trying to make is this: The Bible does speak of the rotation of the sun about the Earth from a very human perspective. I am suggesting that Genesis is similarly written from a very human perspective, using a familiar literary style of the time (mythology), so that the people God inspired to write the account could relate to it.

I guess I can't reconcile that with evolutionary model.

Let me ask you this, then...
In 1 Sam 2:8, Job 9:6, Job 38:4, Psalm 75:3, and Psalm 104:5 we are told that the earth rests on a foundation of pillars. And we are told how it got there: God set the earth upon them. Given that we are told how the earth was set on pillars, should we therefore take this bit of Hebrew cosmology literally as well?

Perhaps it's my reading of it, but I don't get the sense from any of these passages that the authors were speaking of more than God's constancy as caretaker of the earth. be that as it may, no, I don't think we should be thinking that the earth is literally on a pillar. It IS however, firmly fixed on it's axis, firmly fixed in it's rotation, firmly fixed in it's orbit of the sun. Extrapolating with current knowledge, you could see how the references fit.

Again, no one here is suggesting that we try to somehow cram evolutionary theory into Genesis. The Bible is not a science textbook, so we should not try reading it as such. You seem to be trying to pin us all as concordists like yourself. We are not. We are accomodationalists. If you're unsure as to what I am talking about, I highly recommend the following essay:
http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/3EvoCr.htm

it isn't that I expect the Bible to be a science textbook, I just believe that the evolutionary model, and the creation account in Genesis, are not compatable as an allegorical referece... in my opinion, they contradict.

Don't know. Very likely at the point when man was first capable of recognizing God. As to exactly when this happened, I don't know. And I suggest it doesn't really matter.

perhaps it doesn't matter. If TE is true, it certainly does not.

Depends on who you ask. Keep in mind that there is no one "TE perspective". The term "TE" simply refers to a Christian who accepts evolutionary theory. We share many theological differences aside from that (as do special creationists).

agreed. I should have been more specific and asked YOUR opinion, not the "TE position."

These are admittedly hard questions to answer. Just like, "Why did God create Homo floresiensis or Neanderthal?" But again, I suggest that they make little difference as far as our salvation and relationship with God is concerned.

agreed on that as well. Your belief in TE, and my belief in the literal account, would have no bearing on meeting you in heaven one day.