A brilliant article by Tim Keller

[itisdeliciouscake]

http://biologos.org/uploads/projects/Keller_white_paper.pdf


I would love to hear other's thoughts.

 

[gluadys]

http://biologos.org/uploads/projects/Keller_white_paper.pdf


I would love to hear other's thoughts.

I like his short answer here:

Question#2: If biological evolution is true—does that mean that we are just animals driven by our genes,
and everything about us can be explained by natural selection?
Answer: No. Belief in evolution as a biological process is not the same as belief in evolution as a worldview.

Almost all objections to evolution I have heard are not to the biological process, but to the worldview people assume goes along with the biology. Keller quite properly distinguishes the factual science from worldviews.

 

[miamited]

Hey cake,

Well, let's try this one.
‘how does this author [FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri]want [/FONT][/FONT]to be understood?’

Since the author is long since dead how am I to know 'how he wanted to be understood'? This really doesn't answer anything. You can say, "Well, I think he wanted to be understood this way", and I can say, "Well, I think he wanted to be understood some other way". So, how do you and I, in our discussion determine the 'truth' of how the author wanted to be understood?

Now, the author of this article says, "Well, we need to determine the genre with which the author writing." I'll be the first to say that this genre stuff has me baffled. Just because the Psalms are written in poetic timbre doesn't mean that what is being written about isn't to be taken as a literal truth.

Let's take the first psalm:

Blessed is the manhttp://www.biblestudytools.com/psalms/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-1 who does not walkhttp://www.biblestudytools.com/psalms/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-2 in the counsel of the wickedhttp://www.biblestudytools.com/psalms/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-3 or stand in the wayhttp://www.biblestudytools.com/psalms/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-4 of sinnershttp://www.biblestudytools.com/psalms/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-5 or sithttp://www.biblestudytools.com/psalms/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-6 in the seat of mockers.http://www.biblestudytools.com/psalms/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-7 But his delighthttp://www.biblestudytools.com/psalms/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-8 is in the law of the LORD,http://www.biblestudytools.com/psalms/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-9 and on his law he meditateshttp://www.biblestudytools.com/psalms/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-10 day and night. He is like a treehttp://www.biblestudytools.com/psalms/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-11 planted by streamshttp://www.biblestudytools.com/psalms/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-12 of water,http://www.biblestudytools.com/psalms/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-13 which yields its fruithttp://www.biblestudytools.com/psalms/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-14 in season and whose leafhttp://www.biblestudytools.com/psalms/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-15 does not wither. Whatever he does prospers.http://www.biblestudytools.com/psalms/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-16 Not so the wicked! They are like chaffhttp://www.biblestudytools.com/psalms/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-17 that the wind blows away. Therefore the wicked will not standhttp://www.biblestudytools.com/psalms/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-18 in the judgment,http://www.biblestudytools.com/psalms/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-19 nor sinners in the assemblyhttp://www.biblestudytools.com/psalms/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-20 of the righteous. For the LORD watches overhttp://www.biblestudytools.com/psalms/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-21 the way of the righteous, but the way of the wicked will perish.http://www.biblestudytools.com/psalms/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-22

Poetic prose, right? So, that means that it isn't to be taken literally, right? God doesn't really bless the man who shys from the counsel of the wicked. Nor is He particularly interested in blessing the man who remains apart from the sinners and mockers, right?

So, my point is, let's go ahead and say that the Genesis 1 account is written in the poetic genre. Ok, and that relates to its truth, how? Of course the whole issue really rests on who one believes wrote the Scripture. This author says we need to know what the author wanted us to understand. Well, it's my understanding that the 'author' of the Scriptures is God's Holy Spirit. The various godly men who actually penned the words were just the writers. So, I find that knowing who the author is does have a lot to do wit understanding the Scriptures, but there was only One.

Glaudys responded: I like his short answer here:

Question#2: If biological evolution is true—does that mean that we are just animals driven by our genes,
and everything about us can be explained by natural selection?
Answer: No. Belief in evolution as a biological process is not the same as belief in evolution as a worldview.

I guess I'm like a black hole, super dense, but I sat and mulled over this statement: Belief in evolution as a biological process is not the same as belief in evolution as a worldview.

What exactly does that mean? It is correct to say, "Yea, I believe in the 'biological process', but it ain't how any of the living creatures on the earth got here? Ok, I can agree with that. Sure if you take and put a virus in the human blood stream the blood will through 'evolutionary biological processes' develop antibodies to fight that virus. Yea, I'm down with that.
​

Anyway, I'm still a 6,000 year old, 6 day creation believer over here.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[miamited]

Hey cake,

Well, let's try this one.
‘how does this author [FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri]want [/FONT][/FONT]to be understood?’

Since the author is long since dead how am I to know 'how he wanted to be understood'? This really doesn't answer anything. You can say, "Well, I think he wanted to be understood this way", and I can say, "Well, I think he wanted to be understood some other way". So, how do you and I, in our discussion determine the 'truth' of how the author wanted to be understood?

Now, the author of this article says, "Well, we need to determine the genre with which the author writing." I'll be the first to say that this genre stuff has me baffled. Just because the Psalms are written in poetic timbre doesn't mean that what is being written about isn't to be taken as a literal truth.

Let's take the first psalm:

Blessed is the manhttp://www.biblestudytools.com/psalms/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-1 who does not walkhttp://www.biblestudytools.com/psalms/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-2 in the counsel of the wickedhttp://www.biblestudytools.com/psalms/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-3 or stand in the wayhttp://www.biblestudytools.com/psalms/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-4 of sinnershttp://www.biblestudytools.com/psalms/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-5 or sithttp://www.biblestudytools.com/psalms/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-6 in the seat of mockers.http://www.biblestudytools.com/psalms/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-7 But his delighthttp://www.biblestudytools.com/psalms/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-8 is in the law of the LORD,http://www.biblestudytools.com/psalms/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-9 and on his law he meditateshttp://www.biblestudytools.com/psalms/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-10 day and night. He is like a treehttp://www.biblestudytools.com/psalms/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-11 planted by streamshttp://www.biblestudytools.com/psalms/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-12 of water,http://www.biblestudytools.com/psalms/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-13 which yields its fruithttp://www.biblestudytools.com/psalms/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-14 in season and whose leafhttp://www.biblestudytools.com/psalms/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-15 does not wither. Whatever he does prospers.http://www.biblestudytools.com/psalms/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-16 Not so the wicked! They are like chaffhttp://www.biblestudytools.com/psalms/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-17 that the wind blows away. Therefore the wicked will not standhttp://www.biblestudytools.com/psalms/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-18 in the judgment,http://www.biblestudytools.com/psalms/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-19 nor sinners in the assemblyhttp://www.biblestudytools.com/psalms/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-20 of the righteous. For the LORD watches overhttp://www.biblestudytools.com/psalms/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-21 the way of the righteous, but the way of the wicked will perish.http://www.biblestudytools.com/psalms/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-22

Poetic prose, right? So, that means that it isn't to be taken literally, right? God doesn't really bless the man who shys from the counsel of the wicked. Nor is He particularly interested in blessing the man who remains apart from the sinners and mockers, right?

So, my point is, let's go ahead and say that the Genesis 1 account is written in the poetic genre. Ok, and that relates to its truth, how? Of course the whole issue really rests on who one believes wrote the Scripture. This author says we need to know what the author wanted us to understand. Well, it's my understanding that the 'author' of the Scriptures is God's Holy Spirit. The various godly men who actually penned the words were just the writers. So, I find that knowing who the author is does have a lot to do wit understanding the Scriptures, but there was only One.

Glaudys responded: I like his short answer here:

Question#2: If biological evolution is true—does that mean that we are just animals driven by our genes,
and everything about us can be explained by natural selection?
Answer: No. Belief in evolution as a biological process is not the same as belief in evolution as a worldview.

I guess I'm like a black hole, super dense, but I sat and mulled over this statement: Belief in evolution as a biological process is not the same as belief in evolution as a worldview.

What exactly does that mean? It is correct to say, "Yea, I believe in the 'biological process', but it ain't how any of the living creatures on the earth got here? Ok, I can agree with that. Sure if you take and put a virus in the human blood stream the blood will through 'evolutionary biological processes' develop antibodies to fight that virus. Yea, I'm down with that.
​

Anyway, I'm still a 6,000 year old, 6 day creation believer over here.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[mark kennedy]

Theistic evolution has two issues that must be addressed or their views are no different the Dawkins. Historicity and metaphysics, to neglect these two aspects of Christian theism and Darwinian evolution is not negligence, it's a sell out to the spirit of the age. I do not mean to be harsh or judgmental, just warning all theistic reasoning is targeted by atheistic materialism that is science (and evolution) falsely so called.

http://biologos.org/uploads/projects/Keller_white_paper.pdf


I would love to hear other's thoughts.

I don't think the brilliant Tim Keller has managed to scratch the surface but he does understand a couple of things evolutionists typically argue furiously against. One is that the conflict is philosophical and a Dawkins like metaphysical 'theory of everything'. Don't bother the benign flame game guys, that's not what I intend to talk about.

The third difficulty is the historicity of Adam and Eve. One way to reconcile what current science says about evolution is to propose that the account of Adam and Eve is symbolic, not literal, but what does this do to the New Testament teaching of Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15 that our sinfulness comes from our relationship with Adam? If we don’t believe in an historical fall, how did we become what the Bible says we are—sinful and condemned?​

This is simply not an option, there is nothing in the New Testament witness or a sound exposition of the texts to achieve this. The only real way to reconcile the conflict between evolution as natural history and the Bible as redemptive history is to somehow fuse the two histories, as history.

Answer: Belief in evolution can be compatible with a belief in an historical fall and a literal Adam and Eve. There are many unanswered questions around this issue and so Christians who believe God used evolution must be open to one another’s views.​

This is absolutely true and should be obvious. I won't elaborate because the resident TE posters have never had the slightest patience of Creationist views of any kind. I'll just say that Tim Keller seems to have a firm grasp of the obvious which distinguishes him as being head and shoulders above his TE contemporaries, certain TEs with well grounded doctrinal convictions not withstanding.

You can tell the difference btw, I'll show you what I mean by that later.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[gluadys]

Hey cake,

Poetic prose, right? So, that means that it isn't to be taken literally, right? God doesn't really bless the man who shys from the counsel of the wicked. Nor is He particularly interested in blessing the man who remains apart from the sinners and mockers, right?[/COLOR]

So, my point is, let's go ahead and say that the Genesis 1 account is written in the poetic genre. Ok, and that relates to its truth, how?

I tend to agree with you -- and not with Keller -- that genre is the key to understanding the author's intent, at least so far as poetry and prose go. Poetry can be intended to be narrative and literal (as many ballads are). And prose may not be intended as literal.

I think we get into confusion as well because some people wrongly equate "literal" with "historical". A work of fiction may be written to be understood literally i.e. using the plainest most common meanings of words, with few figurative metaphors, yet not be intended in any way to be recounting history. On the other hand, sometimes history is recorded in poetry, like "The Charge of the Light Brigade" which very poetically records an actual incident in the Crimean war.

So, Genesis 1 being "exalted prose narrative" with many poetic features really doesn't tell us anything one way or another about whether it is intended to faithfully and accurately record historical events which could have been observed and recorded on film had a photographer been there.

The deeper question, it seems to me is "what do we understand by 'truth'? Does Genesis 1 have to be what we would think of as objective, physical, scientifically determined actual history in order to qualify as "true"? or can it be a poetical account whose purpose is to be more accurate theologically than scientifically or historically? Would that not also be "true" whether creation took 6 days or 6 eons?

Have we moderns become so entranced by the successes of science that we have forgotten how to listen to any truth that cannot be established by science?

Of course the whole issue really rests on who one believes wrote the Scripture. This author says we need to know what the author wanted us to understand. Well, it's my understanding that the 'author' of the Scriptures is God's Holy Spirit. The various godly men who actually penned the words were just the writers. So, I find that knowing who the author is does have a lot to do wit understanding the Scriptures, but there was only One.

No, there were many authors, though one Spirit inspired them all. Writers really do actively write; they are not secretaries taking dictation.

Glaudys responded: I like his short answer here:

Question#2: If biological evolution is true—does that mean that we are just animals driven by our genes,
and everything about us can be explained by natural selection?
Answer: No. Belief in evolution as a biological process is not the same as belief in evolution as a worldview.

I guess I'm like a black hole, super dense, but I sat and mulled over this statement: Belief in evolution as a biological process is not the same as belief in evolution as a worldview.

What exactly does that mean? It is correct to say, "Yea, I believe in the 'biological process', but it ain't how any of the living creatures on the earth got here?​

No, because the evidence indicates it is how all the living creatures on the earth got here. But that's biological process.

Worldview is the meaning one takes from it.

Some people hold to a world view that "If it is nature's doing it is not God's doing, so evolution rules out God." That is not about biological process. That's a worldview, and as theists, Christians can and should reject it.

Some people, (as suggested in the question) hold to a worldview that "If behaviour has genetic components, then we have no freedom or responsibility to behave morally." In the first place, that is scientifically unsound: it implies genetic determinism and lack of free will. And again, it is not about biological process. It is a worldview for excusing oneself for one's own bad behaviour. It is a pseudo-scientific equivalent of saying "The devil made me do it."

Some people, having heard about the "God gene" or indications that religious beliefs have an evolutionary source react by saying "That proves God isn't real; God is just your genes putting an imaginary thought in your mind." But the biology says nothing of the sort. A Christian could reply that it makes sense for a real God to put a longing for God into human nature. Rather than interpreting an evolutionary origin of religion as meaning God is imaginary, we can just as well see it as evidence that God is real and prepared us for hearing and understanding divine revelation.


So the biological process of evolution does not mean, as many people think, that science has proved God non-existent, or that we are puppets of our genes, or that immorality is justified. Those are worldviews we can reject without rejecting the biological process of evolution.

Hope this clarifies matters about "biological process" vs. "worldview".​

 

[Greg1234]

No, because the evidence indicates it is how all the living creatures on the earth got here.

No it doesn't. The evidence indicates that organisms possess the programned ability to adapt to their environment. This is no different from taking the mechanism for muscle growth, cancer or the immune system's adaptation and using that as an explanation for the origin of all lifeforms in existence.

 

[gluadys]

The evidence indicates that organisms possess the programned ability to adapt to their environment.

You know, evolution is not what happens to organisms. It is what happens to species. Adaptations in an organism are not pertinent to evolution unless they are inheritable.

Do you know the difference between an organism and a species?


Did you mean that species possess the ability to adapt to their environment?

Well, evolutionists would agree with that.

Now, what gives them that ability? Where did it come from? And how is it put into effect?

 

[mark kennedy]

You know, evolution is not what happens to organisms. It is what happens to species. Adaptations in an organism are not pertinent to evolution unless they are inheritable.

Evolution is the change of alleles in populations over time, it's what happens populations over time, period. All adaptations are inheritable because the source of adaptions are something that comes from the molecular mechanisms, not something that happens to them.

Do you know the difference between an organism and a species?

Now, what gives them that ability? Where did it come from? And how is it put into effect?

Molecular mechanisms designed to exactly that, it comes from God and there are an array of triggers and mechanisms.

Are these serious questions?

 

[mark kennedy]

No it doesn't. The evidence indicates that organisms possess the programned ability to adapt to their environment. This is no different from taking the mechanism for muscle growth, cancer or the immune system's adaptation and using that as an explanation for the origin of all lifeforms in existence.

Something you might want to consider. Since the fall and the flood mutations have accumulated so the sacrosanct chant of mutations+natural selection=evolution may actually be the opposite of reality. It was the molecular mechanisms front loaded into genomes that created the vast array of diversity that unfolded since the flood.

Just a thought.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[gluadys]

Evolution is the change of alleles in populations over time, it's what happens populations over time, period.

Right. In populations, not organisms.

And to be more precise, it is not the change of alleles, but a change in the distribution of alleles across the population from one generation to another.

Can you explain how the distribution of alleles changes in a population from one generation to another?

All adaptations are inheritable because the source of adaptions are something that comes from the molecular mechanisms, not something that happens to them.

This is mixing up organism and species again. The source of adaptations in a population is the change in the distribution of the alleles of a gene.

When it comes to adaptations in an organism, some may be inheritable and some not. Some adaptations are triggered by environmental factors specific to the organism and are not necessarily inherited by the organism's offspring. A diver, for example, may develop control over breathing not usually seen in humans, but that adaptation is not heritable.

Of course "molecular mechanisms" (which I take to be your euphemism for mutations) can also produce an adaptation in an organism which is heritable, and which may become a basis for evolution in a population. i.e. the allele with this particular molecular structure may change its distribution from one organism to many.

Do you know the difference between an organism and a species?

Yes, and you?

Now, what gives them that ability? Where did it come from? And how is it put into effect?

Molecular mechanisms designed to exactly that, it comes from God and there are an array of triggers and mechanisms.

You may not have noted the original context so let's review it.

What gives [species] the ability to adapt?

You say "molecular mechanisms". I disagree. A molecular mechanism (such as a mutation to a gene introducing a new allele at that locus) may induce an adaptation in an organism. But that is not what gives a species the ability to adapt. You need to disentangle what happens in organisms from what happens in populations.

Where did the ability to adapt come from?

You say from God and I agree to that.

How is adaptation of the species put into effect?

An array of triggers and mechanisms, you say. Fine, but vague. It doesn't exactly explain what happens. Can you be more precise and perhaps give some examples?

Are these serious questions?

Very serious, especially for Greg. But also for anyone who doesn't understand that

Mutations happen in cells;
Variation happens in organisms;
Evolution happens in populations.

It is important to understanding evolution to know which triggers and mechanisms operate where and what the range of their effect is.

 

[mark kennedy]

Right. In populations, not organisms.

Which is the same definition of evolution I always use.

And to be more precise, it is not the change of alleles, but a change in the distribution of alleles across the population from one generation to another.

Your paraphrasing and modifying the definition, which is nice....

Can you explain how the distribution of alleles changes in a population from one generation to another?

It's not important, what's important is the cause and effect of mutations.

This is mixing up organism and species again.

No it's not.

The source of adaptations in a population is the change in the distribution of the alleles of a gene.

What you are describing is genetic drift, not the basic definition of evolution.

When it comes to adaptations in an organism, some may be inheritable and some not. Some adaptations are triggered by environmental factors specific to the organism and are not necessarily inherited by the organism's offspring. A diver, for example, may develop control over breathing not usually seen in humans, but that adaptation is not heritable.

True...

Of course "molecular mechanisms" (which I take to be your euphemism for mutations) can also produce an adaptation in an organism which is heritable, and which may become a basis for evolution in a population. i.e. the allele with this particular molecular structure may change its distribution from one organism to many.

Wow, you really missed that one entirely.

This is a molecular mechanism called DNA ligase, shown above repairing chromosomal damage. DNA repair

You say "molecular mechanisms". I disagree. A molecular mechanism (such as a mutation to a gene introducing a new allele at that locus) may induce an adaptation in an organism. But that is not what gives a species the ability to adapt. You need to disentangle what happens in organisms from what happens in populations.

No I don't, your fabricating a strawman argument for a misconception that I simply don't have. I was talking about mutations, molecular mechanisms and the effect of mutations of expressed traits. You went from one tangent to another finally elaborating on genetic drift and going back to the original fallacious correction. Now we are right back where we started.

Where did the ability to adapt come from?

You say from God and I agree to that.

How is adaptation of the species put into effect?

An array of triggers and mechanisms, you say. Fine, but vague. It doesn't exactly explain what happens. Can you be more precise and perhaps give some examples?

That's a topic for another discussion. I'm talking about mutations and their affects, adaptations are another matter.

Very serious, especially for Greg. But also for anyone who doesn't understand that

Mutations happen in cells;
Variation happens in organisms;
Evolution happens in populations.

Mutations happen as the result of copy errors, variation happens in organisms and populations and evolution happens in populations over time. See, two can play at this game.

It is important to understanding evolution to know which triggers and mechanisms operate where and what the range of their effect is.

It is important to understand the difference between a molecular mechanism and a copy error.

 

[gluadys]

Can you explain how the distribution of alleles changes in a population from one generation to another?

It's not important, what's important is the cause and effect of mutations.

You agree that evolution is the change in the distribution of alleles in a population over generations and then assert that understanding how this happens is not important to evolution? It is crucial to understanding evolution.

What you are describing is genetic drift, not the basic definition of evolution.

Genetic drift is one pattern of evolution, and yes, it involves changing the distribution of alleles in a population over generations, so it does meet the basic definition of evolution.

This is a molecular mechanism called DNA ligase, shown above repairing chromosomal damage.

So, a DNA molecule is a molecular mechanism also, right? And it is far more pertinent to evolution than the ligase pictured.

That's a topic for another discussion. I'm talking about mutations and their affects, adaptations are another matter.

Fine, but you can carry on that conversation with someone else.

variation happens in organisms and populations

No, just in organisms. Since variations are a product of differing alleles, a change in the distribution of alleles in a population will show up as a change in the relative distribution of variants in a population. That would be evolution.

 

[tyronem]

http://biologos.org/uploads/projects/Keller_white_paper.pdf
I would love to hear other's thoughts.

An article of no value, full of logical fallacies.

Considering he leads his article with the logical fallacy of substitution substituting evolution for science, while implying evolution actually meaning all science - (Also what science) it is totally ambiguous and fallacious. - A logical fallacy he commits through his entire argument rendering it worthless. - pg 1

The questions he asks are strawman arguments, created to easily refute - another logical fallacy - pg 3

Poorly written and fallacious throughout, barely worth the "paper" it is printed on.

 

[miamited]

hi Mark,

yea, I have to agree with glaudys. You're just copping out. This is a tactic often used by those who teach against God's word. A statement is made of a 'fact'. However, when asked to 'prove' that 'fact', then that becomes unimportant and inconsequential. We're all just supposed to accept the foundational 'fact' of the argument and then see how it delivers us to all sorts of heresies. I do not.

Now, many claim that to be 'closed minded', but quite honestly I think it takes a whole lot more thinking to work out and check the foundational 'fact' before even starting down the road to what that 'fact' would lead us to.]

God bless you. Personally, I stand opposed to pretty much any teaching of evolution that goes beyond, when I get a virus, my body 'evolves' white blood cells.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[gluadys]

hi Mark,

God bless you. Personally, I stand opposed to pretty much any teaching of evolution that goes beyond, when I get a virus, my body 'evolves' white blood cells.

And since that occurs in an organism (namely you) it is not evolution at all. It is a temporary adaptation in one organism and not even inherited.

It would be evolution if, over several generations, the average number of white blood cells in a human population changed.

 

[miamited]

thank you glaudys, I believe I like that explanation. Of course, that means now I'm going to have to be ridiculed for the rest of my days upon this earth when I tell evolutionists, "well, I used to believe in a kind of evolution, but unfortunately some wise person explained that what I believed wasn't evolution, but merely 'temporary adaptation', so I now I have to say, 'nope I don't believe in evolution at all'".

Oh, woe is me! Woe is me! I shall forever be the laughingstock of men.
















Praise God!!!!!

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[shernren]

So, that means that it isn't to be taken literally, right? God doesn't really bless the man who shys from the counsel of the wicked. Nor is He particularly interested in blessing the man who remains apart from the sinners and mockers, right?

But "literally" and "really" are two different words. In fact, I believe that Psalm 1 is very real, but I cannot take it literally. I do not actually want to be a tree, thank you very much.

And in my work as a college lecturer, I often sit down in a class while I am invigilating or showing a video or plain tired. Now, while it is a Christian college, not all of the lecturers are Christian. One prominent admin is a Hindu, and I'm sure some of the others are atheists, and we all share the same classrooms - and they will have sat in that very same chair I have sat in before.

Oh my! I have sat in the seats of mockers. Does that mean God shall not bless me? Must I carry a little stool around at all times to be reserved for my use and for the use of generally upright (heh) Christians?

Indeed, there are many phrases and sentences in the English language which we take most seriously when we do not take them literally. When I ask "what's up?", the person who answers me "the ceiling" is not taking me seriously. When I say that "my heart is broken", the person who tells me to go to the cardiologist is not taking me seriously. When I advise my students to bring umbrellas because "it will rain cats and dogs", the one who answers "yay! free pets!" is not taking me seriously. Yet in every case they are taking my phrases literally.

So it is important to discern the genre of the Biblical text and the meaning of the text carefully, never jumping to woodenly literal interpretations - and to the credit of creationists, they don't often have such things in mind either. But they never clarify just what it is to have a "literal interpretation", nor why they must be so rigid when determining the length of a day but so lax when saying that the Bible's "stretching out the firmament" refers really to the Big Bang.