Can anything change your mind?

[vossler]

Science requires that you be able to make predictions and make findings that test these predictions.

When those predictions are based on conjecture and speculation I quickly check out.

Beyond this misconception of yours, evolution is also both practical and definitive. I will wait until you point to exactly how you feel it is not practical or definitive before refuting it.

Not to put you off or anything but my objective here isn't to argue these points with countless TEs. I have nothing to prove or say to a TE that wishes to argue for evolution. So if you and others wish to dismiss my statements as misconceptions or any other term of your choosing I have no problem with that. I expect it, as a matter of fact I'd be surprised if you didn't. My role here also isn't to sway TEs, my primary objective is to help those who are genuinely seeking the Truth of what God has said and how we're to use it.

I've seen all the "evidence" for evolution and it is, in my opinion, easy to see that is lacking and has little to no substance. Yet I also understand why so many believe it to be true, the Bible speaks a lot about that. It truly isn't surprising.

 

[Dannager]

When those predictions are based on conjecture and speculation I quickly check out.

Forgive me, but aren't all predictions, everywhere, based on speculation? A prediction is equivalent to "I speculate that [x] will take place." I mean, if you're actually being honest and you do check out every time someone makes a prediction based on speculation, then you're not allowed to involve yourself in economics, science, sports predictions or anything else where you discuss what you think might happen.

 

[vossler]

Forgive me, but aren't all predictions, everywhere, based on speculation? A prediction is equivalent to "I speculate that [x] will take place." I mean, if you're actually being honest and you do check out every time someone makes a prediction based on speculation, then you're not allowed to involve yourself in economics, science, sports predictions or anything else where you discuss what you think might happen.

I have no problems with predictions, just be honest and tell me you really don't know but this is what you think. Evolution isn't presented that way, its always portrayed as fact based on 'scientific evidence' that most people haven't a clue on how to dicipher. This then leads to people taking the word of a scientist over the Word of God. I have a big problem with that.

 

[shernren]

True, but this meant nothing to most people. My life isn't any different knowing we live in a heliocentric system.

Everything would be different if we lived in a world that was governed by evolution.

But then you are not Martin Luther:

People gave ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the very best. This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth.

or Gerardus Bouw:

The Copernican Revolution, as this change of view is called, was not just a revolution in astronomy, but it also spread into politics and theology. In particular, it set the stage for the development of Bible criticism. After all, if God cannot be taken literally when He writes of the "rising of the sun," then how can He be taken literally in writing of the "rising of the Son?"

Do you know the Bible better than Martin Luther? Are you more spirited in its defence than Gerardus Bouw? How would you convince either of them that they are wrong?

Then you should see how difficult it is for us to convince you that you are wrong in your belief that evolution threatens Scripture or orthodox Christianity.

 

[shernren]

I have no problems with predictions, just be honest and tell me you really don't know but this is what you think. Evolution isn't presented that way, its always portrayed as fact based on 'scientific evidence' that most people haven't a clue on how to dicipher. This then leads to people taking the word of a scientist over the Word of God. I have a big problem with that.

If only that was your only problem! Just tell us what "scientific evidence" you are having problem deciphering. We'll help to sort you out in no time.

Or, perhaps, have you believed before any scientific reckoning that evolution must a priori be inaccurate?

 

[vossler]

Do you know the Bible better than Martin Luther? Are you more spirited in its defence than Gerardus Bouw? How would you convince either of them that they are wrong?

Then you should see how difficult it is for us to convince you that you are wrong in your belief that evolution threatens Scripture or orthodox Christianity.

Well meaning people have and will continue to interpret many Bible passages incorrectly. Yet even someone like Luther had the core doctrines down and accurate. There is another thing worth noting, at least he didn't stray from Scripture to some outside man derived source for his interpretation. He was smart enough not to do that. Hardly a similar situation concerning evolution.

In the end it really wasn't all that important because that interpretation of Scripture had no effect on any core doctrines. The same cannot be said for evolution.

 

[vossler]

If only that was your only problem! Just tell us what "scientific evidence" you are having problem deciphering. We'll help to sort you out in no time.

Sadly, no that isn't my only problem. I have many but that's the one that sticks out the most. TEs are very quick to help someone with the scientific evidence, but not nearly so quick or effective with the biblical evidence.

So with regard to evidence, I won't even begin to entertain anymore evidence until someone can legitmately, through a proper exegetical analysis of Scripture, show me how evolution is accurate and not against God's Word.

 

[gluadys]

TEs are very quick to help someone with the scientific evidence, but not nearly so quick or effective with the biblical evidence.

You may be right on this one. I used to think people rejected evolution simply because they did not understand it. It is very clear when one speaks to people who doubt the facticity of evolution that many have serious misconceptions about the scientific side of it.

But the really important factor is not the science. It is the perception that evolution is anti-biblical. So I now concentrate on that without overlooking scientific misconceptions.

So with regard to evidence, I won't even begin to entertain anymore evidence until someone can legitmately, through a proper exegetical analysis of Scripture, show me how evolution is accurate and not against God's Word.

An exegetical analysis will not show you that evolution is accurate. That is a scientific question. Exegesis can show that it is not against scripture.

However, I note that you want a "proper" exegetical analysis. Now I am all in favour of good exegesis. But in this case I sense a weasel word.

Sometimes people ask for "proof" of evolution that would actually be inconsistent with evolution.

Are you asking to be shown how evolution is consistent with scripture using your current interpretive framework? How can that be done? Your current interpretive framework is what sets up a barrier to accepting evolution. That is precisely what has to be changed--your current interpretive framework. If you are not willing to attempt to read scripture differently than you do now, willing to accept that perhaps it doesn't mean precisely what you believe it to mean now, then there is no way you can harmonize evolution with what you conceive to be God's Word.

That is like asking us to drive you somewhere as long as we don't leave the garage.

 

[shernren]

Evolution isn't presented that way, its always portrayed as fact based on 'scientific evidence' that most people haven't a clue on how to dicipher. This then leads to people taking the word of a scientist over the Word of God. I have a big problem with that.

I've seen all the "evidence" for evolution and it is, in my opinion, easy to see that is lacking and has little to no substance. Yet I also understand why so many believe it to be true, the Bible speaks a lot about that. It truly isn't surprising.

What is it now? Is the evidence for evolution inscrutable or obviously flawed?

Sadly, no that isn't my only problem. I have many but that's the one that sticks out the most. TEs are very quick to help someone with the scientific evidence, but not nearly so quick or effective with the biblical evidence.

So with regard to evidence, I won't even begin to entertain anymore evidence until someone can legitmately, through a proper exegetical analysis of Scripture, show me how evolution is accurate and not against God's Word.

I don't get it. Your problem with evidence (whichever problem it is ) is the one that sticks out the most, therefore you won't even begin to entertain any more evidence?

You sound like you desperately don't want evolution to be true.

In any case, you might be interested in this thread over here: http://christianforums.com/t6857561&page=3

 

[vossler]

An exegetical analysis will not show you that evolution is accurate. That is a scientific question. Exegesis can show that it is not against scripture.

I haven't seen anything that shows evolution isn't against Scripture.

However, I note that you want a "proper" exegetical analysis. Now I am all in favour of good exegesis. But in this case I sense a weasel word.

Nothing 'weasel' going on here.

Are you asking to be shown how evolution is consistent with scripture using your current interpretive framework? How can that be done? Your current interpretive framework is what sets up a barrier to accepting evolution. That is precisely what has to be changed--your current interpretive framework. If you are not willing to attempt to read scripture differently than you do now, willing to accept that perhaps it doesn't mean precisely what you believe it to mean now, then there is no way you can harmonize evolution with what you conceive to be God's Word.

Hey, I'm more than willing to reassess my interpretive framework if someone can give me good reason to do so. I've yet to hear such a reason.

 

[vossler]

What is it now? Is the evidence for evolution inscrutable or obviously flawed?

This isn't about evidence so much as it is about what God's Word says.

You sound like you desperately don't want evolution to be true.

This has nothing to do with what I want, this has everything to do with God, His Word and the Truth.

 

[shernren]

Well meaning people have and will continue to interpret many Bible passages incorrectly. Yet even someone like Luther had the core doctrines down and accurate. There is another thing worth noting, at least he didn't stray from Scripture to some outside man derived source for his interpretation. He was smart enough not to do that. Hardly a similar situation concerning evolution.

In the end it really wasn't all that important because that interpretation of Scripture had no effect on any core doctrines. The same cannot be said for evolution.

The comparison is between heliocentrism and evolution. Martin Luther thought the only way you could be a heliocentrist was to go to some outside, man-derived source for interpretation - not too different from modern creationists in that regard.

Which of the core doctrines have Kenneth Miller and Francis Collins rejected? Where, for example, has C. John Collins gone wrong? (I admire and endeavour to take after his strong emphasis on the historicity of the Scriptures, and yet it is precisely his respect for Scripture that drives him to consider none of the days of Genesis 1 literal.) I remain unconvinced that evolution compromises any Christian doctrines.

 

[vossler]

The comparison is between heliocentrism and evolution. Martin Luther thought the only way you could be a heliocentrist was to go to some outside, man-derived source for interpretation - not too different from modern creationists in that regard.

But you keep missing the main point, this had no impact on any doctrines of the Christian faith.

Which of the core doctrines have Kenneth Miller and Francis Collins rejected? Where, for example, has C. John Collins gone wrong? (I admire and endeavour to take after his strong emphasis on the historicity of the Scriptures, and yet it is precisely his respect for Scripture that drives him to consider none of the days of Genesis 1 literal.) I remain unconvinced that evolution compromises any Christian doctrines.

I don't know Miller and Collins so I can't tell you what core doctrines they've rejected. Please, let's not get into a discussion about their beliefs. My remarks are based off of the statements and philosophies I've heard here from TEs who believe man evolved.

I'm not surprised in the least that you don't believe evolution compromises any Christian doctrines.

 

[shernren]

But you keep missing the main point, this had no impact on any doctrines of the Christian faith.

It certainly didn't seem so to the main actors of the drama; it certainly doesn't seem so to modern geocentrists. You only say this with the benefit of hindsight and in a culture where geocentrism is effectively dead.

Well, I maintain that in the same way that heliocentrism didn't threaten Christianity, evolution doesn't threaten Christianity. The only reason heliocentrism is true is because it accurately describes the world God created; the only reason evolution is true is because it accurately describes the world God created; the only reason Christianity is true is because it accurately describes the salvation plan God has put into effect. Therefore, I remain unconvinced that evolution is a threat to Christianity, and I think anyone who tries to equate Christianity with anti-evolutionism is doing both Christianity and evolution disservice.

I don't know Miller and Collins so I can't tell you what core doctrines they've rejected. Please, let's not get into a discussion about their beliefs. My remarks are based off of the statements and philosophies I've heard here from TEs who believe man evolved.

I'm not surprised in the least that you don't believe evolution compromises any Christian doctrines.

And you shouldn't be. If I thought evolution compromised any Christian doctrines, would I still hold to it and to Christianity? Yet you don't seem convinced that what I am saying is true.

 

[Vance]

Exactly, Shenren, and I would add to the folks at the time, the concept of heliocentrism did, indeed, threaten important theological issues.

First, there is the whole idea of Scripture being true or not. Since they believed that Scripture "clearly" described geocentrism, the concept of heliocentrism threatened the validity or trustworthiness of Scripture.

Second, the idea that the sun and stars were not revolving around the earth (for the sole purpose of giving it light), and that the earth was just one planet, and the sun was just one sun among a vast array, was VERY threatening to the idea of the earth being the point around which the universe was created, as seemingly described in Genesis 1.

Third, the same issue raised the specter of the "smallness" of mankind and God's creative work on this planet in relation to everything else.

 

[vossler]

It certainly didn't seem so to the main actors of the drama; it certainly doesn't seem so to modern geocentrists. You only say this with the benefit of hindsight and in a culture where geocentrism is effectively dead.

Tell me a doctrine that was theatened by heliocentrism. Once you do then we may have something to talk about.

I remain unconvinced that evolution is a threat to Christianity, and I think anyone who tries to equate Christianity with anti-evolutionism is doing both Christianity and evolution disservice.

Like I said before, I'm not here to convince you of anything. My role here is to defend the Truth of God's Word.

And you shouldn't be. If I thought evolution compromised any Christian doctrines, would I still hold to it and to Christianity? Yet you don't seem convinced that what I am saying is true.

I'm very convinced that you believe what you are saying. I've never doubted your belief.

 

[Vance]

Vossler, in addition to the points I made above, here are some quotes regarding heliocentrism from folks at the time, and a couple more modern ones:

"Scripture simply says that the moon, the sun, and the stars were placed in the firmament of the heaven, below and above which heaven are the waters... It is likely that the stars are fastened to the firmament like globes of fire, to shed light at night... We Christians must be different from the philosophers in the way we think about the causes of things. And if some are beyond our comprehension like those before us concerning the waters above the heavens, we must believe them rather than wickedly deny them or presumptuously interpret them in conformity with our understanding."

- Martin Luther, Luther's Works. Vol. 1. Lectures on Genesis, ed. Janoslaw Pelikan, Concordia Pub. House, St. Louis, Missouri, 1958, pp. 30, 42, 43.

"Those who assert that 'the earth moves and turns'...[are] motivated by 'a spirit of bitterness, contradiction, and faultfinding;' possessed by the devil, they aimed 'to pervert the order of nature.'"

- John Calvin, sermon no. 8 on 1st Corinthians, 677, cited in John Calvin: A Sixteenth Century Portrait by William J. Bouwsma (Oxford Univ. Press, 1988), A. 72

"People gave ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the very best. This fool [or 'man'] wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth."

- Martin Luther, Table Talk

"To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus Christ was not born of a virgin."

- Cardinal Bellarmine 1615, during the trial of Galileo

Yet, Bellarmine was also a bit more liberal in one of his private letters:

“I say that if there were a true demonstration [of Copernicanism] then one would have to
proceed with great care in explaining the Scriptures that appear contrary and say rather
that we do not understand them, rather than that what is demonstrated is false.”

What is important about this, for our discussion, is his statement “Scriptures that appear contrary”. This indicates that to him, and presumably others, the Scriptures did, indeed, appear contrary to heliocentrism.

"The heavens revolve daily, and, immense as is their fabric, and inconceivable the rapidity of their revolutions, we experience no concussion -- no disturbance in the harmony of their motion. The sun, though varying its course every diurnal revolution, returns annually to the same point. The planets, in all their wandering, maintain their respective positions. How could the earth hang suspended in the air were it not upheld by God's hand? (Job 26:7) By what means could it [the earth] maintain itself unmoved, while the heavens above are in constant rapid motion, did not its Divine Maker fix and establish it? Accordingly the particle, ape, denoting emphasis, is introduced -- YEA, he hath established it."

- John Calvin, Commentary on the Book of Psalms, Psalm 93, verse 1, trans., James Anderson (Eerdman's, 1949), Vol. 4, p. 7

and a modern geocentrist:

"God, in His Word, consistently teaches geocentricity."

- Gerardus Bouw, Ph.D., "why Geocentricity?" -- an article appearing in the Baptist Bulletin, circa Sept. 1985.

And another:

Scripture is very clear that the earth is stationary and that the sun, moon and stars revolve around it. . . . If there was [sic] only one or two places where the Geocentric teaching appeared in Scripture, one might have the license to say that those passages were just incidental and really didn’t reflect the teaching of Scripture at large. But the fact is that Geocentrism permeates Scripture. Here are some of the more salient passages (Sirach 43:2-5; 43:9-10; 46:4; Psalm 19:5-7; 104:5; 104:19; 119:90; Ecclesiastes 1:5; 2 Kings 20:9-11; 2 Chronicles 32:24; Isaiah 38:7-8; Joshua 10:12-14; Judges 5:31; Job 9:7; Habakkuk 3:11; (1 Esdras 4:12); James 1:12). I could list many more, but I think these will suffice.

Sungenis, Robert A. “The Geocentrism-Wacko Challenge” 7 May 2002. CAI Website. Retrieved 16 June 2002

On February 24, 1616, the Holy Office’s consulting theologians (called “Qualifiers&#8221 issued their opinion that the proposition that the sun is “the center of the world” was “foolish and absurd, philosophically and formally heretical,” and they declared the proposition that the earth moves “to receive the same censure in philosophy and, as regards theological truth, to be at least erroneous in faith.”

And, a bit of the history given on a geocentric site:

"All branches of the Protestant Church...vied with each other in denouncing the Copernican doctrine as contrary to Scripture," wrote Andrew White. Historian Thomas Kuhn said: "Protestant leaders like Luther, Calvin, and Melanchthon led in citing Scripture against Copernicus and in urging repression of Copernicanism.”.

 

[shernren]

Tell me a doctrine that was theatened by heliocentrism. Once you do then we may have something to talk about.
Like I said before, I'm not here to convince you of anything. My role here is to defend the Truth of God's Word.

Precisely as Vance stated, the inerrancy and truth of Scripture. Or as Gerardus Bouw has put it, "After all, if God cannot be taken literally when He writes of the 'rising of the sun,' then how can He be taken literally in writing of the 'rising of the Son?'"

Ken Ham writes similarly of creationism: "This is the crux of the issue. When Christians have agreed with the world that they can accept man’s fallible dating methods to interpret God’s Word, they have agreed with the world that the Bible can’t be trusted. They have essentially sent out the message that man, by himself, independent of revelation, can determine truth and impose this on God’s Word. Once this ‘door’ has been opened regarding Genesis, ultimately it can happen with the rest of the Bible."

Replace "man's fallible dating methods" with "man's fallible astronomical observations" and "Genesis" by "Joshua" and you have a word-for-word endorsement of geocentrism.

 

[vossler]

Precisely as Vance stated, the inerrancy and truth of Scripture. Or as Gerardus Bouw has put it, "After all, if God cannot be taken literally when He writes of the 'rising of the sun,' then how can He be taken literally in writing of the 'rising of the Son?'"

Ken Ham writes similarly of creationism: "This is the crux of the issue. When Christians have agreed with the world that they can accept man’s fallible dating methods to interpret God’s Word, they have agreed with the world that the Bible can’t be trusted. They have essentially sent out the message that man, by himself, independent of revelation, can determine truth and impose this on God’s Word. Once this ‘door’ has been opened regarding Genesis, ultimately it can happen with the rest of the Bible."

Replace "man's fallible dating methods" with "man's fallible astronomical observations" and "Genesis" by "Joshua" and you have a word-for-word endorsement of geocentrism.

Regardless of how one reads the passages that you bring up, they have no bearing on salvation or any other doctrine of substance. I see no purpose in this analysis other than to divert attention from the real and important issues that have a bearing on peoples lives so I refuse to entertain them.

 

[shernren]

Regardless of how one reads the passages that you bring up, they have no bearing on salvation or any other doctrine of substance. I see no purpose in this analysis other than to divert attention from the real and important issues that have a bearing on peoples lives so I refuse to entertain them.

So how does evolution have any bearing on salvation or any other doctrine of substance? Geocentrism can seem quite diversionary but really, I haven't seen anything yet from you or anyone else to show me that it's not an accurate analogy for the situation at hand.