Evolution Between Species: Essential Questions

[Speedwell]

Tell you what, let's set the heavy theological and philosophical stuff aside a moment and tell me something. Why are you a Christian and what role do the Scriptures play in that?

Grace and peace,
Mark

I was born into it. Because I belong to a Traditional church, the true basis of my faith is Apostolic Witness rather than the Scriptures alone, which are, as the author of II Timothy tells us, inspired of God and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.

 

[RickG]

I was born into it. Because I belong to a Traditional church, the true basis of my faith is Apostolic Witness rather than the Scriptures alone, which are, as the author of II Timothy tells us, inspired of God and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.

I have often heard when fundamentalist are asked how they know the bible to be literal they cite the II Timothy verse, which to me seems to contradict themselves. I think an important aspect is, "who" decides what is and what is not scripture. History seems to indicate that it was quite heavily debated. Also, there could be no other reason for there to be so many different Christian denominations other than what is accepted and what is not.

 

[Speedwell]

I have often heard when fundamentalist are asked how they know the bible to be literal they cite the II Timothy verse, which to me seems to contradict themselves. I think an important aspect is, "who" decides what is and what is not scripture. History seems to indicate that it was quite heavily debated. Also, there could be no other reason for there to be so many different Christian denominations other than what is accepted and what is not.

I think what history shows us is that the process of official canonization was more of a ratification of those texts which had already become the most widely accepted.

 

[mark kennedy]

I was born into it. Because I belong to a Traditional church, the true basis of my faith is Apostolic Witness rather than the Scriptures alone, which are, as the author of II Timothy tells us, inspired of God and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.

That would be consistent with a lot of Catholic and Orthodox tradition, Protestants like myself are considerably more tentative about Apostolic authority but I can see where your coming from. When the canon of Scripture was affirmed it was unanimous, not unlike the findings of the Jerusalem council regarding the Mosaic law and circumcision. The Scriptures have long been understood as the Apostolic witness since it reflects their doctrine and teaching.

That said, I was more of less Catholic when I was growing up not that my parents were all that religious. My grandmother was Catholic and I have had first communion but that was about it. Later I received Christ and early I became interested in Bible study, one thing lead to another and before long I was into apologetics, I just had to know more about the history of that book. The whole creation/evolution thing has been a fascination for me for years and I consider it an exercise in evidential apologetics. I think the writings of the Early Church Fathers and to a lessor extent the Eastern Church Fathers is informative but I have never been able to reconcile everything they teach to the clear testimony of Scripture. To be honest, I can't really do that with Protestant doctrines sometimes. I always go back to the Scriptures, at least I know enough about it's history to understand Christian history and doctrine in an authoritative context that no Christian really denies.

Thanks for sharing, hope this doesn't seem critical I really wanted to know more about what you believe. Just one more thing and I guess we can go back to the historicity questions we have been jousting over. With regards to the historicity of the Gospels and Acts, do you accept the accuracy and legitimacy of these testimonies? Not asking for anything exhaustive, just curious what you think of the events described.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Speedwell]

Thanks for sharing, hope this doesn't seem critical I really wanted to know more about what you believe. Just one more thing and I guess we can go back to the historicity questions we have been jousting over. With regards to the historicity of the Gospels and Acts, do you accept the accuracy and legitimacy of these testimonies? Not asking for anything exhaustive, just curious what you think of the events described.

Grace and peace,
Mark

I think they are reasonably accurate, as they reflect Apostolic Tradition at a relatively early date, although I don't see them as eyewitness accounts, except perhaps for John, whose theological agenda was clearly more important to him. Luke, in particular, was an educated man and wrote history in the Greek fashion, although that was still very far from the historical-positivist (i.e. "literal and inerrant") style which we expect of historians today. Nonetheless, his work is still highly regarded by secular historians.
I have always been favorable to the theory that the earliest Christian documents in circulation (along with Paul's letters) were what were known as "testimonies," lists of OT prophecies which the Messiah was supposed to fulfill and which Jesus was seen to have done. There were numbers of these around, even before the Apostles began to preach, as it was an age of intense messianic expectation. Some of them survive, in various versions. These were the basis of Christian evangelism and teaching in the earliest days but as time went on immediate knowledge of Christ's ministry began to fade, and as Christianity spread to the gentiles who had less acquaintance with the Jewish scriptures anyway, the need for connected narratives emerged and that was when the Gospels were written, based on oral tradition and the testimonies themselves. The theory is that Mark used Peter's, whoever wrote Matthew used his and Luke used whatever he could get his hands on. It's an interesting theory and it accounts in a plausible way for the "synoptic problem."

 

[mark kennedy]

I think they are reasonably accurate, as they reflect Apostolic Tradition at a relatively early date, although I don't see them as eyewitness accounts, except perhaps for John, whose theological agenda was clearly more important to him. Luke, in particular, was an educated man and wrote history in the Greek fashion, although that was still very far from the historical-positivist (i.e. "literal and inerrant") style which we expect of historians today. Nonetheless, his work is still highly regarded by secular historians.

Obviously Luke doesn't present a first hand account, his interaction with Paul and presumably the other witnesses makes his report credible, at least as far as I'm concerned. Mark has long been considered the work of John Mark who accompanied Paul on the first missionary journey along with Barnabas. He appears to have recounted the events from interactions with Peter who overseen the writing of the Gospel of Mark. Barnabas, church tradition tells us, was one of the original 70 so his cousin, John Mark no doubt would have learned a great deal from him. John does offer some first hand information but he was more focused on dialogues with the Samaritan woman, Nicodemus, his encounters with the Scribes, Pharisees, the man born blind and others. The theology is obviously his central focus and he keeps it personal throughout. He spends almost as much time on the last three days as he does the entire ministry and that Upper Room Discourse is intense and goes on for chapters. I would disagree that Matthew is not a first hand account, it's represented by some of the earliest manuscripts evidence from the first century. He gives a very detailed discussion of the ministry of Jesus and spends a considerable amount of time leading up to the cross and resurrection, describing details over that week. I have always liked this:

The genuineness of these writings really admits of as little doubt, and is susceptible of as ready proof, as that of any ancient writings whatever. The rule of municipal law on this subject is familiar, and applies with equal force to all ancient writings, whether documentary or otherwise; and as it comes first in order, in the prosecution of these inquiries, it may, for the sake of mere convenience, be designated as our first rule.

Every document, apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository or custody, and bearing on its face no evident marks of forger, the law presumes to be genuine, and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise. (Testimony of the Evangelists, Simon Greenleaf)
​

If we are compelled to give an accused criminal or anyone involved in civil litigation the presumption of charity, why not the writers of Holy Scripture? If you are interested the link provided might open you up to a little different way of considering the reliability of the text. It's not without credibility and there is more then one perspective on this.

I have always been favorable to the theory that the earliest Christian documents in circulation (along with Paul's letters) were what were known as "testimonies," lists of OT prophecies which the Messiah was supposed to fulfill and which Jesus was seen to have done. There were numbers of these around, even before the Apostles began to preach, as it was an age of intense messianic expectation. Some of them survive, in various versions. These were the basis of Christian evangelism and teaching in the earliest days but as time went on immediate knowledge of Christ's ministry began to fade, and as Christianity spread to the gentiles who had less acquaintance with the Jewish scriptures anyway, the need for connected narratives emerged and that was when the Gospels were written, based on oral tradition and the testimonies themselves. The theory is that Mark used Peter's, whoever wrote Matthew used his and Luke used whatever he could get his hands on. It's an interesting theory and it accounts in a plausible way for the "synoptic problem."

Ok, we do know that the texts generally belong to the first century. One of the texts that has suffered virtually no secular skepticism has been Galatians. Matthew and Mark come in at a close second based on the manuscript evidence. I think we are on the same page about the urgency for the writing of the documents we call the New Testament. It was thirty years after Christ ascended and the need to preserve the Apostolic doctrine was becoming evident and obvious. You know, when I was in school I encountered something I was really not expecting. Immersed in all manner of Liberal Theology and higher criticism one of my professors made the statement that the entire New Testament may well have been written in the space of ten years. The secular world has cast a long shadow of doubt on these testimonies and perhaps they are right about some things. What I would ask you to consider is that perhaps church tradition got it right, at least in part.

Don't get me wrong, I really enjoyed the post. It was interesting to see your perspective on the New Testament, I mean, we all struggle to see through the lenses of ancient accounts. Just consider the alternatives, even if it's for the sake of argument, these histories deserve at least that much consideration.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Speedwell]

Obviously Luke doesn't present a first hand account, his interaction with Paul and presumably the other witnesses makes his report credible, at least as far as I'm concerned. Mark has long been considered the work of John Mark who accompanied Paul on the first missionary journey along with Barnabas. He appears to have recounted the events from interactions with Peter who overseen the writing of the Gospel of Mark. Barnabas, church tradition tells us, was one of the original 70 so his cousin, John Mark no doubt would have learned a great deal from him. John does offer some first hand information but he was more focused on dialogues with the Samaritan woman, Nicodemus, his encounters with the Scribes, Pharisees, the man born blind and others. The theology is obviously his central focus and he keeps it personal throughout. He spends almost as much time on the last three days as he does the entire ministry and that Upper Room Discourse is intense and goes on for chapters. I would disagree that Matthew is not a first hand account, it's represented by some of the earliest manuscripts evidence from the first century. He gives a very detailed discussion of the ministry of Jesus and spends a considerable amount of time leading up to the cross and resurrection, describing details over that week. I have always liked this:

The genuineness of these writings really admits of as little doubt, and is susceptible of as ready proof, as that of any ancient writings whatever. The rule of municipal law on this subject is familiar, and applies with equal force to all ancient writings, whether documentary or otherwise; and as it comes first in order, in the prosecution of these inquiries, it may, for the sake of mere convenience, be designated as our first rule.

Every document, apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository or custody, and bearing on its face no evident marks of forger, the law presumes to be genuine, and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise. (Testimony of the Evangelists, Simon Greenleaf)
​

If we are compelled to give an accused criminal or anyone involved in civil litigation the presumption of charity, why not the writers of Holy Scripture? If you are interested the link provided might open you up to a little different way of considering the reliability of the text. It's not without credibility and there is more then one perspective on this.



Ok, we do know that the texts generally belong to the first century. One of the texts that has suffered virtually no secular skepticism has been Galatians. Matthew and Mark come in at a close second based on the manuscript evidence. I think we are on the same page about the urgency for the writing of the documents we call the New Testament. It was thirty years after Christ ascended and the need to preserve the Apostolic doctrine was becoming evident and obvious. You know, when I was in school I encountered something I was really not expecting. Immersed in all manner of Liberal Theology and higher criticism one of my professors made the statement that the entire New Testament may well have been written in the space of ten years. The secular world has cast a long shadow of doubt on these testimonies and perhaps they are right about some things. What I would ask you to consider is that perhaps church tradition got it right, at least in part.

Don't get me wrong, I really enjoyed the post. It was interesting to see your perspective on the New Testament, I mean, we all struggle to see through the lenses of ancient accounts. Just consider the alternatives, even if it's for the sake of argument, these histories deserve at least that much consideration.

Grace and peace,
Mark

I'm not going to argue with any of that. There is so much we are just not going to know for sure about the history of those texts.

 

[mark kennedy]

I'm not going to argue with any of that. There is so much we are just not going to know for sure about the history of those texts.

I can accept that, I appreciate you being willing to at least consider my perspective. I had a point to this, the historicity of the New Testament remains a vital issue, I do hope you will keep in mind that there is more then one way of looking at this.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[sfs]

So if I were to say fossils are animals that turned out to still exist, to which you say "uh so?"

The more recent a fossil is, the more likely it is to resemble something still living today. A handful of animals have continued more or less unchanged over many millions of years, even while most others changed more substantially. The "uh, so?" means, why is this an argument against evolution?

Then you say fossilization is much slower than petrification.

Conventionally, fossils are any remains older than (usually) 10,000 years. Petrifaction can be slow or fast. As it happens, I really don't care about the subject at all, or about fossils. The genetic evidence for common descent is stronger and is what I'm familiar with.

You say it is a lie that skulls from potential ancestors are littered with fabrications and hoaxes, why do you dismiss this? Do you not know of a regular human skull and ape jawbone combination fabrication hoax?

Yes, I'm familiar with the Piltdown hoax. That is one hoax. "Littered with" requires more than one hoax.

Logic and reasoning testifies against evolution in every which way shape or form.

I'm reasonably good and logic and reasoning, and yet I find the evidence for evolution compelling.

 

[Speedwell]

Yes, I'm familiar with the Piltdown hoax. That is one hoax. "Littered with" requires more than one hoax.

There may have been one or two more, I think, but the interesting thing is, they were exposed by other scientists, not by Creationists.

 

[Commander]

Your reply seems to have no connection to the subject under discussion, and your objections to this example are spurious. No species here is sterile.

Here is the quoted sentence: "Two strains of Drosophila paulistorum developed hybrid sterility of male offspring between 1958 and 1963." I mentioned mules are also sterile(they cannot have little mule babies). These are the examples given. Still, not a good example of evolution. Do you understand that if a species is sterile, it cannot reproduce? Have you not read that in the evolutionary material you have read? You do realize that evolution teaches that organic(living) came from inorganic(non-living), right? Since you are a geneticist, please explain how genes were passed from rocks to any living matter?

 

[Speedwell]

Here is the quoted sentence: "Two strains of Drosophila paulistorum developed hybrid sterility of male offspring between 1958 and 1963." I mentioned mules are also sterile(they cannot have little mule babies). These are the examples given. Still, not a good example of evolution. Do you understand that if a species is sterile, it cannot reproduce? Have you not read that in the evolutionary material you have read? You do realize that evolution teaches that organic(living) came from inorganic(non-living), right? Since you are a geneticist, please explain how genes were passed from rocks to any living matter?

Right after you explain how Jesus learned to ride a unicycle.

 

[Commander]

I have a religion: it's called "Christianity". Evolution is what I study for a living.

What you have stated is called cognitive dissonance. It has occasionally been argued that in Torcaso v. Watkins(1961) the U.S. Supreme Court "found" secular humanism(evolution) to be a religion. You should choose this day who/what you believe. The first three verses in John will tell you the truth. Christianity and evolution are irreconcilable. Have a blessed day, brother.

 

[Commander]

There may have been one or two more, I think, but the interesting thing is, they were exposed by other scientists, not by Creationists.

How about Lucy? There are many more, if not all of them!

 

[Commander]

Right after you explain how Jesus learned to ride a unicycle.

During 1866, James Stanley invented a unique bicycle called the Penny Farthing. It is this vehicle that is thought to be the inspiration for the unicycle. The unicycle was not there(it had not been invented) for Jesus Christ to learn how to ride. Truth, it will set you free.

 

[sfs]

Here is the quoted sentence: "Two strains of Drosophila paulistorum developed hybrid sterility of male offspring between 1958 and 1963."

Right. Do you understand what "hybrid sterility" is? It means that hybrids -- the results of mating between the two populations -- are sterile. Just like donkeys are sterile.

I mentioned mules are also sterile(they cannot have little mule babies). These are the examples given. Still, not a good example of evolution. Do you understand that if a species is sterile, it cannot reproduce?

Yes, I understand that. And do you understand that no species being discussed here is sterile? Both of the strains of fruit fly in question reproduce just fine. Your responses here make no sense at all.

You do realize that evolution teaches that organic(living) came from inorganic(non-living), right?

No, I don't realize anything of the sort. Evolution is the process by which living things change from generation to generation. It says nothing about where living things came from. That's a different field of research, studied by different people.

 

[sfs]

How about Lucy? There are many more, if not all of them!

Not a hoax.

 

[sfs]

What you have stated is called cognitive dissonance.

No, what we have here is someone who disagrees with you -- really not a very difficult concept to master.

It has occasionally been argued that in Torcaso v. Watkins(1961) the U.S. Supreme Court "found" secular humanism(evolution) to be a religion.

I'm sure that would be of interest to secular humanists -- none of whom should be posting in this forum.

You should choose this day who/what you believe. The first three verses in John will tell you the truth.

I made that choice decades ago. I really, really do not need you lecturing on the subject.

Christianity and evolution are irreconcilable.

Since many Christians, including me, do reconcile them, your statement is simply false.

 

[Commander]

Right. Do you understand what "hybrid sterility" is? It means that hybrids -- the results of mating between the two populations -- are sterile. Just like donkeys are sterile.

Donkeys are not sterile, they are crossed by man with a horse to get the mule. It is only by man's intervention that mules are produced.

Yes, I understand that. And do you understand that no species being discussed here is sterile? Both of the strains of fruit fly in question reproduce just fine. Your responses here make no sense at all.

We were discussing mosquitoes and mules. You also realized that the fruit fly has 4 chromosomes, no more, no less?

 

[Commander]

Evolution is the process by which living things change from generation to generation.

How did organic matter come from inorganic matter?