Formal debate proposal: accepting human evolution is not a rejection of orthodoxy

[shernren]

It's dramatic imagery I think but if you can't convince TEs that it's a dinosaur imagine their reaction if you tried to argue that it's the Devil. You can't win you know.

Speak o' the Devil.

No - the Behemoth in Job is a picture of Death, and Leviathan a picture of Satan. Of course, that's just if you ask me.

http://christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=42748733

 

[shernren]

Quite frankly, mark, this shows for a fact that you're incapable of listening to the opposition.

This is what you do Mallon, establish and defend the New Testament and vital events in the Old Testament (Exodus, Sinai...etc). The trick is to put the fulcrum emphasis is on the reliability of the Bible based on central events. Then you start to look at some pretty puzzling problems like the fact that Old Testament writers really didn't expect God in human flesh. When the Law came it was perpetual but in the New Testament grace both nailed the written code to the cross and fulfilled the righteous requirements of the Law. Just as evolution is progressive so is revelation.

Remember this thread? http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=36608230#post36608230 Quite a few TEs (more than half our regular posters) assented to the historicity of every single Biblical event on your list. You didn't back down, you escalated your rhetoric.

At any rate, your only real obstacle is Adam all the rest is negotiable. Even if you don't take Adam as being literal in Genesis or Romans 5 you just simply concede that both views are valid but incomplete, both from the scientific and theological end. It's kind of like solving an equation, identify what you do know and isolate what you don't. Then when you get to Adam isolated you simply choose to defer to future discoveries and revelation since our knowledge of both is incomplete.

Remember this thread? http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=5352218&page=2 Quite a few TEs agreed that there was an Adam and original sin, and the one who didn't (you know who are dude ) made a strong Biblical case. Again, you didn't back down.

The point is that you don't deconstruct Creationism, you build your theological reasoning from the New Testament.

The point is we never deconstruct creationism. (Well, I did it once. You never even so much as poked your head in at that thread, so that incident can't possibly be what you're referring to.) You may wonder why I'm not starting the formal debate yet and the answer is because it takes me a whole lot more time to assimilate new information (i.e. the sources I'm looking at that I've never looked at before) than to pull old information out. God's blessed me with a long memory and quite frankly I don't remember a TE ever being half as hostile as you creationists are. (Besides KM and a few of my own choice remarks - and you never even interacted with KM seeing as his specialty of astrophysics was wildly separated from your interest in hominid evolution.)

What's the chip on your shoulder, mark? It's not the historicity of the Bible because we've agreed on that before. It's not orthodox Christian doctrine, because when ClearSky was espousing open theism it was me and some other TEs who were opposing that viewpoint. You didn't so much as show up, if I recall. And I would think the sovereignty and omniscience of God are far more important doctrines than the creation fiat of Adam, wouldn't you? It's not even Adam because plenty of us TEs subscribe to an actual first human couple and an actual original sin.

It's not liberal theology either. You know, the way you've gone on and on about Tillich is both hilarious and infuriating at the same time because all that's ever happened with regards to Tillich is that a few TEs defended a particular strange semantical turn of his. Seriously, mark, when was the last time in the past six months that any TE quoted Tillich? I've quoted Phillip Johnson more times than I've quoted Tillich (which is zero), maybe that makes me ID. Personally, the most liberal theological influence I have is Robert Farrar Capon, an Anglican who explicitly denounces liberal theologians for going too far in claiming that Genesis is mythical. And I bet most TEs here don't even read as far afield into the liberal world as Capon.

It's not about Scriptural exegesis. Take that Romans 5:12 passage you're so fond of. Assyrian has pointed to the actual Greek again and again. Have you? I know you haven't, because one of the most important defence points of the conservative viewpoint on this verse is that Paul consistently uses the aorist tense for the word "sinned". Both Hodge and Stott make that point, Hodge doing so repeatedly. You've never said Romans 5:12 uses the aorist tense. (A CF.com search for the word "aorist" in your posts reveals zero matches - it could be wrong, but I doubt so.) It would be the first thing I would expect you to do if you were really exegeting the text - tense was one of the first things I learned when learning Greek, indeed I stopped there and never got much further.

So what is it, mark?

Because hostility begets hostility, and really I think you have only yourself to blame for the way TEs react so hostilely to you.

 

[theFijian]

I was astonished to find I have more in common with Catholic theology then I do with pro-evolution apologists on here. There is an alternative to this constant bickering, instead of bashing Creationism try emphasizing sound doctrine.

Perhaps that's because like most of evangelical christianity you are semi-pelagian if not full blown pelagian in your soteriology? What i'd really love is for Creationists to come out and disavow all Pelagianism, semi-pelagianism, arminianism and (that very modernist of errors) dispensationalism, then i'd take their theologising a bit more seriously. In fact if we want to talk about liberal influences, can there be a more apt example of corrupting humanistic influences than the rise of semi-pelagianism in christianity today? After all why give God all the glory? We want some of the credit for our salvation for ourselves!

 

[Assyrian]

I'll give you the brief form and then if you want to pursue it I wouldn't mind if I did. Genesis 1 is in absolutes which can be literal but the focus is on theology. God does not elaborate on creation beyond that. The only real problem is Adam, he had to be specially created and the New Testament is explicit with that. You could easily affirm a progressive evolution from the primordial sea and never stray from sound doctrine, Genesis one is just not an obstacle.

The only thing you would have to compromise is one moment in natural history as it is interjected with special creation. You do that and the conflict fades away tomorrow. As far as elaborate debate and discussion of the hominid record you could even dodge that if you were serious enough.

This is what you do Mallon, establish and defend the New Testament and vital events in the Old Testament (Exodus, Sinai...etc). The trick is to put the fulcrum emphasis is on the reliability of the Bible based on central events. Then you start to look at some pretty puzzling problems like the fact that Old Testament writers really didn't expect God in human flesh. When the Law came it was perpetual but in the New Testament grace both nailed the written code to the cross and fulfilled the righteous requirements of the Law. Just as evolution is progressive so is revelation.

At any rate, your only real obstacle is Adam all the rest is negotiable. Even if you don't take Adam as being literal in Genesis or Romans 5 you just simply concede that both views are valid but incomplete, both from the scientific and theological end. It's kind of like solving an equation, identify what you do know and isolate what you don't. Then when you get to Adam isolated you simply choose to defer to future discoveries and revelation since our knowledge of both is incomplete.

The point is that you don't deconstruct Creationism, you build your theological reasoning from the New Testament. It's kind of like dealing with speaking in tongues, you deal with the handful of verses briefly and instead of turning into a quarrel emphasis central doctrine.

That's the gist of it, just remember the Fundamentalist isn't emphasizing historicity and evangelical thinking is focused on the Gospel. All you really would have to do is de-emphasis certain things as unknown, incomplete and subject to further discovery and fuller revelation.

I know I could pull it off without disturbing a single central doctrine, that is if I believed it.

Thanks for the response to Mallon's question Mark. One question I have though is why you think special creation of Adam is so important for theology? I know you interpret certain NT verses as referring to special creation, but what is the theological link and does the NT actually make that link?

 

[Melethiel]

Perhaps that's because like most of evangelical christianity you are semi-pelagian if not full blown pelagian in your soteriology? What i'd really love is for Creationists to come out and disavow all Pelagianism, semi-pelagianism, arminianism and (that very modernist of errors) dispensationalism, then i'd take their theologising a bit more seriously. In fact if we want to talk about liberal influences, can there be a more apt example of corrupting humanistic influences than the rise of semi-pelagianism in christianity today? After all why give God all the glory? We want some of the credit for our salvation for ourselves!

Personally, as a Lutheran to whom Sacramental theology is very important, I've always found it amusing that the vast majority of creationists here will probably take baptism and the Sacrament as symbolic...

 

[gluadys]

Personally, as a Lutheran to whom Sacramental theology is very important, I've always found it amusing that the vast majority of TEs here will probably take baptism and the Sacrament as symbolic...

Actually, I expect most of the creationists do too. Certainly any whose theological roots go back to the Anabaptist stream of the Reformation.

 

[shernren]

Personally, as a Lutheran to whom Sacramental theology is very important, I've always found it amusing that the vast majority of TEs here will probably take baptism and the Sacrament as symbolic...

I've been thinking hard about that in my spare time and I find it hard to believe that some kind of "communication of grace" doesn't happen in the sacraments and that they therefore play only some kind of symbolic role. Whatever "communication of grace" means - I've only time for one Christian controversy at a time!

 

[Melethiel]

Actually, I expect most of the creationists do too. Certainly any whose theological roots go back to the Anabaptist stream of the Reformation.

Whoops! Thanks for catching that. I MEANT to say "creationists", not "TEs".

 

[gluadys]

Whoops! Thanks for catching that. I MEANT to say "creationists", not "TEs".

That does make more sense, though I expect many TEs are not sacramentalists either.

I was raised in the United Church of Canada which is somewhere between moderately Calvinist and outright Arminian. (Ecumenism makes strange bedfellows). But even in that context we were taught that the sacraments are a "means of grace".

As I moved into the more strictly Reformed environment of the Presbyterian church, I learned more of what that meant. Still not quite what you, as a Lutheran, would recognize as a commitment to the Real Presence of Christ in the sacrament, but a long way from sacrament as only symbolic too.

Today, I receive the sacrament in an Anglican church and find the Eucharist more and more meaningful. But then, in the last few decades both the United and Presbyterian churches have moved toward more sacramental worship too. At least in Canada.

While I don't think it is a necessity to accepting evolution and evolutionary creationism, from my perspective it does make for a closer fit of faith and science. Perhaps this is why we see so much good theology of science from Brits like John Polkinghorne.

 

[busterdog]

Personally, as a Lutheran to whom Sacramental theology is very important, I've always found it amusing that the vast majority of creationists here will probably take baptism and the Sacrament as symbolic...

I think its a mixed bag, probably tending toward the symbolic.

I understand what you are saying and there is certainly some truth to the notion that creation is popular with many dogmatists who are heavily read in commentary and protestant traditions. The gifts of the spirit is a similar area where many fundamentalist protestants can be extremely literal about Genesis, but extremely "traditional" about cessationism as taught since Jonathan Edwards. As in cessationism and "symbolic" regard for communion, there is doctrine built upon inference alone, which is a completely different hermeneutic than that which is used in creationism.

But, let me pose this question to you. Most creationists believe very sincerely and literally that where two or three are gathered in Jesus name, he is in the midst of them. (Our local career safe-seat Congressman also seemed to be omnipresent any time a boy scout troop leader or Elks Lodge president received a plaque, watch or congratulatory handsake, and the same verse was applied to him frequently.)

Now, it is even more inconsistent to believe Mt. 18:20 is literally true but that the host and blood are not the real presence of Christ. The inconsistency with a creationist hermeneutic is less striking.

But ..........

If you believe Mt. 18:20 is literally true, you implicitly accept the reality of the body and blood even though your brain isnt working real well in doing the hermeneutics of the testament of the last supper. If you believe Mt. 18.20 is really true, then you have applied a hermeneutic consistently as between Mt. 18:20 and Genesis, though you may stumble in discerning the body and blood completely. But, its pretty hard to say from this that a creationist accepting the truth of Mt. 18:20 is a hypocrit (not your words, of course) or an idiot (ditto) or completely sloppy if he screws up on the body and blood. It is a mixed bag.

In fact, to turn this whole thing on its head, which members of your Church or any Church really ACT like Mt. 18:20 is really true? Do they tithe like it? Testify like it is true? Exchange grumbling for thanks like it is really true?

So, I accept your point about he inconsistent hermeneutic. But, I think it says less about creationism (though it says something) than it does about everyone's difficult in grasping the presence of Jesus.

 

[RobertByers]

There are many fossils considered to be transitional. Perhaps you have some special criteria you expect of a transitional. What do you expect to see in a transitional fossil that you don't see in examples such as Archeopteryx, Basiliosaurus or Tiktaalik?





This seems to contradict your earlier statement. Why do you consider they were originally land creatures? Because of transitional fossils?

And what's the difference between evolution and adaptation?

I already named three examples I recognize as transitional.

No contradiction.
The sea mammals show within their bodies today anatomical evidence of previous body lives. Then other aspects of life called mammalian show they were once on land. There are no transitional fossils regarding whales but only some fossils of creatures perhaps related to whales. One must remember all transitional fossil claims are founded on geologic claims of slow accumulation of sediment into rock. In fact all fossils flood or post flood.
I see adaptation as innate quick responce. Just like human skin colour.
Evolution is from selection working on mutations and not what I mean.
I simply see the evidence of change and timeframes force a conclusion of innate adaptation. There is no evidence for evolution but misinterpretation of data.

Your three transitions have one , i think, with the whale claim. The other two are not solid evidence of transitions nut just creatures based on models of evolution that they think would be this way. They are in fact creatures within their own world fine for living. Not transitional between imprtant kinds. However you might interpretate it as such but its vague and only evidence of what it is. A kind of creature. Its evolution models that suggest its a transition and not the fossil itself. The fossil is mute and since transitions must be made in great numbers between things to prove the point then these fossils prove nothing. The framework of evolution is leading the conclusion and not actual fossils between kinds.

 

[Mallon]

The sea mammals show within their bodies today anatomical evidence of previous body lives.

So does ALL life. That's why the learned people who have dedicated their lives to studying the intricacies of biological form and function have posited common ancestry for all life (not just whales).

 

[gluadys]

No contradiction.
The sea mammals show within their bodies today anatomical evidence of previous body lives. Then other aspects of life called mammalian show they were once on land.

In other words: transitional features.

There are no transitional fossils regarding whales but only some fossils of creatures perhaps related to whales.

What is the difference between a "transitional fossil regarding whales" and "fossils of creatures perhaps related to whales". How do you tell that one is transitional and another is not. Or are you just assuming that none of them can be transitional?

You have not answered the question of the criteria you are using to define a transitional fossil. What sort of feature would you expect to find in a transitional fossil as opposed to one that is not?

How do you know the ones that have been found are not transitional? What does "transitional" mean to you?

While we are at it--do you know what a paleontologist means by a transitional fossil and what features s/he looks for?

One must remember all transitional fossil claims are founded on geologic claims of slow accumulation of sediment into rock. In fact all fossils flood or post flood.

Not true. They are founded on the characteristics of the fossil as compared to other known species and taxonomic groups.

I see adaptation as innate quick responce. Just like human skin colour.

Are you speaking of skin colour one is born with or about tanning? Or maybe of a chameleon changing its colour?

These are different matters. Tanning, and the chameleon's changing camouflage are temporary adaptations to particular environmental stimuli. Inherited skin colour on the other hand is adaptive in the evolutionary sense. And there is no reason to think that differences in inherited skin colour occurred as an innate quick response.

Evolution is from selection working on mutations and not what I mean.

So you are referring to a temporary change in skin colour like tanning and not to inherited skin colour? There are certainly many adaptive mechanisms that are innate responses to environmental stimuli and I would agree that is not a matter of selection (other than the selection that provided the response in the first place).

But there are a good many adaptations that are inheritable as well, and are propagated through a species by differential reproductive success (aka natural selection).

I simply see the evidence of change and timeframes force a conclusion of innate adaptation. There is no evidence for evolution but misinterpretation of data.

If this is adaptation related to inheritable traits, I am still not seeing a difference between adaptation and evolution. How does a species acquire such an adaptive trait?

Your three transitions have one , i think, with the whale claim. The other two are not solid evidence of transitions nut just creatures based on models of evolution that they think would be this way.

You are being very vague. How do you know they are not transitions? What tells you they are not other than a predisposition to deny that any fossil is transitional?

If, based on evolutionary theory, we develop a model of what a transition ought to look like and then we find an actual fossil that matches the model, is this not support for the evolutionary model?

I think you need to describe in more detail what you understand a transitional to be, and what, for example, you features or combination of features, you would expect to see in a species transitioning from a terrestrial to a marine way of life, or vice versa.

Can you honestly say fossils with such features have never been found?

They are in fact creatures within their own world fine for living.

Do you consider that an important feature of a transitional would be that it NOT be fine for living within its own world? Why?

Not transitional between imprtant kinds.

Since you consider that whales had land-dwelling ancestors, are you saying that this was not a transition between important kinds?

Would you also consider that a transition from a ground dwelling creature to a flying creature is not a transition between important kinds?

How do you decide which kinds are important and which are not?

However you might interpretate it as such but its vague and only evidence of what it is. A kind of creature. Its evolution models that suggest its a transition and not the fossil itself. The fossil is mute and since transitions must be made in great numbers between things to prove the point then these fossils prove nothing. The framework of evolution is leading the conclusion and not actual fossils between kinds.

I am finding your responses very confusing. What is it that you expect fossils to "prove" other than having the mix of character traits that they have? What, other than the character traits, are you looking for to determine whether or not it is transitional?

I think you are very aware that we have many fossils (such as those I named) which display characteristics that are a mix of those found in different taxonomic groups and/or intermediate between them.

But you want to say these are not transitional. You don't give any reason for them not to be considered transitional. You claim there is no solid evidence they are transitional but you do not say why their features are not solid evidence. Nor do you say what solid evidence would consist of.


How then can I consider your assertion that they are not transitional fossils to be anything other than denial based on wishful thinking?

 

[shernren]

Nor do you say what solid evidence would consist of.

Fossils are solid evidence. Leave them in acid for two weeks though and then they're liquid evidence (and not very good at that either).

 

[RobertByers]

So does ALL life. That's why the learned people who have dedicated their lives to studying the intricacies of biological form and function have posited common ancestry for all life (not just whales).

No they don't. Only a few creatures do like sea mammals/snakes .
Otherwise its speculation of how form was used differently but not actual bones now not in use. Different.

 

[Mallon]

No they don't. Only a few creatures do like sea mammals/snakes .
Otherwise its speculation of how form was used differently but not actual bones now not in use. Different.

I have no idea what you're saying here. How can you be so certain that fossil whales and snakes with legs represent the ancestors of each of these groups, whereas, say, a fish with legs doesn't represent the ancestor of tetrapods? Or a dinosaur with feathers doesn't represent the ancestor of birds?
Methinks you suffer from confirmation bias.

 

[RobertByers]

Glaudys
So much here.
I explained that the fossils are just from events where they were all fossilized together. Your side is saying they show ages. So I'm saying these whale types were all living together. not transitions but mere varieties around some area.
In order to have evidence of transitions you must show a large list in a line from things very different. Bits and pieces from pinpricks in the fossil record are not evidence but intrepretation that something is a transition.
Evolutions case is depended on it.
Its up to you to show transitions and not us.
Why can't you do it?

 

[Assyrian]

Glaudys
So much here.
I explained that the fossils are just from events where they were all fossilized together. Your side is saying they show ages. So I'm saying these whale types were all living together. not transitions but mere varieties around some area.
In order to have evidence of transitions you must show a large list in a line from things very different. Bits and pieces from pinpricks in the fossil record are not evidence but intrepretation that something is a transition.
Evolutions case is depended on it.
Its up to you to show transitions and not us.
Why can't you do it?

You know there was a time when creationists thought transitional forms would be very easy to recognise. Now that science has found an abundance of transitional forms, suddenly transitionals are much harder to recognise.

Gish, D. T. (1973) Evolution? The Fossils Say No! p57
The conversion of an invertebrate into a vertebrate, a fish into a tetrapod with feet and legs, or a non-flying animals into a flying animal are a few of examples of changes that would require a revolution in structure. Such transformations should provide readily recognizable transitional series in the fossil record if they occurred through evolutionary processes. On the other hand, if the creation model is the true model, it is at just such boundaries that the absence of transitional forms would be most evident.

p 58 The two most easily distinguishable osteological differences between reptiles and mammals, however, have never been bridged by transitional series. All mammals, living or fossil, have a single bone, the dentary, on each side of the lower jaw, and all mammals, living or fossil, have three auditory ossicles or ear bones, the malleus, incus and stapes. In some fossil reptiles the number and size of the bones of the lower jaw are reduced compared to living reptiles. Every reptile, living or fossil, however, has at least four bones in the lower jaw and only one auditory ossicle, the stapes.

There are no transitional fossil forms showing, for instance, three or two jawbones, or two ear bones. No one has explained yet, for that matter, how the transitional form would have managed to chew while his jaw was being unhinged and rearticulated, or how he would hear while dragging two of his jaw bones up into his ear.
​

Notice how creationism predicted there wouldn't be any species found with jaws half way between reptiles and mammals, or fish with feet?

Incidentally, the time distribution of the transitional forms is simply further evidence. Anatomical features stand on their own. For example lungfish have been long recognised as transitional between fish and land animals, even though the examples they had were alive now, they retained the transitional features of the ancestors. Finding transitional forms in strata that palaeontology said they would be found in, rather than being randomly distributed by a single flood, is simply more evidence for evolution.

 

[shernren]

Hmm.

"Cdesign proponentsists" isn't actually a transitional form between creationists and design proponents. It's just a rare phrase that lives contemporaneously with "creationists" and "design proponents" but happened to get plonked down in replacement in a rare textual stratum. They're completely different words, yessirree. Entirely unrelated.

It's also evidence for the catastrophist theory of creationist publishing*: the presence of these textual artifacts is evidence for rapid deposition, because there clearly was not enough time for the text to undergo spellcheck grammatical transformations ...

*namely, that creationist publishing is a catastrophe.

Forgive the derail. I've got a draft report due in about 4 hours for which I've only finished about a third. Of course I can't actually work on it for the next 15 minutes, can I?

 

[Mallon]

You know there was a time when creationists thought transitional forms would be very easy to recognise. Now that science has found an abundance of transitional forms, suddenly transitionals are much harder to recognise.

That's a very good point, Assyrian. My, how the goalposts have shifted.
Actually, I've noticed more and more neocreationists lately admitting to the transitional nature of many fossils. They don't all seem to be trying to shoehorn them into one previously known taxon or another now. They're simply taking to saying that God must have created them with the appearance of being transitional. Very Omphalos-esque.