My Official Evolutionary Position

[tryptophan]

The following is my official position of origins, evolutionary theory, science, and religion.

I have been a Roman Catholic my whole life. I have not always been as religious as I now am, though I have always tried to keep my faith as much as possible. It has been a large influence on my life. However, for most of my life, my view of origins has been rather shaky. To be honest, I never had an "official" view to speak of. When I was very young, I kind of believed both the scientific view, that the earth is billions of years old and that all animals have evolved from earlier species, and the religious view of a young earth with Adam and Eve. For some reason, I never noted a contradiction.

In my middle years (I'm 21, so my middle years aren't very long), I did not have much of a position at all. The issue never came up for me. It was rarely ever brought up in school, and I was often busy thinking about other things.

In late high school, I began thinking about God and science. The big moment came in senior biology class when I was studying transcription/translation. Studying the complex protein structures and mechanisms gave me an ID sort of view (although at the time, I had never heard of ID or of any of the proponents). It looked like very good evidence for the existence of God.

The following year, I entered college and began studying introductory biology. It was in this class that I finally learned about natural selection and other processes of evolution. Gradually, as I studied more courses, including geology, invertebrate zoology, history of science, and genetics, I began to accept evolutionary theory. It wasn't that I had ever rejected it, it was just that I did not understand it very well.

Something that changed was my quasi-ID view that had originated in high school. I still feel that the transcription/translation process is a great way to see beauty in God's creation. However, I do not see it as self-explanatory as evidence for the existence of God. What turned me from this view was actually an ID argument. In one of my classrooms, there was a poster from an organization called everystudent.com (or .org, I can't remember) that said something about the position of the Sun or Moon or something. I thought about it, and felt that you could not prove or disprove the existence of God. You can only come to the belief of God through yoursself.

That same year, I began to research the evolution-creation controversy, and so here I am now. I accept the scientific statement that the earth is several billion years old, that all animals, including humans, decended from a common ancestor. I also believe that God is the Creator, the one who has created the heavens and the earth. I do not know the exact process that he created with, but I do see him as the creator of everything. I do not believe that evolutionary theory contradicts the existence of God. I do not believe that the Genesis creation accounts should be interpreted literally, but should be understood for their spiritual truths.

I have no qualms with creationists. I do not hate you, and I do not think that you are ignorant or stupid. I simply disagree with you. I do not expect you to agree with me, I just ask that we can have some sort of respect for each other. However, I do not believe that creationism, including ID, should be taught in schools, since I do not feel that it has been demonstrated scientifically.

Thank you for your time. Feel free to include any comments.

 

[cds113089]

I have no problems with evolutionists either, but I do sometimes think that those theistic evolutionists who know little about evolution, like most of my fellow high school students, are simply trying to please the atheistic world and avoid being made fun of for suggesting a literal interpretation of Genesis. Those that have studied it and made their own decision based on what they see, that's a different story.

But it is plain to see that taking Genesis 1-11 literally, there is no possible way to reconcile it with evolution. The order of creation is different (for example, birds came before reptiles, and the earth and sun came before the other stars), the story of the fall of man is disregarded, the Flood (over 200 ancient cultures have stories about the Flood, all of which are very similar) is disregarded, and even things such as the Tower of Babel (which, I might note, there has actually been found an inscription about the Tower of Babel written by King Nebuchadnezzar) are passed off as symbolic myths.

Taking Genesis 1-11 as a myth, you have no problem reconciling evolution and the rest of the Bible. But in doing this, how do you reconcile Genesis with the rest of the Bible? Where do you draw the line between myth and factual account? The Flood? The Tower of Babel? Abraham? Joseph? Moses? If the story of creation is only a myth, first tell me why would God put a myth in the Bible if it was completely wrong? What would it tell us other than a false story? Jesus' parables had lessons, but what lesson does the story of creation teach us if it is false and irrelevant? At least thirty places in the Bible refer to Genesis 1-11:

-Exodus 20:11 (God made the world in six days)
-Exodus 31:17 (God made the world in 6 days and rested on the 7th)
-1 Chronicles 1:1 (reference to Adam)
-1 Chronicles 1:4 (reference to Noah)
-Psalms 104:6-9 (describes how the mountains and various landforms were made during and after the Flood)
-Job 26:10 (reference to when God made the sky)
-Isaiah 51:3 (reference to Eden)
-Isaiah 54:9 (reference to Noah, the Flood, and God's promise)
-Ezekiel 14:14 and 14:20 (reference to Noah)
-Ezekiel 28:13 (reference to Eden from Gen. 3)
-Ezekiel 31:9, 16, 18 (references to Eden)
-Ezekiel 36:35 (reference to Eden)
-Hosea 6:7 (reference to Adam and Gen. 3)
-Joel 2:3 (reference to Eden)
-Matthew 24:37-38 (two references to Noah and one reference to the Ark, spoken by Jesus)
-Luke 3:36-38 (a historic genealogy of Jesus Christ, includes everything from Adam to Abraham)
-Luke 17:26-27 (two more references to Noah and one to the Ark, spoken by Jesus)
-Romans 5:12-18 (five references to Adam and the fall)
-1 Corinthians 15:21-22 (two references to Adam's sin)
-1 Corinthians 15:45-49 (four references to Gen. 2)
-1 Timothy 2:13-14 (two references to Gen. 3)
-Hebrews 11:4 (reference to Cain and Abel)
-Hebrews 11:7 (reference to Noah's Ark)
-1 Peter 3:20 (reference to Noah's Ark)
-2 Peter 2:5 (reference to Noah's Ark and the Flood)
-1 John 3:12 (reference to Cain and Abel)
-Jude 1:11 (reference to Cain and Abel)
-Jude 1:14 (reference to Enoch, calling him a prophet, the 7th from Adam)

Are all these verses, including Jesus Himself, referring to a myth? There is nothing in Genesis 1-11 that implies it is anything other than a historical account. Nowhere in the Bible does God ever give a false or symbolic account. Why should Genesis be any different?

Theistic evolution and progressive creationism cannot be biblical, because they not only dismiss eleven chapters of what God clearly intended as a historical account, but also 30-plus references to the creation, Noah, the Flood, Eden, Adam & Eve, and the fall, in both the Old Testament and the New. It's been my experience that most people who take the Bible literally are the ones that have read the whole thing.

 

[gluadys]

Theistic evolution and progressive creationism cannot be biblical, because they not only dismiss eleven chapters of what God clearly intended as a historical account, but also 30-plus references to the creation, Noah, the Flood, Eden, Adam & Eve, and the fall, in both the Old Testament and the New. It's been my experience that most people who take the Bible literally are the ones that have read the whole thing.

I can assure you that I have indeed read the whole bible, not just once, but several times. I fully expect that many other TEs have as well, certainly among those who post here.

What I want to know is why creationists continually portray a non-literal reading of a scriptural passage as "dismissing" it (see above). This can only come from a mind-set that restricts truth to verifiable facts and sees no possibility of truth in any other form.

That is an utterly ridiculous position for anyone other than a hard-nosed materialist.

I don't know if you are familiar with the writings of Madeleine L'Engle. Her science-fiction work for children has won much acclaim, including the Newberry Award. And it is thoroughly grounded in Christian themes, much as the fiction of C.S. Lewis is.

Recently several of her books were re-issued in new covers--to attract a new younger generation I expect. But that is not something a publisher does without expecting that the books will sell as well to a new generation as to the preceding one.

What is of interest here is L'Engels introduction to this re-issue. In her author's preface she says:

It is another indication that stories have a life of their own, and that they say different things to different people at different times. And it is an affirmation that the story is true and takes us beyond the facts into something more real.​

(bolding added)

She is talking about fiction here. Stuff that never happened in the real world. Yet she says "The story is true." And why is it true? Because it takes us "beyond the facts into something more real." She is talking about her own work, but she could just as well be talking about the bible. At least a good deal of the bible.

I think creationists seriously underestimate the amazing power and truth of story. Story existed long before history. People have been telling stories since they first developed speech. History, as a form of writing, has only been around for a little over 2 millennia. Science as a way of discovering fact has only been around for about 400 years. And neither of them is pushing story out of the way soon.

Story is not fact, but it is a powerful vehicle for conveying a message. Especially a message you want people to remember. How many of the historical facts you learned in school do you remember today? How many scientific facts do you remember? Unless you have chosen to work professionally in these fields, probably not many.

But how many stories do you remember? Biblical stories, Mother Goose stories, stories of family history and events, stories you first saw on TV or in a movie, stories you read for yourself. Sure, you don't remember them all, but the ones you heard or read often you can probably recall very well.

Even looking at the bible alone---what parts do you remember best? Is it the genealogies of Chronicles or or the laws of Leviticus or the speeches of Job and his comforters? Or is it the stories of Moses and Samuel and David and Jesus?

Some of these stories relate to historical events and some probably do not. But with or without a historical tie, what makes them memorable is that they are stories; they have the power of stories; and they are true stories, not because they are fact, but because they go beyond fact to what is more real.

What is so incomprehensible about God telling stories? What communication vehicle is better adapted to keep on telling the truth generation after generation after generation not just century after century, but millennium after millennium?

Science could never do that, precisely because science is fact-based, evidence-based and our comprehension of facts is constantly changing as new data is discovered.

But story goes beyond fact and keeps the truth intact and fresh for each generation, no matter what the science of the age says. Whether one believes that Adam and Eve were literal historical individuals is a small unimportant point next to the powerful truth of their story--not only for them, but for us as well. For like all great stories (historical or not) the power of the story is what it tells us about ourselves. How could we possibly comprehend Jesus' sacrifice without this story in Genesis? How could we possibly understand our need for redemption if we did not understand that we are separated from our God by our sin?

History is a particular sub-set of story. It differs from story by deliberately connecting with verifiable facts of history. Yet, apart from the facts, history is best and most memorably passed on as narrative, as story. Lists of people, places and dates don't remain long in the memory. But the story of Washington crossing the Delaware or of Laura Secord leading her cow through the night--that is memorable. Furthermore, just like the non-historical stories, these stories are not just about the people in them. They too go beyond the facts to tell us something true about ourselves. They help us define ourselves as part of our nation, as Americans or Canadians in these cases. They are not just history, they are part of our respective national mythologies.

I believe God tells us stories because that is the best way to insure that the truth will be conveyed intact from one generation to another over the immense time-frame of history. And I believe the stories are true, not because they are factual (though some are) but because, like L'Engel's fiction, they go beyond fact to a truth more real than mere fact. And I believe the stories have the power to tell us the truth about ourselves so that we can hear and respond to the message of salvation--which is another part of the story.

 

[tryptophan]

While I have not read the whole Bible, I am in the process of doing that right now (I'm currently in Psalms). I can assure you, I'm not a TE that accepts evolution just to make myself look good around the atheists.

I do not consider evolution to be unbiblical, in the sense that it contradicts the Bible. Of course the other books of the Bible are going to reference Genesis. These are very important stories that are the foundation for the rest of the Bible. But the idea that they are not literally and historically true do not take away from their importance. We learn so much truth from these 11 chapters: that there is one God who created everything, that He created us in His image, that He loves us and considers us very good, that we have sin in the world. Gluadys has an excellent post earlier.

 

[cds113089]

What is of interest here is L'Engels introduction to this re-issue. In her author's preface she says:

It is another indication that stories have a life of their own, and that they say different things to different people at different times. And it is an affirmation that the story is true and takes us beyond the facts into something more real.​

(bolding added)

She is talking about fiction here. Stuff that never happened in the real world. Yet she says "The story is true." And why is it true? Because it takes us "beyond the facts into something more real." She is talking about her own work, but she could just as well be talking about the bible. At least a good deal of the bible.

Some stories do have a message, but what possible message could the Genesis story have? If the Genesis creation story is false, then what's the point? Not only would God be giving a false account of creation, but He would persist in referring to it, both Father and Son, in at least 30 other places in the Bible (and this is the result of a 10-minute search). There's no point in telling something completely false. Tell me, what is the point of the Genesis story?

I think creationists seriously underestimate the amazing power and truth of story. Story existed long before history. People have been telling stories since they first developed speech. History, as a form of writing, has only been around for a little over 2 millennia. Science as a way of discovering fact has only been around for about 400 years. And neither of them is pushing story out of the way soon.

Story is not fact, but it is a powerful vehicle for conveying a message. Especially a message you want people to remember. How many of the historical facts you learned in school do you remember today? How many scientific facts do you remember? Unless you have chosen to work professionally in these fields, probably not many.

The Old Testament books are, for the most part, 2,500-3,500 years old. Are you saying that not only Genesis is just a [pointless] story, but so is virtually the entire rest of the Old Testament? And actually, I am quite good at memorizing dates and facts and probably learn better from those than from stories.

But how many stories do you remember? Biblical stories, Mother Goose stories, stories of family history and events, stories you first saw on TV or in a movie, stories you read for yourself. Sure, you don't remember them all, but the ones you heard or read often you can probably recall very well.

Even looking at the bible alone---what parts do you remember best? Is it the genealogies of Chronicles or or the laws of Leviticus or the speeches of Job and his comforters? Or is it the stories of Moses and Samuel and David and Jesus?

Some of these stories relate to historical events and some probably do not. But with or without a historical tie, what makes them memorable is that they are stories; they have the power of stories; and they are true stories, not because they are fact, but because they go beyond fact to what is more real.

Only SOME? The Bible is the infallible Word of God (2 Timothy 3:16-17)! That means the whole thing is 100% true, 100% fact.

In the Bible, we often see future events referred to in symbolism. But can you point out even one place where a story of the past is referred to in symbolism? Or point out one place where God describes something He did in symbolism? Even secular historians admit that the Bible is, if not accurate in its message, it is historically accurate. We even know when the books of the Bible were written.

How do you distinguish a story from historical fact? How do you tell which parts of the Bible are just stories and which ones are facts? Besides, if you look, no serious biblical scholar interprets the Bible as just a bunch of non-factual stories.

What is so incomprehensible about God telling stories? What communication vehicle is better adapted to keep on telling the truth generation after generation after generation not just century after century, but millennium after millennium?

Because there's no point in telling a false story! Why in the heck would God plainly tell us that He created the earth in six days, the order in which He created it, how sin entered the world, about the Flood, and the Tower of Babel if it were not true? What is the point of the story of the Tower of Babel? To tell us how languages formed. I would also like to add that archaeologists have found ancient inscriptions about the Tower of Babel by King Nebuchadnezzar (from the book of Daniel).

Science could never do that, precisely because science is fact-based, evidence-based and our comprehension of facts is constantly changing as new data is discovered.

You seem to agree more with the atheistic scientists than with the Christian Bible defenders.

But story goes beyond fact and keeps the truth intact and fresh for each generation, no matter what the science of the age says. Whether one believes that Adam and Eve were literal historical individuals is a small unimportant point next to the powerful truth of their story--not only for them, but for us as well. For like all great stories (historical or not) the power of the story is what it tells us about ourselves. How could we possibly comprehend Jesus' sacrifice without this story in Genesis? How could we possibly understand our need for redemption if we did not understand that we are separated from our God by our sin?

How could there be truth to their story if they didn't exist, therefore there was no story in the first place? You're not making sense. If Adam and Eve didn't exist, then how did the fall of man come about, and why do Jesus, Paul, and most, if not all, of the prophets refer to Adam and Eve as an actual story that really happened? Jesus even called Himself the second Adam.

I believe God tells us stories because that is the best way to insure that the truth will be conveyed intact from one generation to another over the immense time-frame of history. And I believe the stories are true, not because they are factual (though some are) but because, like L'Engel's fiction, they go beyond fact to a truth more real than mere fact. And I believe the stories have the power to tell us the truth about ourselves so that we can hear and respond to the message of salvation--which is another part of the story.

That might fit in with some of the OT stories, but consider the books of Chronicles, whose entire purpose is to give a factual, historical account. If all these things are just stories, please, answer these questions:

1. Why would God say He made the earth in six days if He didn't? What does that tell us about ourselves?
2. Why would God vividly describe the location and features of a garden if it didn't exist?
3. Why would God the Father and God the Son refer to Adam & Eve over 30 times throughout the Bible if they didn't exist and there was no fall?
4. What is the point of the genealogies in Genesis 5 and Genesis 10? What would a false genealogy tell us about ourselves? What's the point of mentioning the 900-year-old men?
5. Why would God give exact dates for the Flood if it never happened?
6. What does the story of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob tell us if they never existed?
7. What is the point of the Tower of Babel if it never existed? Can you explain the numerous historical findings that indicate that the Tower of Babel did exist?
8. What is the point of the Exodus if it never happened? Again, can you account for the numerous historical evidence indicating that it did, so much so that they have even estimated an exact date (1491 B.C.)?
9. What is the point of the Law if God never gave it Moses on Mt. Sinai? Why wouldn't God just straight-out tell us what the Law was?
10. How do you decide which stories are real and which ones are just stories?

 

[gluadys]

Some stories do have a message, but what possible message could the Genesis story have? If the Genesis creation story is false, then what's the point?

You start off by missing the whole point that fictional stories can still be true stories. Nothing I said was premised on the creation story being false.

Are you saying that not only Genesis is just a [pointless] story, but so is virtually the entire rest of the Old Testament? And actually, I am quite good at memorizing dates and facts and probably learn better from those than from stories.

One of the things that demarcates a story that is false from on that is true is that a true story, though fiction, is never pointless. Yes, there are stories throughout both the Old and the New testaments. Some of them are historically true and some are not. But all of them are true stories.

There are also large segments of the Bible that are not story. Some of these are historical fact. Some are traditional wisdom, like Proverbs. Some are prophetic, some are didactic, some are for use in worship, like many of the Psalms.

This wide variety of genres is a reason one can seldom if ever make a statement that applies to all of the biblical text, often not even all of the same book.

Only SOME? The Bible is the infallible Word of God (2 Timothy 3:16-17)! That means the whole thing is 100% true, 100% fact.

So you are saying that only a fact can be true, therefore all of the bible must be fact to be true? Do you realize that is a materialist position?

In the Bible, we often see future events referred to in symbolism. But can you point out even one place where a story of the past is referred to in symbolism?

I would say Genesis 2-3 is a very good candidate. Or the story of Job, as has already been discussed.

Even secular historians admit that the Bible is, if not accurate in its message, it is historically accurate.

That applies only to what has been confirmed archeologically. It does not mean they agree everything in the bible is accurate, even historically. A secular historian, for example, would make no comment on whether or not Jacob actually travelled to Haran and set up an altar at Bethel. He could and would comment on any archeological evidence related to Bethel.

We even know when the books of the Bible were written.

True, for many of them, beginning with the earliest parts of the Torah written in 8th-9th centuries BCE to the last elements of the New Testament in the early 2nd century CE.

How do you distinguish a story from historical fact?

By whether or not there is evidence for the history in the story.

How do you tell which parts of the Bible are just stories and which ones are facts?

Study ---especially the history, linguistics and literature of the Ancient Near East.

Besides, if you look, no serious biblical scholar interprets the Bible as just a bunch of non-factual stories.

Not the whole bible. Of course not. See above.

Because there's no point in telling a false story!

That's right. That is why the stories, myths and legends God tells us are true, not false.

You seem to agree more with the atheistic scientists than with the Christian Bible defenders.

No, I agree just as much with Hindu, Jewish and Christian scientists as with atheistic scientists. And I am a Christian Bible defender.

How could there be truth to their story if they didn't exist, therefore there was no story in the first place? You're not making sense.

Well there is that mind-filter again, which says it has to be fact to be true. I suppose one has to have a love of story to make sense of it. I love stories. I love great literature. I know the Narnia tales and Lord of the Rings are fictional stories. But I also find them to be true stories. That's why I made sure to read them to my children.

You know, the philosopher Plato believed children should never be exposed to fiction. He wanted to erase Homer from Greek culture. He would have considered the bible to be trash. He would prefer than no one ever heard Aesop's fables or ever saw one of Euripides plays.

How poor we would be, and how much truth we would never know, if he had had his way.

If Adam and Eve didn't exist, then how did the fall of man come about,

You think the fall depends on one particular person? What if Adam had not sinned? Do you think there would never have been a fall?

and why do Jesus, Paul, and most, if not all, of the prophets refer to Adam and Eve as an actual story that really happened? Jesus even called Himself the second Adam.

Where did Jesus call himself the second Adam? My memory must be slipping. I know Paul called Jesus the second Adam, but I don't remember that Jesus did.

None of the prophets referred to Adam and Eve. The only Adam referred to in the OT outside of Genesis and the genealogies of Chronicles, is a town, not a person.

I have not seen any reference to Adam in the NT which clearly establishes that the person speaking is referring to a historical character.

That might fit in with some of the OT stories

Exactly. No one is claiming it fits with all of the OT. Much in the OT is factual and/or historical.

but consider the books of Chronicles, whose entire purpose is to give a factual, historical account.

You might like to do some study on the purposes of genealogies in ancient near east cultures. It was seldom to give a factual, historical account.

1. Why would God say He made the earth in six days if He didn't? What does that tell us about ourselves?

In the first place, God didn't say. The writer of Genesis 1 (commonly referred to as P) said. And he said it to connect creation with the sabbath. So what it tells us about ourselves is that we need a Sabbath rest in which to turn from the work of the week to the contemplation of God and God's work.

2. Why would God vividly describe the location and features of a garden if it didn't exist?

Again, God is not describing. The writer of the second creation account (commonly known as J) is describing. And most story writers describe the setting of their story, even if it is a fictional setting for a fictional story.

3. Why would God the Father and God the Son refer to Adam & Eve over 30 times throughout the Bible if they didn't exist and there was no fall?

To draw attention to the story and its teachings which are so important for us to know and remember. Including the teaching of the fall.

4. What is the point of the genealogies in Genesis 5 and Genesis 10? What would a false genealogy tell us about ourselves? What's the point of mentioning the 900-year-old men?

I'd like to turn this one over to a knowledgeable Jewish theologian as it's kind of a Jewish thing I don't fully understand. Or maybe Vance has a good handle on it. I do know that genealogies had important cultural functions that did not require them to be exact history. But I am not familiar enough with them to give a good explanation.

5. Why would God give exact dates for the Flood if it never happened?

Half of this story was written by P, who loves exact sounding dates, even if they are fictional. It gives verisimilitude to a story. And the dates aren't really exact; they are relative to the age of Noah. If they were really exact, we would know the exact date of the flood, and not have to estimate it.

6. What does the story of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob tell us if they never existed?

It tells us that the people of Israel were conscious of having been chosen by God long before they existed as a people, and of being cared for by the providence of God even while they were slaves in Egypt.

btw--this is the point in Genesis where we are almost certainly dealing with legendary rather than mythical material--though some would include the flood as legend as well. Mythical material is timeless and has practically no root in history. The focus of myth is God and God's doings. Other characters tend to be typological rather than individual, like Adam & Eve, Cain & Abel. Legendary material usually has a distinct historical core and is often about real people, real events, but with additional legendary matter mixed in. This is a good characterization for the rest of Genesis, and possibly for Noah and the flood as well. We can't say for certain that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were real, historical people, but we can say it is very probable that they were. And as we move forward in OT history we start meeting characters whose historical existence is unquestionable.

7. What is the point of the Tower of Babel if it never existed? Can you explain the numerous historical findings that indicate that the Tower of Babel did exist?

I know towers of that sort existed. They are called ziggurats. I did not know that one has been identified especially with the tower of Babel. Do you have a reference?

The point of the story is the same whether or not the tower really existed. It is both a folkloric explanation of why we speak different languages and a moral warning against hubris.

8. What is the point of the Exodus if it never happened? Again, can you account for the numerous historical evidence indicating that it did, so much so that they have even estimated an exact date (1491 B.C.)?

That is one of the dates suggested for the Exodus. There are others as well. The estimates range over three centuries. And there are archeologists who doubt the Exodus ever happened. There is virtually no evidence for it. None at all in Egypt of course. Nothing to indicate the trek through the desert. And significant contradictions (no matter which date one uses) between the verified history of the cities of Canaan and the biblical description of the conquest.

The point of the Exodus? How can you ask? This is the liberation of the people of Israel, the founding of the nation, the giving of the law and the making of the covenant. This is all about who the people of Israel believe themselves to be, and who they believe their God to be, and what is the relationship between God and Israel. The Exodus shapes the whole theology of all the rest of the bible, OT & NT alike. It is hugely important.

9. What is the point of the Law if God never gave it Moses on Mt. Sinai? Why wouldn't God just straight-out tell us what the Law was?

Because we couldn't bear it. Remember how the people of Israel begged Moses to go and get the Law for them because they could not bear to hear God themselves? And how, when Moses returned, they could not bear to see the glory of God on his face, so that he had to veil himself? And he himself was only allowed a glimpse of God's back, not a view of God's face?

10. How do you decide which stories are real and which ones are just stories?

By "just stories" do you mean stories we can ignore? If so, all the stories are real. None of the biblical stories are "just stories".

 

[seebs]

If I interpret the tale of the prodigal son as representative of how we deal with forgiveness, especially when it is extended to others, instead of as a factual account of a specific occasion, with no other meaning, have I "dismissed" it, or have I only just begun to understand it?

 

[Blue2836]

Tryptophan, I don't want to offend you but I believe that you cannot simultaneously believe in evolution and Christian creationism. Here's why. Natural Selection, the process by which evolution supposedly took place, required millions if not hundreds of millions of years of chance, random, and beneficial mutations that were kept because of the advantage that they imbued upon each species. Now, to say that God is the creator of our world but that he just kind of kick started it and then went away is not Christian. The God of the bible is intimately involved in our lives and in historical events. There simply is no biblical reason to believe that God would have used an evolutionary mechanism. That belief system that you have adopted is basically an indication that you believe the scientific agenda more than you believe the literal account of scripture, so you are trying to reconcile the two. I believe that there is no reconciliation between the two.

Now, Tryptophan, you've explored the theory of evolution and Science as it has been presented to you. Being that you are a believer in Christ, I recommend that you read a few books about the severe problems that the theory of evolution has, as well as many other scientific views. There are many books on the subject. Darwin's Black Box is a good one just to get your brain working on the idea. Once you've really looked into what you have been believing, you will literally be amazed at how unsupported the theory of evolution is and how badly corrupted science is in its quest to disprove God. Again, I didn't mean to insult you or criticize you; I'm just trying to offer you a different perspective based upon my personal beliefs.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Being that you are a believer in Christ, I recommend that you read a few books about the severe problems that the theory of evolution has, as well as many other scientific views. There are many books on the subject. Darwin's Black Box is a good one just to get your brain working on the idea.

i did not find Behe persuasive that there are severe problems with TofE, would you offer several other books that you believe make such a case?

 

[gluadys]

Now, to say that God is the creator of our world but that he just kind of kick started it and then went away is not Christian.

Agreed. That would be deistic, not theistic evolution, and is definitely not Christian.

That belief system that you have adopted is basically an indication that you believe the scientific agenda more than you believe the literal account of scripture, so you are trying to reconcile the two. I believe that there is no reconciliation between the two.

Agreed. I don't know about tryptophan, but I do not try to reconcile the two. What I question is why it is necessary to believe the creation accounts in scripture are literal historical accounts.

I recommend that you read a few books about the severe problems that the theory of evolution has, as well as many other scientific views.

Virtually every such book I have seen only raises pseudo-problems grounded in misunderstandings of the theory of evolution. Are you prepared to suggest a legitimate scientific problem with evolution?

Once you've really looked into what you have been believing, you will literally be amazed at how unsupported the theory of evolution is and how badly corrupted science is in its quest to disprove God.

Science has not quest to disprove God. Science is not atheism; evolution is not atheism.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Some stories do have a message, but what possible message could the Genesis story have? If the Genesis creation story is false, then what's the point? Not only would God be giving a false account of creation, but He would persist in referring to it, both Father and Son, in at least 30 other places in the Bible (and this is the result of a 10-minute search). There's no point in telling something completely false. Tell me, what is the point of the Genesis story?

To explain mankind's fall and need for redemption in easily understandable terms, and refute Creation stories of other cultures and religions of the time.

I'd say that Genesis accomplishes this mission perfectly well.

The Old Testament books are, for the most part, 2,500-3,500 years old. Are you saying that not only Genesis is just a [pointless] story, but so is virtually the entire rest of the Old Testament? And actually, I am quite good at memorizing dates and facts and probably learn better from those than from stories.

You may be better, but what was the standard 2500-3500 years ago?

Only SOME? The Bible is the infallible Word of God (2 Timothy 3:16-17)! That means the whole thing is 100% true, 100% fact.

200%?

Seriously, that which is true need not be fact. Many great writers such as Shakespeare can communicate profound truths about the human condition in stories that are not factually true.

Couldn't equally profound truths about the divine condition be expressed allegorically?

In the Bible, we often see future events referred to in symbolism. But can you point out even one place where a story of the past is referred to in symbolism? Or point out one place where God describes something He did in symbolism?

Genesis 1-3.

Even secular historians admit that the Bible is, if not accurate in its message, it is historically accurate. We even know when the books of the Bible were written.

Because the Bible makes references to historically accurate people, places, and events.

How do you distinguish a story from historical fact? How do you tell which parts of the Bible are just stories and which ones are facts? Besides, if you look, no serious biblical scholar interprets the Bible as just a bunch of non-factual stories.

No serious biblical scholar interprets the whole thing as literally true, either...Clearly, some discernment is necessary.

Because there's no point in telling a false story!

Tell that to Aesop, Plato, Shakespeare, and for that matter, Christ himself.

Are his parables pointless because they are "false?"

Why in the heck would God plainly tell us that He created the earth in six days, the order in which He created it, how sin entered the world, about the Flood, and the Tower of Babel if it were not true?

God didn't "plainly tell us" anything. He inspired men with knowledge and wisdom, who in turned communicated it as best they could in the language and style of the time.

What is the point of the story of the Tower of Babel? To tell us how languages formed.

A story traditionally passed down to explain an existing custom or phenomena...the dictionary definition of "myth."

I would also like to add that archaeologists have found ancient inscriptions about the Tower of Babel by King Nebuchadnezzar (from the book of Daniel).

Proving that Nebuchandezzar was familiar with the story.

You seem to agree more with the atheistic scientists than with the Christian Bible defenders.

Proving that some Christians need to find better ways to defend the Bible.

How could there be truth to their story if they didn't exist, therefore there was no story in the first place? You're not making sense. If Adam and Eve didn't exist, then how did the fall of man come about, and why do Jesus, Paul, and most, if not all, of the prophets refer to Adam and Eve as an actual story that really happened? Jesus even called Himself the second Adam.

I thought it was Paul that called Jesus the second Adam?
I might be mistaken. Chapter and verse?

 

[The Lady Kate]

Tryptophan, I don't want to offend you but I believe that you cannot simultaneously believe in evolution and Christian creationism. Here's why. Natural Selection, the process by which evolution supposedly took place, required millions if not hundreds of millions of years of chance, random, and beneficial mutations that were kept because of the advantage that they imbued upon each species.

And the problem with this is...?

Now, to say that God is the creator of our world but that he just kind of kick started it and then went away is not Christian.

I don't think either of us is qualified to judge what is or is not Christian. Besides, who said God went away?

The God of the bible is intimately involved in our lives and in historical events. There simply is no biblical reason to believe that God would have used an evolutionary mechanism.

For every big and flashy miracle God performs, He affects our lives in countless more subtle ways. Far more often than not, He is involved in ways we don't even see, which could easily be mistaken for "random chance."

For example: My grandfather served in WWII. He was originally scheduled to land on D-Day, but his ship was torpedoed, and as a result, didn't get there until the next day, when most of the fighting on the beach was over.

(This might explain why, the first time he watched Saving Private Ryan, he commented, "Ah, it wasn't that bad..." He forgets to mention that he was there a day late.)

Had he been there on D-Day, he may have gotten killed (grandpa admits he wasn't much of a soldier). Is this a case of good luck, or was God looking out for him and his fellow soldiers?

And if this is a case of God's work, why do it in such a mundane fashion? If God was trying to protect my grandfather, why not do it more..."miraculously?" A pillar of fire between him and the Nazis, or smiting the German bunkers with brimstone?

Answer: because God doesn't always work that way. Indeed, He hasn't worked that way since the Bible.

That belief system that you have adopted is basically an indication that you believe the scientific agenda more than you believe the literal account of scripture, so you are trying to reconcile the two. I believe that there is no reconciliation between the two.

I agree: there is no reconciliation between science and a literal account of Scripture. Fortunately, there are better ways to read Scripture than literally.

Now, Tryptophan, you've explored the theory of evolution and Science as it has been presented to you. Being that you are a believer in Christ, I recommend that you read a few books about the severe problems that the theory of evolution has, as well as many other scientific views. There are many books on the subject. Darwin's Black Box is a good one just to get your brain working on the idea. Once you've really looked into what you have been believing, you will literally be amazed at how unsupported the theory of evolution is and how badly corrupted science is in its quest to disprove God. Again, I didn't mean to insult you or criticize you; I'm just trying to offer you a different perspective based upon my personal beliefs.

Ah... Conspiracy literature... I'll pass.

 

[SBG]

"Answer: because God doesn't always work that way. Indeed, He hasn't worked that way since the Bible."

That is incorrect. Just because we don't see something take place, doesn't mean it has not. Did you know that the Apostle John was thrown into a caldren of boiling oil by the emperor of Rome at the time, and it never burned it. He was miraculously rescued from it. The emperor of Rome then banished him to Patmos, probably because he couldn't kill him.

In the fourth major persecution under Marcus Aurelius 162 A.D., Polycarp was apprehended. They put him at the stake and burned him, but the fire did not consume him. They had to pierce him with a spear to kill him.

This assertion you make about God, is just that, an assertion. Because we may not hear or witness something doesn't mean it does not happen. We do not have all knowledge of all things to make such an assumption.

If you have not I suggest reading Fox's Book of Martyrs. It is an excellent book of what the early Church went through to preach Jesus Christ.

 

[The Lady Kate]

"Answer: because God doesn't always work that way. Indeed, He hasn't worked that way since the Bible."

That is incorrect. Just because we don't see something take place, doesn't mean it has not. Did you know that the Apostle John was thrown into a caldren of boiling oil by the emperor of Rome at the time, and it never burned it. He was miraculously rescued from it. The emperor of Rome then banished him to Patmos, probably because he couldn't kill him.

In the fourth major persecution under Marcus Aurelius 162 A.D., Polycarp was apprehended. They put him at the stake and burned him, but the fire did not consume him. They had to pierce him with a spear to kill him.

Rasputin was poisoned, stabbed, shot, and drowned before he finally gave up the ghost. Divine intervention?

This assertion you make about God, is just that, an assertion. Because we may not hear or witness something doesn't mean it does not happen. We do not have all knowledge of all things to make such an assumption.

Actually, this was my point exactly. We don't always see the hand of God working in big, spectacular ways, but it is there, nonetheless.

So why couldn't it be there in such a mundane thing as evolution? No reason at all...

If you have not I suggest reading Fox's Book of Martyrs. It is an excellent book of what the early Church went through to preach Jesus Christ.

I'll look into it when I find the time...

 

[PaladinValer]

I have no problems with evolutionists either, but I do sometimes think that those theistic evolutionists who know little about evolution, like most of my fellow high school students, are simply trying to please the atheistic world and avoid being made fun of for suggesting a literal interpretation of Genesis.

Fallacy of False Analogy; science has nothing to do with Atheism; it is completely neutral to religion.

Fallacy of Unrepresentative Sample; the theory of evolution doesn't depend on the level of knowledge some people have on it, but on what the theory itself states.

Those that have studied it and made their own decision based on what they see, that's a different story.

That doesn't mean those with a lack of deeper understanding do not have their arguments. I have a rather basic understanding of it myself, but my knowledge of what science is and isn't is very developed. I also have a very good understanding of Christian thought and theology throughout the ages, thanks to my college studies as well as independent research for about 9 years running.

Combined, I can defend my arguments quite well.

But it is plain to see that taking Genesis 1-11 literally, there is no possible way to reconcile it with evolution.

Fallacy of Begging the Question; you are simply assuming Genesis 1-11 is to be taken literally. The problem is, the evidence points to the fact that it shouldn't.

The order of creation is different (for example, birds came before reptiles, and the earth and sun came before the other stars),

Fallacy of Equivocation; astronomy has nothing to do with evolution.

In addition, we know that the sun came first before the moon through science today; we have information today that Moses or Josephus didn't. So your argument here doesn't hold merit.

the story of the fall of man is disregarded,

This is simply flat-out false.

the Flood (over 200 ancient cultures have stories about the Flood, all of which are very similar) is disregarded,

Fallacy of Appealing to the Masses; just because a number of cultures around the world have a flood story doesn't mean there was one. There is no physical proof of it (unless of course you want to buy into psuedo-science and urban legends).

In addition, there are places in the world where flood stories are rare, like in Africa. This tears part even your fallacious argument.

and even things such as the Tower of Babel (which, I might note, there has actually been found an inscription about the Tower of Babel written by King Nebuchadnezzar) are passed off as symbolic myths.

Sorry, but you are relying on false information again:

1. The appearance of multiple human languages has been documented to have occurred a long, long time before the ziggurats were built.
2. There were many ziggurats built in ancient Babylon, so please give us your proof which one it was, if it was any at all.
3. The purpose of a ziggurat wasn't to literally make it to God but to reach for God. The Babylonians weren't so stupid to think that their ziggurats literally touched the heavens.

Taking Genesis 1-11 as a myth, you have no problem reconciling evolution and the rest of the Bible. But in doing this, how do you reconcile Genesis with the rest of the Bible?

It seems you do not know what the actual definition of a "myth" is. A myth is a legendary story that teaches a religious and/or moral truth.

Where do you draw the line between myth and factual account?

Does it have any evidence to have existed?

The Flood?

No evidence for a global flood. There is evidence for several local floods; including the formation of the Black Sea as well as a truly massive flood of both Tigres and Euphrates rivers that, to the people of the time, would have seemed as if their "entire world" has flooded.

Then again, they occurred long, long before that portion of Genesis was written, and it wasn't even the oldest account; it is mainly based on the Epic of Gilgamesh, which the Jews would have heard of by either the Assyrians or the Babylonians themselves.

The story is a type of Israelite linguistical tradition known as the midrash, which is roughly the equivalent to what call a myth. These are stories filled with symbolism, hyperbole, and metaphores of all types that teach the people certain truths about their Jewish faith.

The Tower of Babel?

Circumstancial evidence at best. Yes, ziggurats existed, but the Israelites wouldn't have known about them until after the fact they were built, which is when the Babylonian Captivity began and they saw them with their own eyes.

In addition, as I said before, human language had already been long developed and been diverse for thousands and thousands of years.

Another midrash.

Abraham? Joseph? Moses?

Any proof these individuals existed?

If the story of creation is only a myth, first tell me why would God put a myth in the Bible if it was completely wrong?

A myth is never wrong unless the morality and religious truths it teaches is wrong.

What would it tell us other than a false story?

Ditto my above.

Jesus' parables had lessons, but what lesson does the story of creation teach us if it is false and irrelevant?

Fallacy of Begging the Question; just because you don't know about midrashes and the actual definiton of a myth doesn't mean Jesus and the people of the time didn't.

At least thirty places in the Bible refer to Genesis 1-11:

Midrashes...I will illustrate a number of them.

-Exodus 20:11 (God made the world in six days)
-Exodus 31:17 (God made the world in 6 days and rested on the 7th)

The establishment of the Sabbath in Jewish belief.

-1 Chronicles 1:1 (reference to Adam)

Midrash explaining why humanity needs to have a "relationship" with God and needs to follow a moral code.

-1 Chronicles 1:4 (reference to Noah)

Midrash explaining the mercy of God and explaining the need of a covenant with Him.

Are all these verses, including Jesus Himself, referring to a myth?

Yes, but then again, not by your misunderstanding of what a myth actually is.

There is nothing in Genesis 1-11 that implies it is anything other than a historical account.

As an actual historian, I can with authority tell you that much of the Bible's events are not at all historical. Some are, be assured, but most has nothing to do with actual historical events.

Nowhere in the Bible does God ever give a false or symbolic account. Why should Genesis be any different?

Fallacy of equivocation; symbolic doesn't equate to false.

Theistic evolution and progressive creationism cannot be biblical, because they not only dismiss eleven chapters of what God clearly intended as a historical account, but also 30-plus references to the creation, Noah, the Flood, Eden, Adam & Eve, and the fall, in both the Old Testament and the New.

Fallacy of Appealing to Ignorance as well as several simply false statments; TEs do not dismiss Genesis 1-11 just because we don't take them literally. In addition, just because you don't have the information we have doesn't mean you are right.

It's been my experience that most people who take the Bible literally are the ones that have read the whole thing.

Fallacies (yes, there are multiples here) of Slippery Slope, Hasty Generalization, Unrepresentative Sample, Subverted Support, and Irrelevant Conclusion.

 

[SBG]

Rasputin was poisoned, stabbed, shot, and drowned before he finally gave up the ghost. Divine intervention?

I just was pointing out that even though they put Polycarp in the fire, the fire did not consume him. The fire did not burn his hair or his body. Only God could kept him from that.

Actually, this was my point exactly. We don't always see the hand of God working in big, spectacular ways, but it is there, nonetheless.

I wasn't arguing against God working in ways we don't see or recognize. You had made the statement that God hasn't worked like this (big miracles where people are saved from being in the fire without any harm) since the Bible. That is incorrect. I gave evidence to the contrary.

So why couldn't it be there in such a mundane thing as evolution? No reason at all...

It is not that evolution is an impossibility with God. YECs do not assert this. It is that evolution asserts things that Bible either teaches against, has in a different order, or teaches didn't happen that way.

When understanding the Bible, we don't go there to make the Bible say something we want it to say. If that is the case then the Bible is meaningless to us because all we are doing is putting our meaning into the text rather than looking for the authors meaning. The authors meaning is not going to change with history. The author of Genesis and parts of Exodus say God did create in six days. That is not going to change with history because that is what the author wanted to convey to his readers.

When we go in and give it a different meaning, such as it wasn't six days, then we are asserting our meaning into the text rather than understanding the authors meaning of the text.

I'll look into it when I find the time...

If you are interested let me know, there is a free copy I can point you to. It always helps to save money when you can.

 

[The Lady Kate]

I just was pointing out that even though they put Polycarp in the fire, the fire did not consume him. The fire did not burn his hair or his body. Only God could kept him from that.

And by comparison, Rasputin was fed enough Arsenic to kill a buffalo, shot at point-blank range, and stabbed repeatedly without dying.

Something was at work there, and I doubt it was God.

I wasn't arguing against God working in ways we don't see or recognize. You had made the statement that God hasn't worked like this (big miracles where people are saved from being in the fire without any harm) since the Bible. That is incorrect. I gave evidence to the contrary.

Then I stand corrected... if the accounts are accurate. I was thinking more along the lines of "Parting-of-the-Red-Sea" or "Ascension-to-Heaven" events...but you are correct, there are other reported cases from Ancient times.

It is not that evolution is an impossibility with God. YECs do not assert this. It is that evolution asserts things that Bible either teaches against, has in a different order, or teaches didn't happen that way.

Well, some YECs have claimed that Evolution isn't an option because some such reasoning as "Why would God wait billions of years?" or "Why would God create life through death?"

Those arguments...insisting that God must do things a certain way, even the way as described in a literal Bible... get tiresome.

When understanding the Bible, we don't go there to make the Bible say something we want it to say. If that is the case then the Bible is meaningless to us because all we are doing is putting our meaning into the text rather than looking for the authors meaning.

Agreed...and history is full of those who did just this...with bad results.

The authors meaning is not going to change with history. The author of Genesis and parts of Exodus say God did create in six days. That is not going to change with history because that is what the author wanted to convey to his readers.

I didn't hear the word "literal" in there at all. Did anyone else?

When we go in and give it a different meaning, such as it wasn't six days, then we are asserting our meaning into the text rather than understanding the authors meaning of the text.

Actually, we are reconciling the author's meaning with our own understanding, and realizing that the author's meaning was not literal.

For example:


[BIBLE]Psalm 93:1[/BIBLE]


What the author is telling us about the Earth is plainly clear, but this particular literal fact was debunked by Copernicus. So either the author is mistaken, or his meaning is not a literal one. Knowing what we know about the book of Psalms, it's easy to put the passages in a more symbolic context.

Knowing what we know about the Earth, the same can be said for Genesis...and the author's meaning -- to explain the definition of sin (separation from God due to disobedience to His will) doesn't diminish one bit.

If you are interested let me know, there is a free copy I can point you to. It always helps to save money when you can.

I'm reading a few other things right now...but I'll let you know.

 

[Blue2836]

i did not find Behe persuasive that there are severe problems with TofE, would you offer several other books that you believe make such a case?

Well, I believe that Behe's book would serve the purpose that I said it would - It would expose our friend Tryptophan to some counter arguments against evolution. Personally, I didn't feel that Behe's Irreducible Complexity was a water-tight refutation of evolution, but it did get me thinking about the enormous complexities in life's smallest units and how ridiculous it is to believe that it all came about on its own. As far as books making a case against evolution, some good ones to start with are Tornado in a Junkyard, The Case for a Creator, and Darwin's Proof. There are some great points and some not so great points in these books.

 

[Blue2836]

What I question is why it is necessary to believe the creation accounts in scripture are literal historical accounts.

Well, if you don't believe that certain books about the bible are true then why believe any of it? In other words, if you're going to pick and choose which parts of the bible to believe then you are basically indicating that you do not believe the bible to be th actual work of the Holy Spirit of God.

Virtually every such book I have seen only raises pseudo-problems grounded in misunderstandings of the theory of evolution. Are you prepared to suggest a legitimate scientific problem with evolution?

Sure, I'll keep it very simple. The TOE requires slow, subtle, and beneficial mutations over millions of years. For every modern creature we have alive now, there should be millions of years of evolution behind it. My point is that there are no clear examples of evolution occurring in the fossil record. There are fossils which can creatively be described as showing a progression as part of an evolutionary painted picture but the interpretation is debatable. You see, if evolution is really factual, evolutionary fossils should be just as represented in the record as "complete" or modern fossils if not more. There really should be plenty of penguins-losing-their-wings fossils and whales-growing-legs fossils and giraffes-slowly-growing-necks fossils and so forth. The difference between species is so great and would require so many millions of years of slight variation that clearly transitional fossils should be abundant, but they're not.

Science has not quest to disprove God. Science is not atheism; evolution is not atheism.

Evolution requires a process that is guided by random and chance mutations. There is no room for God in such a process.

 

[gluadys]

Well, if you don't believe that certain books about the bible are true then why believe any of it?

I didn't say anything about the bible not being true. Why did you jump to that assumption?

In other words, if you're going to pick and choose which parts of the bible to believe

I didn't say anything about not believing parts of the bible. Why did you jump to that assumption?

then you are basically indicating that you do not believe the bible to be th actual work of the Holy Spirit of God.

I did not indicate any disbelief in the role of the Holy Spirit of God in the inspiration of scripture. Why did you jump to that assumption?

What I did indicate was skepticism that a literal reading of the early chapters of Genesis is a correct reading. This does not imply that the scriptural passages are untrue, that I don't believe them or that I deny their inspiration. It simply means that I doubt they are or ever were intended to be read by modern criteria of literal history. Could you focus on that question instead of issues I did not raise?

Sure, I'll keep it very simple. The TOE requires slow, subtle, and beneficial mutations over millions of years.

Well, not necessarily slow. Small changes yes, but some sequences of changes could be much more rapid than others. That is one of the basic insights of punctuated equilibrium.

For every modern creature we have alive now, there should be millions of years of evolution behind it.

Correct. There really is no such thing as a "living fossil". Modern species which look very much like ancient species are not identical to their ancestors. They have evolved too. Modern bacteria have as much of an evolutionary pedigree as modern elephants. It is incorrect to think that they have not evolved.

My point is that there are no clear examples of evolution occurring in the fossil record. There are fossils which can creatively be described as showing a progression as part of an evolutionary painted picture but the interpretation is debatable.

I think you misunderstand the relationship between the fossil record and the theory of evolution. Fossils don't "prove" evolution. Evolution explains the fossil record. How do you account for fossils without evolution? In particular, how do you account for fossils which strongly resemble current species without evolution? How do you account for the fact that such fossils appear in the most recent geological strata while older geological strata have very different species? How do you account for fossil species which are difficult to classify because the mix of characteristics seems to suggest that they belong equally well in two different categories? Especially when those categories are as far apart as a family or order?

Evolution offers a solid explanation for why fossils exist in the first place, and why the patterns of similarities and differences are distributed in the fossil record the way they are. And it does so, not just in general, but in detail. So, another thing evolution does is make clear predictions of the sort of fossils one will or will not find and where in the geologic strata they will be found. And so far, each and every one of these predictions has proven true.

Can you suggest any other theory which explains the fossil record so well?

You see, if evolution is really factual, evolutionary fossils should be just as represented in the record as "complete" or modern fossils if not more.

Could you please define "evolutionary fossils" , "complete fossils" and "modern fossils"? I don't know what you are trying to say here.

There really should be plenty of penguins-losing-their-wings fossils

Why? Penguins have wings. Why should there be any record of them losing wings when they haven't?

and whales-growing-legs fossils

But whales did not grow legs, they lost them.

and giraffes-slowly-growing-necks fossils and so forth. The difference between species is so great and would require so many millions of years of slight variation that clearly transitional fossils should be abundant, but they're not.

Why should fossils be abundant? We have no reason to believe fossils should be abundant. Consider that in the last 150 years we have seen many, many extinctions or near extinctions often caused by human activity. Among these were the passenger pigeon, the plains bison, and the Atlantic cod. Each of these used to be well-know for their abundance. Early Europeans speak of catching cod by simply letting down buckets into the water. Flocks of passenger pigeons used to darken the whole sky, they were so numerous. The great bison herds used to cover the whole prairie from horizon to horizon for 3-4 days as they migrated. How many skeletal remains do we have of these creatures? What ratio of them became fossils? Why should we assume any greater ratio for species of the past?

Are you aware that there are whole phyla for which we have no fossil record at all? Then there are the simple unicellular creatures known as Archea. Biologists believe they are at least as old if not older than Bacteria. But while we have fossil bacteria over 3 billion years old, not a single fossil of an Archaean has been found.

Unless you can give a reason why fossils should be more abundant than they are, I have to consider this a pseudo-problem.

Evolution requires a process that is guided by random and chance mutations. There is no room for God in such a process.

In the first place you are incorrect. Mutations don't guide evolution. Natural selection does. Mutations provide options. But which option is acted on is a matter of selection.

Why do you say there is no room for God in the process? It seems to me there is ample room for God in both aspects of evolution: mutations and natural selection.