Well if you can’t resolve this very simple weather event, how are you going to resolve any other event that has occurred? Just pick the good ones and attribute those events to God? And the bad ones attribute them to random chance?
I feel no compelling need to “resolve” any of these events. There are many philosophies within Christianity that seek answers to those questions. Thinking that BioLogos is geared to answer those questions is unreasonable in my view.
George
Biologos is not going to answer those questions. No one is.
I have read good answers to Theodicy questions. But I find what is a good answer to one person may not be considered a good question by someone else. It’s a very personal matter.
George
I have read good answers also. Dawkins, Coyne, Hitchens and others. 
You said the above. That we will never know. Evolution would postulate that Jesus randomly occurred by chance, like we all do, although within the naturalistic boundaries of physical context (needing a father and mother, etc.) I am saying that we know that God worked around randomness when he sent Jesus to the world. His appearance was not random, and does not fit within the evolutionary paradigm. Thus your statement that we will never know is entirely false.
This appears to be miswritten? I have no idea what you mean by that. Why would you talk about randomness that I don’t select? or identify? You originally simply were talking about randomness in general, not some personal randomness that I owned or possessed.
I don’t know what you are talking about. God sending Jesus has virtually NOTHING to do with evolution.
God’s formative decisions for human evolution happened multiple thousands of years ago.
I do not consider the appearance of Jesus as a random event.
George
This is good. It is a start to recognize that we can truly know that some things are not random.
Well, if God did decide to use evolution, and in particular, human evolution, or non-evolution, then God’s decisions certainly happened much longer than only a few thousand years ago. We can safely assume that God’s decisions for this happened well before the beginning of the universe.
Well, that’s one way of putting it. But in fact, Jesus has much to do with evolution, both with forgiveness for the errors in the theory, and if it is in someway a true theory, then Jesus has much to do with redeeming the world from the grasp of evolution in all its sin, death, disease, sickness, extinctions, etc. If Jesus is who he said he was, he was in fact the one who according to evolutionists was the one who designed and programmed the evolution. If evolution is not true, then it is only through Christ that we can be redeemed from the errors of placing our trust in random and purposeless evolution as our source of life, rather than in the magnificent and beautiful plans of God to create a beautiful world in which we could have communion with God, and see all his handiwork.
I suppose I should be flattered at some level that creation.com wrote about me. Evidently they thought what I said merited a response. I’m afraid I don’t feel the same way about what they have written (besides this one comment). When they claim to put the “last nails in the coffin” of the contemporary understanding of genetics, they have removed themselves so far from the realm of relevance that there is no point in responding. They have constructed an alternate universe where facts can be waived away with a sneer. I have no doubt of their earnestness, but when the quest for truth leads to vilification that is justified by Scripture, something has gotten off the rails. The amount of hate mail the post generated for our BioLogos account set a new record–including one person who creatively added up the ascii character values of the letters in my name to suggest that I might be the anti-Christ. You can’t expect me to take these people seriously. It is a sad commentary on our society and the church that anyone does.
When AiG wrote a response to my article, I reached out to the author, asking if she would be interested in some conversation about the points at which we disagree; she didn’t respond. That makes me think these articles are intended to score rhetorical points with their audiences rather than engaging and understanding. I’ve got many better things to do than to respond to creation.com calling me asinine, infantile, and dishonest.
I think I said before that I was not intending to write an expose of AiG or any other creationist organization. I was simply reporting on claims I had encountered from real people who said these things about evolution. The fact that creation.com doesn’t hold to them all does not turn them into straw man arguments. They are still misconceptions that people have about evolution. That’s all I claimed. Perhaps a line-by-line analysis of creation.com’s arguments would be interesting to some. But I won’t be spending any more time on that article.
4 Likes
Well Jim, I wonder what the point of your original article was then? was that also to score rhetorical points? How would you distinguish your intent with theirs? Anyway, I re-read the article, and indeed they were hard on you, no doubt about it. But they did not call you infantile or assinine; they said one of your argumentation using other scripture passages as a way of indicating that Genesis 1-11 was metaphorical, was infantile. They also said you made an honest admission, in another point. Does that mean they said you were honest? They said you made an assinine appeasement of politically correct feminism (which is their opinion) which I assume they said, because it is an irrelevant and unscholarly approach to the passage you mentioned. I can see their point… it is an unnecessary diversion. But of course, they too could have ignored it. I did not see them call you dishonest, although they did say you made false claims, on which they did not judge your honesty at all, just that you were/are mistaken on those points. Disagreement on anything usually implies that people disagree about facts or about interpretation, and this does not require an assumption of basic dishonesty.
It is certainly true that quite a number of people carry their disagreements too far. They are too vitriolic, too pedantic, and sometimes too simplistic. This is true on both sides of this issue.
When you report on misconceptions that people have about evolution, without setting the parameters, ie. 10% of those who disagree with evolution think this, or 40% of those who accept evolution have this misconception about it… then you set yourself up for people to take offence at what you have said. Because it seems you are mentioning the misconceptions merely to attempt to discount or devalue the critique of evolution in general.
Many people who accept evolution also have misconceptions about evolution. And many people who accept evolution also have misconceptions about the YEC approach, which your ten points did not help. The YEC response clearly feels that your ten points were part of the misconception about the YEC understanding of creation and evolution.
First, Hi John, long time no see until a few days ago. I see we have sucked you back in, you crazy glutton for punishment, you. 
I think it’s kind of bad form of Price that he didn’t even link to the article he was critiquing. You had to go all the way down to a footnote and cut and paste the address if you wanted to read his source material. I might conclude that creation.com tries to insulate its readership from actually exploring the other side.
I went back and looked at Jim’s misconceptions.
Are you honestly trying to say that people who promote YEC don’t promote those misconceptions?
I have heard every single one of those misconceptions about evolution repeated by my homeschooling friends at one point or another. Since all they use are YEC science resources, it makes sense to me to assume that is where they got their ideas. I am positive I could find links to show you YEC material making statements that promote those misconceptions, but I’m not convinced it would be a valuable use of my time.
But here’s a ten minute’s worth sampling:
Evolution claims we evolved from monkeys
“Your Uncle was a monkey he was swinging through the trees, he lived on green bananas and his arms swung to his knees” -Christian recording artist Geoff Moore and the Distance from the sarcastic song “Evolution Redefined” Evolution...Redefined lyrics by Geoff Moore, 1 meaning. Evolution...Redefined explained, official 2024 song lyrics | LyricsMode.com
There are no transitional fossils: “In the entire fossil record, there is not a single unequivocal transition form proving a causal relationship between any two species.” Fossils Show Stasis and No Transitional Forms | The Institute for Creation Research
AIG also felt the need to address the "if humans evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys today question “Many creationists today, sadly, demonstrate their lack of understanding of the evolutionists’ position when they ask this question.” If Humans Evolved from Apes, Why Do Apes Exist Today? | Answers in Genesis
The second law of thermodynamics: “Scores of distinguished scientists have carefully examined the most basic laws of nature to see if Evolution is physically possible—given enough time and opportunity. The conclusion of many is that Evolution is simply not feasible. One major problem is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.”
Evolution is historical science and can’t be proved or disproved: “That’s because evolution is not something we can observe. If it’s happening today, it’s going too slow to observe. If it happened in the past, we can’t return to the past to see. It may be a fact of history, but how would we know? Certainly not in the same way we know 2+2=4. Evolution, at the most, is an idea about history, not observational science.” Just How Well Proven Is Evolution? | The Institute for Creation Research
If you’re not careful, you’ll start sounding like Eddie defending ID. To say that some YEC people promote a misconception is not the same thing as saying that everyone who accepts YEC has that misconception. The point of Jim’s article wasn’t to help correct misconceptions about the YEC approach. (Since when is there is only one “YEC approach”?) Why would he feel obligated to do that? The point was to address misconceptions about evolution. Just because AIG or IRC aren’t actively promoting every single one doesn’t mean people don’t have them and they are just “straw men.”
Bad form eh? That’s it? Insulation? Really? I think its’ bad form to criticize someone else’s decision about how to inform readers or whether or not to use links. Majoring in the minors, so to speak.
Yes. By reading Price’s article, for example, you can see that he does not contradict all of Stump’s points, just most of them. They (creation.com) have an entire blog, or post or article on arguments that should no longer be used against evolution. They have done this because many creationists do have misconceptions, just as many evolutionists have misconceptions both about evolution, and about creationists. But just as Haeckel’s fraudulent embryo drawings were used by biology textbooks for decades after they should have been withdrawn (misconceptions of evolutionists) so some creationists do have misconceptions. However, again without providing context, Stump has tarred everyone with the same brush, and has not put the misconceptions into perspective, which does not seem a charitable thing for a biologos person to do.
Price clears this up and puts it into perspective, while Stump does not. From a popular point of view, any common ancestor of hominids or apes would generally be called a monkey, even if it doesn’t meet some scientific classification. Criticizing this statement misses the point entirely, which is the same as if saying that evolution claims we evolved from bacteria. Thus the straw man applies here.
And for transitional fossils…So you have found a transitional fossil then? or know of one? an unequivocal one? To prove this is not a misconception? Really? Stumps response is typical, and involves faith that something dead and permineralized that looks partially like two other dead things is exhibiting transitional characteristics, rather than simply similar characteristics. But unequivocal? Are the supposed transitionals found in a reasonable proportion to their endpoints, considering the numbers we would expect from trial and error? So, no misconception here at all.
It might be a point of disagreement, but certainly not a misconception.
Yes, and that is the point isn’t it, that creationists are also addressing misconceptions. Was that point clearly made in Stump’s article? or did I just miss it?
We’ve shown in the past that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (entropy) is a major problem for evolution, at least when it comes to the origin of the universe and life.9 We have also urged some caution about 2nd Law arguments (Price, creation.com)
Just saying it is a misconception, doesn’t make it one. Price maintains that the energy from the sun, would tend to disorder, not create order.
> This is utter misdirection at its worst. As usual for evolution-pushers, Stump tries to deny the clear distinction between operational science and historical science—which was affirmed by leading evolutionists Ernst Mayr and E.O. Wilson. It has nothing to do with ‘sanctioning bodies’, and everything to do with the scientific method. The Oxford dictionary defines science as, (Price, creation.com)
> The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.5
There is a clear distinction between historical and operational science. Denying this calls into question the depth of understanding of scientific methods and their limitations. This is no misconception.
Stump got it wrong when he said Price had said he was infantile and assinine and dishonest. None of those terms was applied to Stump, but only to particular statements he had made. He also got the misconceptions wrong, other than three that Price agreed with.
It would be great to see Stump produce a list of ten misconceptions that evolutionists have (about evolution). That would likely be a lot easier to do.
Yeah, i got sucked in and I’m a glutton. Don’t really have time for this, so it likely won’t last long. With full time job, three building projects, vehicle repairs, house maintenance, firewood, wife and two daughters at home (and two dogs and a cat), and five other children with spouses and twenty-five grandchildren, you know this can’t last long. But you have probably all just been getting off too easy. Appreciate your attitude though.
1 Like
Yes. The point of Jim’s post was to address those misconceptions, not to offer a complete summary of the young earth position as presented on certain websites by certain groups. You and the blog authors have confused someone criticizing misconceptions with someone criticizing them personally. Saying, “I’m young earth and I don’t think that way, so the critique is invalid,” doesn’t make any sense. If you want to write a column about how some people used evolution to support eugenics and say that that is bad, it doesn’t make much sense for me to say, “But I believe in evolution and I think eugenics is bad too, therefore, you have created a straw man and not fairly represented my beliefs.” Some people have said silly stuff and based it on their version of creationism or their version of anti-evolutionism. That’s a fact. Nowhere in the article did Jim say “AIG promotes this” or “ICR claims this.”
How is his addressing of a misconception different than AIGs addressing of the same misconception? If he is “tarring” people, please provide a quote from Jim’s article that you think accuses, defames, demeans, or otherwise uncharitably characterizes someone promoting young earth so I understand what you mean by that. I don’t see it.
I think you are missing the point that not all of these ten points are misconceptions. While a few of them are, it’s not wise to say that creationists say that evolutionists believe man came from monkeys as a misconception. It is a misconception to think that some unknown common ancestor would not be thought of as a monkey or ape of some type. Even apes are sometimes thought of as some type of monkey. So your point that Jim’s intent was to address misconceptions, not offer a complete summary, while understandable, is not really the point of the rebuttal. The point is that saying all these things are misconceptions just misses the mark. One of the points that is a true misconception is “if we evolved from monkeys, why are monkeys still here?”. This one is a misconception because evolutionary theory understands that original species can give sideline origins to new species while still maintaining the original species. A couple others given by Stump would also be misconceptions. But the rest are not, according to Price, who gives a good explanation why not. A disagreement on fact or interpretation is not a misconception. I mean would you agree with a creationist who said that the entire theory of evolution is a misconception, or that radio active dating is a misconception, or that common ancestors are a misconception? Is that how you would use that word?
By lumping in real misconceptions with false misconceptions, Stump makes a mistake, or several mistakes. Price makes this clear also in the rebuttal to the 2nd law of thermodynamics point. If you read the Price article more carefully, you will see this in the responses.
By making this mistake with most of the supposed misconceptions, Stump is implying lots more misconceptions than there are, and with the sheer numbers game and guilt by association it has an effect more than it should have. As I said, he has not put the misconceptions into perspective. Someone who implied that most evolutionists are in favor of eugenics would also deserve to be similarly reprimanded.
If you don’t think that his article seems to have that effect, then good for you. But by the same token, Price’s response is a legitimate one as well when it evaluates and addresses the legitimacy or illegitimacy of Stump’s claims about misconceptions.
No I wouldn’t agree, but why would I expect to? Did you actually expect to agree with Jim’s article? I would totally expect a creationist to say “It is a misconception that radioactive dating is reliable” and then offer reasons I don’t agree with.
I bet I could find one saying it.
And five seconds later: “The field of radiocarbon dating has become a technical one far removed from the naive simplicity which characterized its initial introduction by Libby in the late 1940’s. It is, therefore, not surprising that many misconceptions about what radiocarbon can or cannot do and what it has or has not shown are prevalent among creationists and evolutionists - lay people as well as scientists not directly involved in this field. In the following article, some of the most common misunderstandings regarding radiocarbon dating are addressed, and corrective, up-to-date scientific creationist thought is provided where appropriate.”
Am I offended by this? No, why should I be? I’m still not seeing where the “tarring” and “uncharitable” come in.
Nowhere in the article does Jim say, “Most creationist believe this.” He says, “Over the last few months, I’ve kept a list of the mischaracterizations I’ve come across, and I present ten of them here today in no particular order.” 10 Misconceptions about Evolution - BioLogos
It is ridiculous to think that someone who totally disagrees with you about what are misconceptions and what is true is going to respect your opinion about what is a true misconception and what is a legitimate assertion and reflect that in an article that is supposed to be representing the opposite position than you have. People who see evolution as valid are asserting all ten are misconceptions, just as your creationist websites will assert that the accuracy of radiometric dating is a misconception. That is merely stating a position, and is kind of expected when you are taking a side in a debate.
How? How has he implied this? Where in the article do you read that all ten misconceptions together constitute a characterization of most creationists? Or that if someone has one misconception (which you argue is valid) they also have some other misconception (which is a true misconception)?
He’s not “implying” there are more misconceptions than there are. He is coming right out and saying there are ten misconceptions. The fact that you think some of them are not valid assertions is beside the point. Why would BioLogos pretend to agree with creationists where we clearly don’t?
But someone who points out that some people who accept evolution end up supporting eugenics is not saying all people or even most people who support evolution support eugenics. And that was why I brought it up. It is perfectly acceptable to say “Some people who support creationism believe that the second-law of thermodynamics disproves it.” That is a true statement. It does not imply everyone or most people who support creationism believe it. So I think you are reprimanding someone for something that isn’t there, which just makes Price and Co sound like whiners.
Let me get this straight. Suppose I am writing a blog post related to issues in the pro-life debate. Based on what I have read on multiple published sources as well as informal conversations with Evangelicals I know, I write “Some pro-life Evangelicals are against the use of hormonal birth control because of the misconception that hormonal birth control induces abortions.” And then I present what I think is valid scientific evidence for how hormonal birth control does not really cause abortions. The objective I have in my mind in writing it is not to “score rhetorical points,” but to bring to light what I believe to be true and accurate information relevant to a debated topic.
By your standards, I would be deserving of reprimand and accused of being uncharitable and offensive because A) I called something a misconception when some Evangelicals believe it is a legitimate claim, B) I did not do a big research project before I wrote my informal blog post (not a dissertation, mind you) to ascertain the exact percentage of Evangelicals that hold the belief I called a misconception in order to “put it in perspective,” and C) I implied by saying that some pro-life Evangelicals have this belief, that all pro-life people have this belief, which somehow damages the reputation of all pro-life Evangelicals.
Sorry, John, that’s just silly.
3 Likes
At first I thought you had quoted an evolutionist, and I was surprised, pleasantly surprised at what he had said. Then I realized you had quoted a creationist, and I had to laugh at myself and the situation. Imagine if Jim had said something like this… do you think Price would have taken issue with it? Not likely. And that’s the point. A lack of balance will be perceived perhaps differently than the author intended.
An implication is something not explicity stated, but derived from explicit statements.
That’s my point. And I think my point is not besides “the” point, but is more valid than “the” point. Obviously.
Price and co whiners? They are permitted to make a rebuttal. A fair rebuttal. Your comments are all about form and empty of substance. Their’s were mostly about substance. Are you then whining about my comments? or just about the form of my comments? 
This is what he said, and this is the only thing that sets the tone, the context, and the lack of balance.
*> One of the difficulties people have with coming to accept the science of evolution is that they have absorbed incorrect or only partially correct information. Over the last few months, I’ve kept a list of the mischaracterizations I’ve come across, and I present ten of them here today in no particular order. - See more at: 10 Misconceptions about Evolution - BioLogos
So, it is possible that people have other difficulties, and in this sense you are right that he has not explicitly eliminated other possibilities, such as the many scientific objections to evolution that they bring up. But, since his list of ten says “mischaracterizations”, and not “scientific errors” then it changes the tenor of the discussion. But I can see that you do not totally understand this. You ought nevertheless to be understanding of the reactions to the general tone of the article, even without considering the specifics of the rebuttal in terms of whether these are really mischaracterizations or not. You can argue that people ought not to take offense, but perhaps you ought also to consider whether the offense is merely a result of difference about ten points, or whether it is about the appearance of mischaracterization of those who " have absorbed incorrect or only partially correct information"
Don’t you hate it when people say they are “sorry”, when there is no real indication of it? Anyway, I think this discussion has run past its best before date, and we should stop lest we begin repeating ourselves.
This topic was automatically closed 4 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.