5 Common Objections to Evolutionary Creationism

Thanks and you’re welcome! It’s difficult but rewarding work.

There’s plenty of online forums out there about origins, but they are almost always segregated by position, and some can be quite raucous. To my knowledge, this is the only forum where people of all perspectives interact on origins with a high level of civility. That’s pretty cool, in my opinion.

In a word: SLOWLY. There’s so many misconceptions and ignorance out there that introducing a new paradigm into the conversation can be very traumatic for people. I suggest getting copies of two books for people: In the Beginning, We Misunderstood and Coming to Peace with Science (and, of course, The Language of God…can’t forget that one :smile:) . Then follow up over coffee (or something) and work through the conversation slowly. Many people have such rigid categories for faith and science that it takes time to introduce new categories. And be patient and gracious.

Hi dcsccc,

Before you do more research, I have two questions to ask:
(1) If you don’t yet know the details about the several species of whale-like fossils that are incredibly important support for whale evolution, why are you already arguing that this type of evolution cannot be true?
(2) If you are going to look into these fossil forms, are you going to do so to find out whether the evidence does, in fact, support an evolutionary past, or will you be determined to find ways to reject it?
I’m guessing that you see where I am going with this.

I assume from what you have written so far that your aim will be to refute the natural evidences. But, if you are already firmly convinced that evolution cannot be valid, I will skip a back-and-forth, non-productive exchange about natural observations.

I believe it is far more helpful to address this core issue: What biblical, theological and/or philosophical reasons are motivating you to reject the possibility of an evolutionary creation view, while I am convinced that God’s biblical and natural revelations reveal a grand narrative of an evolutionary past? The answer to this foundational question is already determining how we view natural evidences.

Gary

2 Likes

hi again prof gary. im actually go by the evidences. if the evidences show us that a whale cant evolve step wise from a tetrapod- then we should accept those evidences. do you agree?

now lets check again your evidences:

if its have a function then why not? before this you said that “whales have small bones in their pelvic region that serve no apparent function”-. so in this case we may claim that its true. but we indeed found a function for this structure.

  1. what about the possibility that this stucture is actually a part of a vestigial flipper? we have evidence for this also.

so for now- we dont have any evidence that whales had legs.

i already showed that some expert claim it isnt teeth at all but a part of the embrio development. now, even if it was a real teeth- it will be evidence for degeneration and not evolution.

why not actually? maybe its need to be this way because of the complex ambrio development process. actually you said that some mammals doesnt share this trait. so doest it mean that those mammals doesnt share a commonndescent with the mammals that do have it?

i vever seen a whale with legs. do you?

not according to this:

its simple: they share a commondesigner. why 2 different cars are similar?

hey prof venema. what about the possibility that this stucture is actually a part of a vestigial flipper?

2)what about the possibility that this structure is the hip bone itself?

@BradKramer

Thank you for the pointers. At this stage, I was thinking about something at an even earlier stage than books, something that would stimulate people to simply begin asking the right questions instead of just falling in the default/common positions you list on your post. Once they’re already willing to read books about the subject then I’d say we’re already halfway there :slight_smile: Nevertheless, these are good suggestions of good books to have readily available - I’ll make sure to add them the list of introductory references.

@Christy

Thank you for the pointer to this board - it seems overwhelming with millions of posts in tens of thousands of topics in each section! Are there organizations providing YEC/OEC/ID curricula or home schooling materials for those views? How would you assess those materials in comparison with what’s available on the BioLogos website?

Gary, I think dcscccc has clearly shown the inadequacy of the whale vestigial bones theory. The vestigial bones is an out of date concept; it is clear they do have a function. The reasoning for common descent always seems to be common structures, or vestiges of common structures, backed up by a type of common genetics. The problems is that the assumptions are wrong, or at the very least inconclusive, unprovable, and unlikely. Much of this falls under the same type of wishful thinking imposed by Haeckel on his drawings of embryos, contrary to evidence and to reality. Only now the comparisons are made in a more sophisticated way, yet with pseudo assumptions and pseudo conclusions.

There is a mountain of facts, a mountain of theorizing and hypothesizing and a mountain of story-telling. To say that this fact or that fact “most assuredly would be interpreted by modern scientists as evidence for evolution” is a misleading statement. In reality, there is absolutely nothing that would not be interpreted by modern scientists as evidence for evolution… or to put it another way, there is absolutely nothing that would be interpreted by so-called “modern” scientists as evidence against evolution. So it is a meaningless statement you have made.

The reality is however, that the missing transitionals are still missing, and vastly underpopulated in the fossil record, compared to expectations. Convenient then that evolutionists after the fact would not conclude that they did not exist, according to the evidence, but rather, that they would be few in number and most would have never fossilized. Evidence, my foot. (Dcscccc is much more gracious on this point. Today I am simply irritated by such …)

But the same is true for evolutionists. They are wholly committed to rejecting or ignoring any evidence against evolution, no matter what is presented. They are wholly committed to ignoring their false predictions and conclusions in terms of its impact on the viability of the theory of E. They are wholly committed to revising their theory, rather than revising their faith in the theory. Dcscccc shows how all your comments about whale evolution are false statements, and why, and instead of dealing with this, you continue on about presenting the list of evidence for ungulate to whale evolution as if he had never spoken. Your list is imaginary and non-existent, when examined in detail, and so your list explains nothing, and so it is not at all compelling. It is only compelling and supportive for evolution if accepted at face value, and not examined in detail.

1 Like

Never said that. As a literary person, you should know better. What did I actually say?

Oh, but, it’s not what you say, it’s what you mean that matters. Linguistics is all about the implicatures inherent in the explicatures which is how the meaning is calculated. If it’s not what you meant, you should clarify, because I have evidently incorrectly hypothesized the intended meaning your communicative cues were supposed to point to. :wink:

1 Like

Of course God killed off the older species of archaeocetes and dropped later models in the water. Only instead of going back to the drawing board he made it only look like they’re related.

How snakes lost legs.

1 Like

True. (of course, your analytical mind will quickly deduce that true means false… in this case). Half truths are the biggest bane of my experience. In other words, your statement is false because if you cannot tell what I mean by what I say, then what I have said is meaningless, and this “meaninglessness” does matter, particularly in contrast to actual words which are understandable and not “meaningless”.

In the process of all this analyzing, you have managed to divert the original topic entirely, and so have failed to actually reword what I have actually said, and then to ask for verification or affirmation of your understanding. If you used that process, you might have discovered what I actually meant, rather than to read in your own impressions. And if by some chance I was deliberately trying to be obtuse, or to interweave a number of “hidden” meanings, that would be my cue to enlighten you. As it stands, what I have said quite literally is what I meant.

Ted, thanks for your gracious reply. Yes there is hubris on all sides, but I am more irritated by the subtle (superior attitude) type which attempts to align people with human theory than by the obvious attempts to bring people back to God. That is the biggest contrast I see. Thus the link you showed which I finally looked at, indicated to me not an exaggerated pride or superior knowledge, but rather a mission to bring people back to what God clearly wrote in scripture (through human beings).

As far as evangelicals and fundamentalists are concerned, we do not need as Christians to be putting up “walls of division” or categories of dissension which are not warranted, and which miss the real issues we are discussing. All protestant churches were at one time fundamentalist in the sense of putting importance on the perspecuity of scripture, and the authority of scripture. All churches were at one time evangelical, organizing missions that not only provided food and clothing, but also scripture, salvation, and service so that the unbelievers would be saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.

It is not what believers are “boxed” as, nor what denomination they join, but how they live, and how their faith impacts their lives and minds that is important. And this may or may not be similar to a particular church, just as a particular church may or may not be indistinguishable from its denomination or “category of denominations”,

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth [l]in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident [m]within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not [n]honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and [o]crawling creatures. (Romans 1).

You’re being overly antagonistic. I was sincerely trying to understand your perspective, and asking for actual clarification, not trying to score points in some silly debating game. If you don’t care to clarify, then just don’t respond. You don’t have to be hostile about not responding.

1 Like

I very much agree with you, John. As I said, the analysis I pointed you toward is exactly that: an analysis by an historian of the current situation regarding evolution and conservative Protestants in America. It’s meant not to be divisive, any more than a stockbroker might provide an analysis of various markets for her clients. I wrote the private document for a client and put some of the non-confidential material into that blog post.

Let me suggest that “walls of division” in America today, relative to this issue, are actually being created mostly by folks on the opposite poles of the conversation, by their rhetoric–specifically, by Jerry Coyne and other New Atheists, who use evolution and some other parts of science aggressively against Christians; and equally by Ken Ham and some other creationists, who reject evolution and some other parts of science as “false” science, and who seek to drive Christians who think differently out of the realm of spiritual credibility among fellow Christians. Here at BL, on the other hand, we aren’t seeking to drown out other voices; we recognize our fallibility; and we want simply to provide a different perspective to Christian believers, while raising the level of understanding of our faith in relation to science among non-believers. Speaking just for myself, I don’t have any objection to Ham or Purdom or anyone else drawing a very different conclusion than I draw, relative to the evidence for evolution, the BIg Bang, and the age of the earth. What I object to is the rhetoric they employ, in which proponents of theologically orthodox forms of TE (see here for what I mean http://biologos.org/blogs/ted-davis-reading-the-book-of-nature/science-and-the-bible-theistic-evolution-part-5) are identified without hesitation as “wolves in sheep’s clothing,” or someone like Bill Dembski (who is a staunch opponent of TE) is described as “promoting a type of TE,” in a scare tactic to take Dembski’s views off the table for Ham’s audience. (Radio Host Hank Hanegraaff Supports Evolutionary, Old Earth | Answers in Genesis) That type of rhetoric is irresponsible, and doesn’t help confused people in the pews understand the range of the conversation. Indeed, Ham simply doesn’t want the conversation to have any breadth at all. Like Coyne, he wants it to be his way or the highway. I say that the truth might be out there somewhere on that highway, but it’s a target for drivers like Ham and Coyne who want to run it down.

1 Like

Hi @dcscccc,
I am content to let your arguments stand on their own.
In Christ,
Gary

That sounds a bit judgemental. However, without being antagonistic, I merely meant what I said. I never said that evidence can’t be true because its driven by an atheistic world view. However, it is nevertheless true, that an atheistic world view drives this particular approach to the evidence.

So, what didn’t I say? I did not say that Christians should not make use of theoretical models or theories with philosophies that don’t fit our worldviews. I implied that evidence can be true inspite of an atheistic worldview. But at the same time, just because it can be true in some cases, does not mean it is true. The caution is that the worldview can influence both the gathering of evidence and the interpretation of evidence. I’m sure you know that worldview influences which stories are reported in the news, which questions are asked, which witnesses are interviewed, and even how the answers are encouraged. This is even in a field which prides itself on “objectivity” in reporting.

Just like in news reporting, scientific investigation into things that relate to evolution is also not a purely objective science. We see this most obviously in how things are reported about new finds, whether fossil or genetics, or geology, or astronomy, but what is more difficult to ascertain is how this influences the actual scientific reports, since it does this more indirectly, and less obviously. But there is no doubt that worldview influences this process as well.

You can see an example of this in the presumed evaluation of prayer as Patrick keeps mentioning. The worldview overlaying this supposed study of prayer presumes that all benefits of prayer are materialistic, immediate, and direct. The only benefits are naturalistic benefits that can be indisputably measured. That is a worldview that influences the scientific process. It is a wrong measure, and therefore a flawed study.

Certainly the evolutionary model is generally anti-thetical to Christianity, because of its basic assumption that God is not allowed in it. Ironically, even though many christians believe in miracles, they have been convinced by the evolutionary mindset that miracles are not possible in creation, and therefore all the evidence must suggest a non-miraculous method of development. Not only that, but evolutionary thinking does not presume a natural law or order for evolutionary development, but rather a lack of law and order for accidental development, all serving under the god of much time or essentially timelessness.

So yes, as a general theory, it is dangerous to christianity… it convinced Charles Templeton and many others to say, “Farewell to God”. Does that mean none of the discoveries can be used? No. But to assume that individual cases of species separation, or hybridization, or natural selection, or mutation, must “prove” that man evolved from microbes goes far beyond the evidence. To assume that there is no such thing as a common designer, for example, is not a scientific conclusion but a worldview conclusion.

It is the lack of awareness of the worldview impacts that create the hazards for using the theory. Furthermore, using the theory is not the same thing as being subservient to the theory, which is a position many or most evolutionists have put themselves into, including christians who call themselves evolutionists.

I mostly agree with this also, John, and I’ll put any minor disagreement to one side since it’s pretty minor.

When I use the word “fundamentalist” in that linked essay (An Evangelical Dialogue on Evolution: Evangelicals, Evolution, and Academics: Historical Perspective and Future Directions), please keep in mind that I wrote that as an historian engaging in historical analysis. The second paragraph spells out the specific distinctive of “fundamentalism” that is relevant to my analysis of contemporary evangelicals (whom I distinguish from fundamentalists for the purpose of that analysis). Perhaps I’m misreading you, John, but I sense some resentment on your part simply for making that distinction, which is historically meaningful. I’m not engaging in any type of name-calling. Quite the contrary. The word “Fundamentalist” was first used in print in the USA in July 1920, as a self-chosen label for those conservative Protestants who intended to “do battle royal for the fundamentals” of Christian faith. Here is the immediate context in which that word was first used:

“We suggest that those who still cling to the great fundamentals and who mean to do battle royal for the fundamentals shall be called ‘Fundamentalists.’ By that name the editor of THE WATCHMAN-EXAMINER is willing to be called. It will be understood therefore when he uses the word it will be in compliment and not in disparagement.”

The WATCHMAN-EXAMINER was a Baptist periodical, and the editor (Curtis Laws) was writing about himself and his friends. He intended it to be a positive referent to his point of view. I use the word as an historian, conveying to my readers that fundamentalism is all about rejecting aspects of modernity, including evolution. There’s nothing pejorative in such an analysis; I’m just doing good, accurate history.

Ted, you are doing your best, I am sure. But sometimes when we transfer from history to making judgements about modern situations we end up reinforcing what we don’t want to. So if fundamentalist was used by this Baptist editor, it is now often/usually taken out of context. How many people know what fundamentals were being emphasized in 1920, for example? How many of those have changed? How many others agreed to be called fundamentalist? etc.

It reminds me of the discussions of “black”, negro, colored, african-american" as trying to make distinctions in terminology. Or the terminologies of “indian, redskin, native, aboriginal, first nations”. We know all of these are historical terms, but the one we use demonstrates our contextual framework, or demonstrates the philosophical approach to the issue.

You should know that fundamentalism as you quoted it, was not just all about rejecting aspects of modernity… it was an effort dedicated to maintaining certain faith fundamentals, some of which could be argued to reject certain traditional approaches to Christianity. The term has become perjorative, and as such I suggest it be avoided.

During the latter half of the 20th century, the terms fundamentalist and fundamentalism, both of which had existed since 1920, became even more polysemous than they had been since that year. Their usage to signify various kinds of people and phenomena expanded to hitherto untouched extremes. Originally Christian theological nomenclature, they were applied to a seemingly ever-widening variety of people and ideologies. Basketball coaches who emphasised such basic skills as dribbling and passing were dubbed ‘fundamentalists’. Portfolio managers who concentrated their analyses on the financial details of individual companies rather than basing their fiduciary decisions on macroeconomic market trends were similarly called ‘fundamentalists’. Muslims who militantly defended their faith entered political and journalist rhetoric as champions of ‘Islamic fundamentalism’. Mormons who continued to practise polygamy despite the abrogation of that phenomenon by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints were described as ‘Mormon fundamentalists’. Generally terms of opprobrium on the lips or in the pens of people who denigrated what they were describing, these two terms had long undergone what semanticists call ‘pejoration’ Frederick Hale1 Affiliation: 1School of Ecclesiastical Sciences, North-West University, South Africa

John,

This will be my last comment on this particular theme. You (and others) are of course free to add what you wish.

It’s indisputable that the word “fundamentalist” is now applied quite broadly, such that the late Stephen Jay Gould even referred to “scientific fundamentalists” at one point (by which he meant scientists who used science to attack religion). And, the word is usually used today as a pejorative tossed at others whose views one categorically rejects. We are on the same page here.

It’s equally indisputable that the word “fundamentalist” has been, historically, simply inseparable from the conversation about evolution among American Christians–indeed, more broadly among Americans period. Like the word or not, it was the banner under which William Jennings Bryan led his crusade to ban the teaching of evolution in public schools in the 1920s. Like it or not, it was the banner under which Jerry Falwell proclaimed his Christian faith in the 1970s and 1980s, when he published “The Fundamentalist Journal” (RELIGION : Falwell to Discontinue Journal).

Falwell actively promoted the YEC view, to such an extent that faculty at his Liberty University had to subscribe to that position (and to the best of my knowledge, they still do have that expectation). Somewhere around 1980, I recall seeing an advertisement in a Christian magazine, soliciting letters of support for Falwell’s view of evolution, offering as an enticement a free copy of Henry Morris’ book, The Remarkable Birth of Planet Earth, which now apparently is finally out of print (Remnant Books).

When Morris resigned from VPI to start the ICR in San Diego, he went there at the invitation of people affiliated with another leading “fundamentalist,” Tim LaHaye (http://sdcc.edu/about-sdcc/history-sdcc), though I think LaHaye now prefers to call himself an “evangelical,” probably for the same reasons that you don’t want me to keep talking about “fundamentalists.”

In the article you don’t like, I focused on “evangelicals,” whose more open attitude toward science I contrasted with that of “fundamentalists.” This is also historically based. If you read the final section of my latest column (http://biologos.org/blogs/ted-davis-reading-the-book-of-nature/genesis-and-geology-at-yale-the-days-of-creation), you will see how Morris and Whitcomb wrote their famous book, The Genesis Flood, at least partly in order to combat the influence of Bernard Ramm. To borrow from my own column: In the opinion of Westminster-trained theologian Kevin Vanhoozer of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, the Baptist Bernard Ramm “must be considered one of the foremost American evangelical theologians of the twentieth century. Only Carl F. H. Henry’s works are comparable in quantity and quality.” Ramm, like Billy Graham, Harold John Ockenga, and many others, identified with a group originally called “neo-evangelicals,” who held more progressive views about modernity and those Christians who embraced it than did the “fundamentalists” who opposed them every step of the way. That’s the context in which the article I pointed you toward embeds its analysis.

Basically, John, the first generation of creationists (in the YEC sense) was up to their ears in “fundamentalism.” For a long time, that was the accepted word, to such an extent that what is now called simply IFCA used to wear the word proudly in its name (http://www.ifca.orgsite/cpage.asp?cpage_id=140043237&sec_id=140007594). A lot of churches still belong to that organization, which has changed in name only. Their attitude includes open hostility to “evangelicals”, as seen in this statement (from the site I just linked) back in 1969: After some
consideration the matter was resolved in 1969 by adding to the IFCA Doctrinal Statement definitions of “Movements Contrary to Faith.” These included Ecumenism, Ecumenical evangelism, Neo-Orthodoxy, and New Evangelicalism. These movements were declared to be “out of harmony with the Word of God and the doctrine and position of the IFCA.” The distinction I was making corresponds to the distinction between the views of the IFCA and the views of what they called “New Evangelicalism.”

If you really don’t like this analysis, John, you’re always free to offer your own. But, the legacy of this dispute continues, whether or not one uses the “fundamentalist” word to identify one of the principal groups. You can change the language, if you wish, but you can’t change the facts of the matter.