given science regularly changes its mind on what is reality (criminal investigations being a classic example) that is a deficient statement that isnt consistent with reality!
human beings are a product of evolution and there is no stuff which can be added to non-living matter to make it alive.
Where did the energy and matter come from that started the big bang? And, whilst on that question, what started it?
If the Bible is about reality then we don’t have to understand the text as meaning that Adam and Eve are made mature in the Bible like golems out of dust and bone.
The bible tells us exactly the opposite of your claim. For example, There is a very obvious requirement to read the 10 commandments literally and that is because the way they are written follows well-defined literary rules…you cant just pretend those rules don’t exist to suit yourself. The same is the case throughout the bible…it follows quite well defined literary rules that help readers determine an actual historical account vs apolostic vs parable etc.
Tell me, how do you know WW1 actually took place? Do you not read historical accounts in books, listen to stories from witnesses, seek acheological evidence? Are you trying to tell us the only way to prove WW1 is to perform theoretical scientific experiements? Why would you then read into the above evidence from WW1 your own modern view of what may have happened? If you are going to continue to deny written accounts, then its pointless even trying to make you believe WW1 ever happened!
You will scoff at the above no doubt, but if given 4500 years of time, perhaps your scoffing wont be such an instant response to my point above. You are making the assumption that our current technology will not be viewed any differently in 4500 years times…i challenge that as historically shown to be a false assumption because we almost certainly will not record information in 4500 years from now like we do today and much of what we have today will be lost in the same manner as ancient writings have been!
The interesting thing about information now is that in truth, information storage is now i think, just as volatile as its ever been (given how easily hackers seem to be able to infect, corrupt, and destroy information storage)
Perhaps a better label than “apparent age versus apparent history” would be “functionally necessary” versus “functionally unnecessary” appearances of age. The bread and fish and wine had the appearance and structure of things with some history, but there would be no need to add traces of dust and bugs or other common but unnecessary components of those items. For young-earth purposes, it’s the difference between, for example:
“Although new seafloor is being made at a rate of about 1-10 cm per year, if God created the earth recently the seafloor would have to go from one side of the ocean to the other” versus God creating seafloor complete with the magnetic polarity zonations, the sunken islands, the layers with different types of fossils tracking the apparent age and climate zones, etc.
It’s still not very clear what sort of model you are thinking about. As I noted, there is Schroeder’s model; if you want to develop a variation on that you could propose something, though a number of difficulties have already been noted.
The correct formula for one-dimensional relativistic velocity addition is
u=(v+u′) / (1+((vu′)/c^2)))
where v is the relative velocity between two observers, u is the velocity of an object relative to one observer, and u′ is the velocity relative to the other observer.
So Adam, plug in velocities for the aircraft and the bullet relative to the speed of light. No matter what the values you enter, for any given observer the velocity of the bullet will never exceed c.
No, it is physics, and now you have an answer you can work out yourself.
This is a great example of how real science works, flaws and all, and fallible Christians working in science alongside other fallible scientists. It might save you a lot of time if you would read it:
I notice you almost always do this. Jump around uncritically mixing thoughts together. What on earth does taking the Ten Commandments literally or not literally have to do with taking creation literally or non-literal? Two questions.
Do you understand what the word genre means?
Do you recognize the possibility of different genres in the Bible?
Not to mention the Ten Commandments call God a jealous and avenging God who (immorally) punishes children to several generation (apparently through no fault of their own). Admittedly it does also (graciously even if illogically) speak to God showing love to the faithful person’s family for a thousand generations. The Ten Commandments also list women among the possessions of man. More important than cattle like cattle. Even the esteemed Decalogue is part of the accommodation process and assumes an ancient ANE worldview in terms of its wording and delivery. Are you married? Would your wife enjoy being listed as property you own among your pets, farm animals and physical belongings?
This is precisely why science is the best and most trust-worthy tool we have for investigating physical reality. It is because it freely changes its mind to follow any new evidence wherever it will lead that it ends up leaving others in the dust of ignorance. If I’m going to visit a doctor - I want to see one who keeps up on new research and pays attention to what becomes established (not just the latest stuff that still needs to be verified and survive challenges). I’d refuse to see the doctor who had long ago decided what the answers already were, and who ignores any data that doesn’t conform to that alleged “knowledge”. Those sorts of doctors might want to bleed you to get your humors in the right balance. No - please give me the scientists and professionals who will abandon or modify what they thought yesterday if better evidence demonstrates that it wasn’t right. This built-in humility to the scientific enterprise is why it has proven over and over again to be the more trustworthy (even while still fallible) source of truth over all of you who refuse to partake of that same humility - of realizing how easy it is to fool yourselves.
Show me a person who has often changed their mind as they grew and learned, and I’ll show you somebody who cares about the truth enough to pursue it - and who never stops pursuing it.
Show me a person who already knew the received and memorized answers about the world from early on and stuck to those as a matter of principled conviction, and I’ll show you somebody who keeps their eyes closed and has become a blind guide. This is why we now have people believing nonsense about all sorts of things and who are easy pickings for manipulation by wolves who want them to just blindly accept “religious” dictates that the wolves feed them.
Can you clarify that by “6 day creation” you mean six 24-hour periods?
If the perception of time itself is flexible, then what does a “24-hour period” even mean (if that’s what you’re referring to by “6 day creation” of course)?
No it does not. And more importantly the evidence does not change. We acquire new evidence, and accordingly we learn new things but it doesn’t change the evidence we have already accumulated. That never changes.
You have questions. Good. You should investigate and find out what science has learned and what it hasn’t been able to answer. But these completely different questions do not change what science has already discovered.
I do think there is a limit to what science can answer, and as a theist I ultimately attribute the creation of the universe to God and I think the action of God is a sufficient ultimate origin for all the energy and matter of the universe.
WW1 is common knowledge evident from endless references in other books and films. But the book of Genesis is quite different in many ways. It is part of only one culture out of many, each having very different stories about the origin of the world. And if there was no way to read it which was consistent with the scientific evidence then I would have no more reason to credit its account than the stories of all those other cultures. I might still read and enjoy it but have little reason to see it as all that much different than stories like Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter.
A closer example might be asking what can you tell me about the conflict between Spain and Portugal when Columbus was seeking funding for his little trip, not using any written sources. Much of what what was written about Old Testament events was written hundreds if not thousands of years later, from the cultural memory of the people of the time, with no previously recorded record. The New Testament is much different, with it being written by and to eye witnesses of the events, or at least while eye witnesses were still around.
Ive had to edit my post…this website is useless from a mobile phone…
I accept your point about observing…however the big bang inflation, i dont think is something that could be observed. If distant objects are claimed ro be so far away from us, and space is expanding fast enough that the light from the outer most regions never reaches us…clearly there must be merit in my thinking here (ie bullet fired in a moving aircraft)
The point is, I am wondering if perhaps even the speed of light is relative to the “system” from within which its measured. I guess what im saying is that God is not bound by the speed of light…its a limitation of ours but not His.
Oh that is just rubbish.
On what referencing do you make such ridiculous claims?
Find me a single YEC doctrine that proves this absurd claim?
This is a claim from a complete absence of any biblical theology…so i demand you reference this biblically or moderstors remove it!
This is a uniformatarian view, but YEC are not uniformatarian in their historical claims about the earth…the bible doesnt support it. TEists must deduce that bible statements about the age of the earth are wrong or deficient given the writers apparent lack of scientific knowledge (despite God communicating with them directly). If one denies the flood then thats a major theological flaw in TEism and this is an example of why.
Btw, unlike evolutionists, YEC do not agree that man has gone from a mentally primitive state to where we are today.
SDA for example believe that early man was far more mentally capable than we are today and whilst we do agree knowledge has increased and knowledge can be a good thing, our use of it is largely to the detriment of mankind and the environment.
The bible makss it fairly clear i think that mans increase in knowledge is going to be used in a manner that takes man away from rather than drawing him to God.
That is a reason for my disagreement with Biologos claims its using its scientific knowledge to bring people to God or keep them from leaving Him. The bible doesnt seem to me to support that claim.
This is a legitimate point. For me the bigger question is what does it mean?
So…if the argument is “God can do it,” is the meaning extrapolated from the text that “God can do it”? If so, it’s a pretty circular reason for the text to exist. I mean, it’s not “wrong,” per se, but it’s about as meaningful as “survival of the fittest” (a tautology, when “fittest” is defined as “best suited to survive,” as it should be).
From my own perspective (as a former YEC-er), seeing the comparison of Genesis 1 to its purported cultural contemporary texts caused the meaning of Genesis 1 to explode outwards, a Big Bang-like expansion of meaning that eclipsed the tiny bit of meaning I had perceived earlier. It’s incomparable.
So…it’s not like your interpretation is “wrong,” necessarily, it’s just…less…a whole lot less than it could be.
From where I sit (posting on my computer, not my phone ).
I think this is why id like to discover a kind of middle ground.
I recognise that philosophically we are told by a variety of writers, such as creation ministries, this is a waste of time, my aim wasnt to try to combine world views…its to try to find out if there is a way to harmonise both using the example of a bullet in a moving vehicle…which is also moving on a rotating earth, which is orbiting a sun, that is itself part of a solar system that is also orbiting…etc.etc.
Im not trying to describe a bullets real speed according to a person on Saturn…im trying to see if fundamentally the idea could help with the creation account (as a start) in that science claims what is observes is truth, Christianity says the obersver and what is observed are corrutible and corrupted…and there is a chasm between the two.
In terms of “it could be more”…we are moving into an era where religion has begun to steer away from the “i dont know i just have faith” answers. I am part of that generation. The “more” you talk about can be a problem…more what? Knowledge of science?
I would suggest that looking at fossils and drtermining that God didnt create a fully formed man, that the flood never happened, thst the genealogies back to Adam are wrong…knowing Christ also referenced those genealogies along with his apsotles… these are evidences of a biblical lie. Thats hardly going to support any notion that the God of the bible even exists! So i do not agree that logically one can make the claim the pathway of TEism brings people closer to God.
Logic says if science says creation of a fully formed man is wrong, that man couldnt have named all the animals, the flood didnt happen, the genealogies are wrong, then the entire story is fabricated and therefore not true. Tell me that logic is incorrect?
The “more” is what it actually tells us about YHWH, the world, and humanity (e.g., in contrast to what other cultures of said about their gods, etc.):
YHWH precedes Creation—he is not some epiphenomenon that emerges from Creation.
YHWH overcomes the chaos inherent in Creation, not through battle, but by mere breath.
Humanity was not created to serve the gods—humans are YHWH’s very “image” (the reflection of his glory, unlike, say, the sun, the image of the glory of Ra).
YHWH is not tired after Creation; he goes to his place of “rest,” the temple in which he is worshiped, which is the whole world.
Humanity’s role in Creation is not passive; the “image of God” is created to rule Creation with YHWH (or as agents of YHWH), expanding the Garden outwards into the chaotic wilderness.
In contrast to the cyclical daily, weekly, or annual pagan views, YHWH’s Creation is a new start that does not dissolve repeatedly into chaos to be reborn.
I mean, just reading it as “it’s seven days because God could” doesn’t reveal any of that other stuff.
The traditional YEC view also typically suffers from the imposition of Greek thought onto the text; namely:
Creation isn’t just “good” or “very good,” it is “perfect” (in a Platonic sense), which the text does not say.
Humanity is created with an inherent eternal soul (which begs the question of why there is a Tree of Life in the Garden, which must remain inaccessible to humanity after their rebellion against YHWH).
That’s some thoughts.
No, that’s not logical. If the intent of this particular text is not “history,” then it doesn’t call into question the rest of the texts. Why would it, necessarily? N.T. Wright says that we should take the text “literally,” and by “literally,” he means the world “literally” very literally—not to take the text as literal fact, but to read the text as it was meant to be read in its literary form. There’s enough evidence (I think) that the text was not written to be “historical fact,” in which case we would be doing a disservice to the text to read it that way.
The bible doesnt make the claim God appeared out of Creation. If you read through both Testaments of the Bible, it is quite clear the correct theology is that God is eternal, omnipotent, allpowerful etc. That to me is different from what you are saying
The Bible very specifically tells us that prior to Creation, the earth was formless and void…it was devoid of all life or even conditions for life. The bible also tells us that the corruption of sin (chaos as you called it) came after Creation…not before.
I do not read anywhere in the Bible where man was created to rule alongside God. What i do read is that God gave man dominion over the animals and was to tend to the garden…Whilst i agree that we are not created passive, that is very different from being a co ruler. Evidence of this comes in the answer the serpent gave to Eve “if you eat of the tree you will become like him knowing Good and Evil”.
Almost all Sunday worshipping churches completely misunderstand the point of Gods rest…“The Sabbath”. Its nothing to do with God needing a sleep, rather, the Sabbath was clearly made for man…its a period of communion with him in memory of Creation…to worship our creator. We are the ones who need to enter into His rest. However, sin destroyed all of that. The really significant thing is that the Sabbath rest that existed after creation is specifically what we will return to at the Second Coming of Christ…we are to enter into His rest. Christ is the Sabbath and the rest is linking the Seventh Day Sabbath with restoration and eternal life!
The statement you made about “Creation isn’t just “good” or “very good,” it is “perfect” (in a Platonic sense), which the text does not say”
Firstly, are you aware of why the Septuagint was translated in the first place and why there was a break away from the traditional Jewish text?
Given the history below…i very much doubt that the 70 translators screwed up the very first chapter of the bible!
The very first translation of the Hebrew Bible was made into Greek, probably as early as the third century BC. This, the so-called Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek, is traditionally dated to the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus of Egypt (285-246 BC).
t is commonly called the ‘Septuagint’ version (from the Latin for ‘seventy’) because according to the traditional account of its origin, preserved in the so-called Letter of Aristeas, it had seventy-two translators. This letter tells how King Ptolemy II commissioned the royal librarian, Demetrius of Phaleron, to collect by purchase or by copying all the books in the world. He wrote a letter to Eleazar, the high priest at Jerusalem, requesting six elders of each tribe, in total seventy-two men, of exemplary life and learned in the Torah, to translate it into Greek.
On arrival at Alexandria, the translators were greeted by the king and given a sumptuous banquet. They were then closeted in a secluded house on the island of Pharos close to the seashore, where the celebrated 110 m. high lighthouse, one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World, had just been finished.
According to the Letter of Aristeas, the translation, made under the direction of Demetrius, was completed in seventy-two days. When the Alexandrian Jewish community assembled to hear a reading of the new version, the translators and Demetrius received lavish praise, and a curse was pronounced on anyone who should alter the text by addition, transposition or omission. The work was then read to the king who, according to the Letter of Aristeas, marveled at the mind of the lawgiver. The translators were then sent back to Jerusalem, endowed with gifts for themselves and the high priest Eleazar.
Later generations embellished the story. Philo of Alexandria, writing in the first century AD, says that each of the seventy-two translators were shut in a separate cell, and miraculously all the texts were said to agree exactly with one another, thus proving that their version was directly inspired by God.
there is a significant literary problem with your claim there…note what God saw on the previous 5 days…at the end of each day “God saw that it was good”…and yet after Adam was made it says “and God saw that it was VERY good”. This is a significant difference in the score awarded to the work completed. The most common scholarly accepted meaning of this is summed up in a bible concordance…note the following as just one example…
Verse 31. - And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. Literally, lo! good very! Not simply good, but good exceedingly. It is not man alone that God surveys, but the completed cosmos, with man as its crown and glory, decu, set tutamen. “It is not merely a benediction which he utters, but an expression of admiration, as we may say without any fear of the anthropomorphism - Euge, bone proclare!” (T. Lewis)
You said “Humanity is created with an inherent eternal soul (which begs the question of why there is a Tree of Life in the Garden, which must remain inaccessible to humanity after their rebellion against YHWH)”
I am not quite following your theology on this? Are you denying the tree of life was in the garden alongside the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? (i note you make no mention of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, why?)
One thing that genuinely concerns me about quite a number of responses from Biologos members is that they appear to deny the existence of Satan in all but temptation ie “Satan cannot actually do anything”. That appears to be the held position despite the book of Job telling us very specifically it was Satan who caused the windstorm that destroyed the house killing Job’s children, and it was satan in the gospels who caused an entire herd of pigs to run into the sea and drown themselves after Christ cast them out of the man outside the town of Gerasenes.
Ive had some on this forum use the defense…“oh but God allowed Satan to do that, he gave him permission”. How this is a defense against the claim Satan has the power to physically interact isn’t logical to be honest as we have two examples of where Satan has done exactly that and the apparent defense is evidence for the affirmative not against it.
I mean no disrespect to your post above…you will note that i loved one of your posts…however, i notice that very often the logic in theology of those who do not read the bible as carefully as they should, because science dissagrees with it, make some very fundamental mistakes when interpreting scripture…and its regularly at complete odds with the Bibles own claims when they are self explanatory.
So for me, when i read an individual say that “science has added more to their Christian experience”, i must ask…
when science has seriously detracted from ones theology to the extent that that individual is denying direct biblical statements contrary to said worldview… at what cost?
the prophet Samuel said to King Saul…to obey is better than to sacrifice. Saul thought “the experience” (if you like) would be a great moral standpoint…Samuel was having none of that!
i think it is important right now to quote a bible text that is very relevant here…
Acts 17: 11Now the Bereans were more noble-minded than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if these teachings were true.
For me, its very important that i stay true to the writings of my worldview. If I do not agree 100% with those writings, how can i possibly claim that to be my worldview?
Given that 72 translators put into the Septuigent in Ptolemy II’s reign 285-246 B.C “it was good” and it was very good" and this was approved by the leaders of the day actually suggests that these individuals were following the accepted belief in a literal creation week. So YEC has it roots far earlier than TEists here are claiming…indeed it goes right back to the first known translation from the original language 250 years years before Christ.
If I am picking and choosing only those parts which i want to keep and throwing the rest out the window, im not really following that world view!
anyway…thats a sidestep from where this O.P is supposed to be going.
I am a former High school teacher with a bachelor’s degree in education…I make no claim of high achievement nor do i even engage in education at this point (i haven’t taught in 19 years). However, please do not come at me with questions like “do you know what the word genre means?”
In answer to the bigger picture in your question…the bible makes it very clear to us what is to be read literally, prophetically, or apocalyptically. When we talk of the literary genre…depending on who you wish to reference, there are at least 3 and up to as many as 10 different styles (and some might say more).
The point is, irrespective of any of your denials, the scholarly accepted view is that the bible makes itself very clear whenever each of the styles is to be applied. It uses consistent descriptors (if you like) in order that the interpreter may understand which one is to be used. An important factor we must remember is that the ancient language had far fewer words than modern English. As such, it becomes exceedingly important to ensure texts are not plucked out of their context…in doing so, and with a lack of words in the original languages, the correct interpretation is easily corrupted.
Ok…now on to examples of literary styles…
On the isle of Patmos, John clearly tells us he was shown (likely in vision) things yet to come. This is clearly futuristic…its both prophetic and apocalyptic. Given the nature of his dreams, we can clearly see in Revelation 13 for example, that these animals are not meant to be interpreted as specific animals…they were representative of something else. We know this as modern readers because our bible concordances link Revelation 13 with the dream in Daniel Chapter 7. So both of these two passages of scripture are not to be read as literal animals coming up out of the sea. What do they then mean? Well in Daniel it is pretty easy because Daniel tells us they are representative of future kingdoms that will come after Babylon. John the Revelator is telling us that very obviously those creatures in His dreams, given the kingdoms of Daniel’s dream had already come and gone, are representative of something still in the distant future…end times!
So the above is an example of exactly how the bible tells us it should be read. What style should be used in interpretation?
1When Jesus had finished saying all these things, He told His disciples, 2“You know that the Passover is two days away, and the Son of Man will be handed over to be crucified.”
3At that time the chief priests and elders of the people assembled in the courtyard of the high priest, whose name was Caiaphas, 4and they conspired to arrest Jesus covertly and kill Him. 5“But not during the feast,” they said, “or there may be a riot among the people.”
so let me ask you…in reading Matthew 26…
Wouldn’t you agree that its style is that of predicting/prophesying a literal event (by Christ) and the planning of that same event (by the chief priests and elders)?
Then when we read Matthew 27 it becomes absolutely clear that we are reading a literal historical account in the fulfillment of the prophecy by Christ and the planning by the Chief Priests?
45From the sixth hour until the ninth hourg darkness came over all the land. 46About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eli, Eli,h lema sabachthani?” which means, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?”i
47When some of those standing there heard this, they said, “He is calling Elijah.” 48One of them quickly ran and brought a sponge. He filled it with sour wine,j put it on a reed, and held it up for Jesus to drink.k
49But the others said, “Leave Him alone. Let us see if Elijah comes to save Him.”l
50When Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, He yielded up His spirit. 51At that moment the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth quaked and the rocks were split. 52The tombs broke open, and the bodies of many saints who had fallen asleep were raised. 53After Jesus’ resurrection, when they had come out of the tombs, they entered the holy city and appeared to many people.
I can go through literally hundreds of examples all throughout the bible using this same technique. If you wish to challenge that I am happy to go through any examples you post that are supposed to support your view YEC are making stuff up against literary styles! The truth is, that is not a complaint that a TEists can make against YEC…and that is because it is not YEC who are being forced to twist self-revealing bible texts and themes in order to support an outside philosophy.
The methodology of science is precise and singular… but limited. The methodology of Christianity is imprecise, highly varied and a little too lacking in limitations. Obviously it is far from likely that all the different variations Christianity are correct. Therefore it only makes sense that the middle ground between science and Christianity is to exclude those variations of Christianity which are not compatible with science, and accept that as a good limitation, at the very least. Other limitations are also advisable… such as excluding things which are contrary to social well being (a hard determination that only time can prove).
hmmm…i think that such a position has merit however, unless one has a sound knowledge of biblical writings and a sturdy grounding in the correct way to determine bible truth…it becomes a matter of opinion on which are to be excluded.
My assumption is that you are taking aim at YEC…however, i can assure you that theologically that is the wrong group to aim at. I have spent a great deal of time studying various doctrines from a wide variety of denominations in the Christian movement.
It is fairly easy to poke significant holes in any groups who for starters, worship on Sunday. That’s the first group to chuck out the window as the usual claim of “we are under a new covenant” and are therefore not under the law is absolutely flawed and wrong.
Aside from the above, the main reason why i would argue Sunday worshiping churches must be thrown out is that they cannot use the 4th commandment in defense of YECism…and that is a major blow to their cause in my opinion. It also restricts their use of the relationship between the Sabbath and the Redemption unto God at the Second Coming…how can non-believers in the ongoing legitimacy of Seventh Day Sabbath worship “enter into Christ’s rest”? They don’t believe in it!
So that means we are left with a rather small minority of Sabbath-keeping groups.
I would remind you that your claim about “the methodology of Christianity is imprecise” has a flaw in and of itself. The bible isn’t SDA, Catholic, Baptist, JW, or Mormon…the bible has its own theology. The only way around that apparently imprecise claim is to look at bible doctrine rather than interpretations of men.
Even science cannot do what you demand because science in and of itself does nothing. Science study in its entirety must be implemented and interpreted by intelligent minds. The difference here is that the bible has many thousands of years of actual written history and artifacts that support its story. Old age earth science does not have this…it has only calculations that make it seem like the most plausible answer is billions of years old…but where is the historical evidence from eyewitnesses to support such a view? (and this is a major difference between the two views…even in a court of law, eyewitnesses are a significant weight of evidence). I can think of some eyewitnesses however these are problematic for evolutionary science because they show images of dinosaur type creatures living in times of men!
Given the nature of the flood account, and the massive techtonic upheaval that is said to have caused globally, i do not accept that this cannot drastically influence what we observe around us thus producing errant results and even worse conclusions. I find it interesting that the “contamination argument” is thrown at YEC so much and yet when it comes to some of the very shady secular science conclusions, there is no such thing.
Anyway, back to the O.P. We are now arguing halfway through the story and we need to go back to the beginning. If we are going to keep reverting back to the flood issue over and over again, the same stalemate will result. It may be that this is an irreconcilable differences problem as i am sensing that no thought of a potential solution has been considered on this forum because its not forthcoming.
I openly admit, i dont have a solution in mind. Im simply throwing it out there to see if the forum has any workable ideas?
The workable idea would need to accept a literal 6 day creation and millions/billions of years of evolution. Its a big ask i know, but who knows, perhaps a solution may present itself.
I know that a second creation has been put forward in the past…thats just plain wrong biblically and i do not think it helps the evolutionary view in any case…so we need to move beyond that one.
).