BioLogos building an idol out of human reason?

Faith & Science Conversation
64

Not at all…this does absolutely nothing to stimulate any doubt in my mind about the absurdity of thought that a reptile became a chicken like creature with feathers. Do you mean to tell me that scientists are making a case that perhaps the only half flying chicken is an example of evolution from reptile to chicken to flying bird? I will need to half respectfully borrow a “Common Man!” from ESPN’s Chris Carter on that.

Perhaps God created the kinds …flying animals, swimming animals and walking animals with the ability to adapt. Perhaps the flying bird flew to an island where walking the island was more conducive to survival than flying and thus atrophied in the flying ability…this would be far more logical to me than a reptile developing wings, hollow bones, feathers (which are a marvel of nature in themselves) etc.

65

No I was just pointing out that we have a lot in common with chickens. More than many people realize.

You really should read (but I know that you won’t) “Your Inner Fish” by Neil Shubin.

1 Like
66

You have demonstrated nothing of the sort. There are many species of feathered birds that do not fly: ostriches, emus, penguins, steamer ducks, kiwis, cassowaries, and more. Yet they have feathered wings.

Your logic says that these kinds of birds should not exist. Here, let me quote you to refresh your memory:

So let’s see…I’ve get Greg on one hand, claiming that he has proved that feathered, winged creatures that cannot fly should not exist.

On the other hand, I have a roster of extant species with feathered wings that do not fly.

Let’s see, which one should I believe?

67

Don’t get me wrong…I am not like some who would confuse this issue to one of salvation. I have several young earth creationist friends who seemed to lean towards judgement of their brother who are old earth evolutionist as being a pseudo Christian because of xyz. There are not many of those of which I speak, but there are some and they are foolish. I do not lean in this way at all.

in fact, the way I do lean is towards questioning why such a divide between those who declare that God created “kinds” who are typically young earthers and those who declare that this talk about God creating “kinds” as absolutely foolish because it is unscientific…these are typically theistic evolutionists. They are divided and they are both smart… but divided and such division typically steers our minds to arguing instead of towards God. They both have positions and whenever there are bits of evidence in the fossil record for example, they fashion explanation toward the way they already think.

I do not buy that the existence of say a penguin or ostrich is a good example that God did not create “kinds” No way. I do not see these as intermediary creatures that are in process of evolving towards that of a fully flying bird, but rather animals that were designed by our Creator with flight ability and the ability to adjust to their environment for survival which caused them to be what they are today…An ostrich with unused feathers/wings is better understood to have once been created by God with flight in mind that found itself in an environment where flight was not necessary than an animal who developed feathers and wings out of the blue from the rough skinned reptile.

Our God is a creative genius. He does not need us. He does not see our models to explain how He created us. If He is capable to bring life from nothing, then He is capable to bring life as we know it from nothing in a split second. From this, I do not need a molecules to man model to explain my existence. God created.

I will be honest about myself: The more I attempt to steer from the plain language of God creating “kinds” towards evolutionary explanations that I would borrow from my theistic evolutionary brethren, the more focused I become on my “understanding and wise little self” and less I am focused on the majesty of our God who spoke animals who can swim, walk and fly into existence. From those kinds came magnificent display of creatures who developed within the parameters of their abilities according to how they were created.

When I talk about plain reading of Scripture, I would emphasize that I use caution and understanding of the meaning of the text as it was written…The Scriptures are so full of life but we need to “rightly divide” what they are trying to say. In early Genesis, where there are some poetic aspects that Keller would support, at the same time there are some pointed statements…one being that God created the KINDS. I see no scientific mind numbing with this at all. if we see a feathered dino in the fossil record, this could be representative of the very kind God speaks of…can it not? Instead, it seems that the scientist who got a good secular education where he paid a lot of money for tends to push back against this because naturalism says it is foolish. Am I wrong?

68

Why do you not believe that the objects in the sky (sun, moon, stars) revolve around the earth, Greg? There are plenty of pointed statements to that effect in the Scripture. John Calvin and Philip Melanchthon quoted them. Why do you refuse to believe them, Greg?

69

I watched the video of flight explanation (which I had not seen until today)and it still does not convince me one iota that God did not create “kinds” it does not convince me that a rough skinned dino developed feathers all of a sudden. Absolutely and totally unconvincing.

What seems 100% more logical to me as a believer is that God created kinds of living things with tools for living in the air, versus living in the water verses living on land…with the ability to evolve not into brand new kinds but into types who are better for survival in environments they are placed in.

Why do theistic evolutionists need to be molecules to man? Why can’t there be admission that God creating kinds a long while back is sensible to science?

70

I believe you to make this statement out of a refusal to believe me when I say that we must rightly divide the Scriptures . In other words, if an author is attempting to make the main point about the majesty of God by using their faulty understanding of how the universe works, this does not bother me one single bit. On the other hand, if the scriptures give a direct hint about how we can to be in our existence such as God creating the kinds, and there is no other reason for doing so other than for plain explanation about how we came to be, then I give credence to it. That’s all.

I feel sometimes that secular science thinks they are winning the argument of naturalism vs “God creating” by deceiving us toward agreement that models must be molecules to man instead of God’s direct intervening in natural history by the miraculous event of creating kinds. Could it be that God wants us to take a step back and look at the scientific reasonableness of God creating kinds with the ability to adapt for just this reason alone?

71

If I’ve offended you, I apologize. I notice that you take pains to respond to everyone else. I’m not hurt by being left out of your responses, but it makes me wonder if it’s worthwhile for me to continue engaging. I thought it might be helpful for me to clear the air, at any rate, just in case something I said rubbed you the wrong way. That wasn’t my intent, anyway.

My internet connection is very expensive and metered where I am, so I don’t watch videos and don’t know what all evidence is presented in that video. Nevertheless if it wasn’t presented in the video, you should know that the best research and most recent finds (from the last 2-3 decades) indicate that many dinosaurs were not, in fact, “rough-skinned” as Hollywood usually shows them, but had various kinds of feathers already as dinosaurs. There are in fact many kinds of proto-feathers that God created along the way to the current feather type found in all modern birds. A Google search for “evolution of feathers” should yield some good information if you don’t have time for the other, longer online materials that beaglelady recommended.

It’s because we’ve evaluated the evidence and, overwhelmingly, it supports common descent. God creating kinds a long while back was indeed sensible to science in 1850, but not in 2016. Not to beat a dead horse, but if you’re interested in some of that evidence which makes it such an open-and-shut case for us, you might think about checking out that super-readable Falk book I keep recommending. Otherwise you’ll always be wondering why we’re so thick in the skull. :slight_smile: I promise you we’re not being stubborn and we don’t get excited about reducing the awesome mystery of who God is. To the contrary, we are following the evidence, and most of us rather think that God’s use of evolutionary mechanisms to create everything that lives inspires us to amazement and worship.

I should add that Ken Ham’s “molecules-to-man” descriptor does not describe most of us well, because it lumps together something that is very well supported by the evidence (namely, common descent of all living creatures) with something that is not well understood at all (development of life from non-life, or abiogenesis). I personally remain completely agnostic about abiogenesis, but pretty dogmatic about the development of life once it got going. This sort of confusing slander from Ham is an easy way for him to paint evolutionary creationists in as ridiculous a light as possible, using memorable meme-worthy catch phrases, so it’s important to unpack it.

All the best,
AMW

72

Science and common sense (or “logical to me”, as you say) are not the same thing. Einstein’s ideas about space and time are not “common sense” (they aren’t “logical” to the common person). Neither is the motion of the earth around the sun, by the way.

I attacked evolution for most of my life because it wasn’t “logical to me”. I was wrong, because I was not a professional scientist and I could not reasonably evaluate the evidence for myself. (By the way, evolution is still not completely “logical to me”, but I just don’t think that’s a good measure anymore of whether or not it’s true).

Which isn’t to say that all your points about biblical interpretation and authority are automatically resolved. But “evolution is not logical to me” is not a good argument for your position.

Recent blog post on the subject: God’s Astonishing, Surprising, Evolving Creation - BioLogos.

Thanks for being here @grog, and for engaging in conversation.

73

I have to say, Greg, I really truly admire your persistence. It’s not easy to face an armada of commenters all firing back 15 replies for every comment you make. Even so, I hope you’re finding our style of engagement gracious and thoughtful more than angry and reactionary.

New subtopic here: How many “kinds” of marsupials do you figure there are, Greg? (Since you seem unlikely to read the Falk book, I’ll engage you with what I think is his best argument, and my favorite go-to argument for common descent.)

74

Friendly reminder that we have a “new subtopic” button. Just click on the timestamp on any post, and you can link it to a new topic of discussion.

75

but but… see, it’s all part of the same overarching topic which is, “a fascinating conversation with Greg about why he seems to think we evolutionary creationists all have our heads in the sand, and why we respectfully disagree.”

76

I agree wholeheartedly. In fact, Greg, what you have described is an evolutionary creationist view of Genesis. Did you realize that as you were writing?

Let’s apply the principle that you and evolutionary creationists agree on to the opening chapters of Genesis 1:24 (NIV):

And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so.

Let’s put this in context. The book of Genesis has 11 “stories,” each one summarized by an opening verse that speaks of “generations” or “beginnings.” The generations dealt with in Genesis 1:1 - 2:3 are the generations of the heavens and the earth, as we read in English translation:

“In the beginning of God’s creation of the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was astonishingly empty, and darkness was on the face of the deep, and the spirit of God was hovering over the face of the water.”

The point of this first account of beginnings is to describe how the heavens and the earth (and the life upon the earth) came into being–by God’s command. “Let there be…” stands in stark contrast to the Babylonian account (Enuma Elish) in which the god Marduk slays the goddess Tiamat and splits her body into the waters above the dome of heaven and the waters below the dome of heaven.

An important aspect of bringing form and order out of nothingness and chaos (“the earth was astonishingly empty”) is that God creates order everywhere:

  • It is in the heavens: the sun rules over the day and the moon rules over the night.
  • It is in the realm of biology: kinds reproduce after kinds.
  • And it is in the realm of the man’s purpose: man is commissioned by God (i.e., created in God’s image) to rule over the earth and its creatures.

The Genesis account (1:1 - 2:3) to which the “kinds” passage belongs has a message about God’s majesty. His majesty is seen in how the heavens and the earth have order.

That the universe has order is quite true; the speed of light in a vacuum has remained unchanged since the universe was formed, for example. So I wholeheartedly affirm the faith statement of Genesis. However, Genesis’ description of God’s majesty carries some faulty understandings of how the universe works.

Just as the celestial objects revolving around the earth makes perfect sense to someone who doesn’t have a telescope, the “kinds after kinds” view of biology makes perfect sense to someone who doesn’t have access to fossils and DNA analysis and microbial life. Calvin’s view of a geocentric universe and Ken Ham’s view of life created without evolution are both the products of a “faulty understanding of how the universe works” expressed in the Scriptures of the ancient Israelites and handed down to us today.

Today we use telescopes (not available 3000 years ago) to observe that the earth revolves around the sun. The science of astronomy helps us get the right view of Scripture and rightly divide it. Astronomy helps us respectfully disagree with John Calvin by interpreting Psalm 93:1 and Psalm 104:5 as non-scientific, poetic statements of God’s majesty.

Likewise, today we use fossils, DNA analysis, the observation of evolution in microbial life and whole slew of other scientific observations (not available 3000 years ago) to observe that all of life evolved from very simple single-celled organisms billions of years ago. The sciences of biology, paleontology, and geology help us get the right view of Scripture and rightly divide it. These sciences lead us to respectfully disagree with Ken Ham by interpreting the early chapters of Genesis as non-scientific, poetic statements of God’s majesty.

I understand that you have not spent decades studying biology, paleontology, and geology, so you are understandably reluctant to agree with us on the scientific questions. I say I understand your reluctance because I too was once a young-earth creationist, and I expressed the same skepticism about science that you have been expressing. A resource that you would find extremely helpful, I think, is Paradigms on Pilgrimage. The authors are brothers-in-law, one a scientist and the other a pastor/biblical scholar, who each ran into very strong evidence from their fields of study that made them reconsider their skepticism about evolution and the age of the earth. The book is a quick and clear read, too–a real gem on the topic of origins and Scripture. If you are interested in the book but do not have the means to obtain it, send me a private message with your address and I will ship a copy to you free of charge. Early Christmas!

Blessings,
Chris Falter

77

@grog

Hello Greg,

Just wanted to add my 2 cents to this discussion.

For myself, I don’t blindly follow any scientist but as a believer studied evolutionary biology at a graduate level (didn’t accept evolution at the time) and, to my surprise, saw how clear and abundant the evidence was. And not all scientists are atheists and the vast majority that are aren’t trying to promote it through their endeavors (including Darwin).

You also said in another post that you don’t accept the evidence for macro-evolution. I’m wondering how much independent study you’ve put into it, for I’ve noticed that those who come here and don’t accept evolution generally haven’t studied it much, if at all.

Also, science isn’t secular wisdom, it’s interpretations of accumulated knowledge of God’s creation. Secular wisdom says things like, “I’ll cheat just enough to get ahead and not get caught, everyone does it, who cares?”. Science helps us live, travel, get rid of cancer, etc., and the same scientific method that led to those advances has developed the theory of biological evolution. I’m wondering if you’re sceptical of the scientists who developed the last plane you flew on.

Lastly, I’m wondering if you can consider the possibility that you’ve misinterpreted Genesis 1, and that the Hebrew, “asah” and, “bara” don’t necessarily mean instantaneous creations, as they don’t anywhere else in the OT. And that maybe you’re being a little to technical in interpreting the passages on, “kinds”.

Thanks.

Richard

1 Like
78

I have the advantage of not having studied this in depth minus a dozen or so books and many articles from multi perspectives. Many educators in the secular arena are not calling a spade a spade. My opinion is that they are becoming indoctrinators not educators. And young earth creationists do believe in evolution but evolution from a point where God created the kinds. I do not buy how fossils or dna or microbial life can disprove that God created KINDS that then evolved. I just don’t buy it. I have already mentioned how I learned in college in the few history courses I took that history is NEVER to be considered a list of facts. NEVER. It is always to be read in a way that considers that the author is an interpreter of the facts and when we see great authors of recent history getting their presuppositions mixed into the recording, so writers of the history of the world should be much more cautious…they need to ask themselves over and over and over if the results of a test tends to support the already supposed hypothesis, or can they fit the results into an entirely different model.

Most universaries will never go there. You and I know that.

Research groups will not go there.

We have seen paleontologist groups fake fossils to pose the smoking gun to prove their point…why do they do this? $

The advantage that I have is that without indoctrination to the degree that secular schools have it of molecules to man evolution, I can better place a “reasonable” vs “unreasonable” tag onto options.

A demonstration about a bird running and flapping wings up a log that is slanted at certain degrees is just not sufficient evidence for how a land dwelling creature grew in design from no feathers to feathers…then from no wings to wings. and from dense bones to hollow bones. What I think is going on is the tendency for secular universities to conform the evidence to fit the presupposition and the presupposition is almost always without God. .

For some reason, I believe God has me on a pathway of learning about this subject and for whatever reason, I feel more and more uneasy about so many theistic evolutionists to stiff arm God creating “kinds” For goodness sakes, there are not some honest biologists who are turning away from the thought that birds evolved from reptiles towards a different model. In the same thought, my hunch is that theistic evolutionists who are Christians and worship a holy God in Spirit and in True consider changing their thinking away from molecules to man evolution towards God creating kinds that then have the ability to develop into the varieties we have today.

79

@grog

Please list the kinds.

80

you have not offended me. Sorry if I missed a reply back to you. And sorry if I have sounded offensive. I won’t read that book because after learning a bit from reviews, I believe I know exactly where it goes…evidence to prove what already is believed about the world…they are a dime a dozen. Sorry again.

And You are right about Ken Hamm…I have had direct links to Him through friends where I have specifically voiced my concern about the damaging disagreements between young earth and theistic evolutionists. He has humbled and tapered the jargon, most importantly towards a point that defines salvation as Christ on the cross and less on convincing folks to subscribe to his exact analysis of Genesis.

I have had a richly blessed Christian life with our Great God. He has blown me away with miracles and actions that I could never attribute to anyone but He. I wish I could write a book. The one thing I notice about Him is that He seems to make it very apparent that He is not a distant celestial clock maker in the sky who does not interact with His children, but is caring and active…but here is the hitch-He does not conform to a pattern that we expect and never seems to act the same way twice. He is beyond reasoning and wholly different and I believe that He has confounded the human mind with things we are not capable of understanding when it comes to how we got to the way we are today. But when He says something in the Word, we should be cautious in how we interpret it. For me, perhaps there is some leeway in early Genesis, but not so much that we call it poetry then buy the exact theory from naturalistic evolutionists either.

The principles that theistic evolutionists subscribe to that would suggest that God started the time clock with a couple of cells billions of years ago and then caused a “natural” environment in which creatures to develop from non flying to flying for example is not rational, it is not orderly, it is not sensible, it is confusing and it does not conform with what I see in His character. When I as a general contractor find it necessary to find a solution to a problem in a project, I have to sometime experiment with options before coming up with the solution. Heaven forbid that we come to the belief that God had to work that way in process of designing life as we know it. The molecules to man evolution is the model that anti God folks supported who then conform evidence to fit the worldview. We are told in the Scriptures that we are without excuse because we see His handiwork in creation and naturalistic changes from non flying to flying, to me, are less His handiwork and more evolutionary chance. Sorry if this is bitter to you all but this is my deep seated honest accessment.

If one starts with a worldview that suggests that God did not create kinds and then does some dna analysis, they may go out of their way to conform the evidence to support that worldview instead of finding willingness to consider other worldviews. That is what we do as human beings…we assume and when we assume you know what this makes out of u and me (ignore that if you don’t know the joke. ) This is unfair and unscientific. I on the other hand, I think that Ken Ham has come across arrogant and perhaps will one day be humbled in heaven when he realized how he stood firmly on things not worthy…He knows this from guys like me. But I conclude that theistic evolutionists who buy into the worldview borrowed from naturalistic evolutionists that then have a human tendency to translate the results of analysis of data to conform to that presupposed worldview are worse. If DNA strands from different species are 98% alike for example, this is UNRELATED to confirming that what we will call macro evolution to be true. That is faulty logic. Even my daughter who is homeschooled and taking a course on logic would say the same! This presupposes that God could have not made kinds using similar dna patterns.

Just acknowledging that God exists who is so beyond us should absolutely shake and rock and destroy any firm presuppositions about how we came to be. Right. God stands outside of nature as the supernatural. If we are a Christian, and believe this, then we have to conclude that God could have and most likely intruded within the parameters of the natural at any point in the spectrum of life that should create a pause in theorizing with too much certainty what actually happened those many years ago. I don’t sense that pause in theistic evolutionists. I sense it more in guys like Kurt Wise who learned under Jay Gould I think, whom I have exchanged emails with years and years ago, who have seen evidence but are not over inclined to interpret evidence within a naturalistic mindset because of His reverence towards a Holy God who is outside of nature and could have very well intervened within it at any point that would necessarily skew any scientific evidence that relies on the senses and human rationale.

I think that there are some who are afraid of what the secular scientific community will do to them if they admit this…this is understandably human but not Christian. In the same light, Jesus seemed to support the thought that it was worry and fear of man was the very reason that the Pharisees became the fakers that they became during Jesus lifetime. fear breeds hypocrisy. Please do not take this as a judgement of any of your characters. I am just being open and honest to the hilt.

When I have stood in the gap in faith that is fueled by His Word with less concern about appeasing the crowd and more reverence to God whom I know I can trust, He has responded with power and heaven forbid that I even flee from His goodness in this way. I am going to pray deeply over this issue because for some reason, He has me here.

I will just have to leave it there for now folks. I will spend time seeking His face on this issue and pray that you all do the same…If God calls for more discussion after this, perhaps we re open the discussion.

81

It is my impression that “kinds” is a made-up classification that has no real meaning, used solely because the English translation of Genesis said that “every kind” rather than “every variety” and that there is no real taxonomic division called a “kind” except in the imagination of Ken Ham and company. If you have information to the contrary, I would be pleased to hear it.
Also, I would like to hear of who the paleontologist groups are that fake fossils. There have been a few isolated incidents of fraud mostly decades ago, and which were exposed by the scientific community, with the fraud mostly by individuals who did so for the usual sinful reasons: pride, self-gradification, etc. but I am unaware of any widespread rogue paleontologist groups. The nature of science is to expose any flaws and misrepresentations (unfortunately the same cannot be said of religion- but that is another subject for another board…)

3 Likes
82

In the past there have been a few fake fossils. Some are fabricated by the local workers hired to labor at the dig site, who think they’ll get more work if fossils are found. But science is self-correcting. Now paleontologists are present at the dig sites and supervise all operations themselves. That’s why some of them look like cowboys with weathered faces and hats.

I went to a talk by Neil Shubin at the American Museum of Natural History once. He showed some slides from his dig on Ellesmere Island in the Canadian Arctic where he found the famousTiktaalik. He and his crew lived in tents and carried shotguns in case the polar bears got out of hand.

btw, there is a rumor that the adventurous Roy Chapman Andrews was the inspiration for Indiana Jones.

83

[quote=“grog, post:63, topic:5941”]
Is it not true that most evolutionary biologists have declared with certainty that reptiles evolved into birds?[/quote]
Birds are dinosaurs. Their group is an offshoot of reptiles. You don’t seem to grasp the notion of an evolutionary tree.

Why did you answer my challenge to your claim with an orthogonal question, Greg?

No evolutionary biologist AFAIK has ever hypothesized that wings began as stubs. If you disagree, perhaps you could name 10 such biologists.

Would you mind? After all, if you’re so certain, it should be easy to do instead of evading.

Not by people who understand evolution, no. Natural selection is the antithesis of chance.

Are you beginning to realize that you are grossly misrepresenting evolutionary biology?

And I am pointing out that you can’t name a single person suggesting this to be the case. Against whom specifically are you arguing, Greg? A straw man?

[quote]And if you are talking about the “extant” cave dwelling fish with non functioning eyes-…
[/quote]I am not. Perhaps you should ask sincere questions instead of rhetorical ones? Perhaps you should stop putting words into the mouths of others with no justification for doing so?

1 Like