Creation by evolution? The empirical evidence is missing

Faith & Science Conversation
41

Yes, it is exactly the point: you are a Christian yet follow a metaphysical ideology that is neither Christian nor biblical.

What fundamentals would those be? The fundamental arrogance of imposing one’s own worldview onto ancient literature? The fundamental ignorance of refusing to let the scriptures be what they are? The fundamental deception of pretending to do science while following a principle that makes doing science impossible? The fundamental lack of respect for God’s people that treats what was written to them as not being any type of literature they would have recognized?

Those are the primary fundamentals on which YEC operates. They’re obvious to honest observers, which is why YEC drives people from Christ as I witnessed repeatedly in my university days – every one of those items I listed were observations made by non-Christians from listening to YEC arguments – along with a not-uncommon comment that they would become Christian if it weren’t for the refusal of so many Christians to deal honestly with literature, history, science, and scripture (respectively to the questions I provided).

But it has been demonstrated to you repeatedly and rather thoroughly that you do not in fact “follow science”; by following YEC what you actually follow is a pretense of science that fails to be science and fails to be biblical because it violates the critically important admonition to be honest in measurements. It violates that both in science and in exegesis, the former by ignoring and misrepresenting data, the latter by demanding that God has to conform to a priori premises of a modern worldview.

But it is special pleading: the entire YEC program is making stuff up to fit a metaphysical position that is neither scientific nor biblical.

God expects us to disrespect both the original audiences to whom the scriptures were written and the Holy Spirit by treating the scriptures as something they are not and never claim to be?

You lack the knowledge to actually make such an observation, unless you suddenly can read ancient Hebrew, distinguish different ancient literary types and describe their aspects, and expound the worldview within which the scriptures were written – because my “observational habit” is to read the text and ask what it was meant to say by the writer and was understood by its original audience.

No, here we have you imposing an extra-biblical ideology on things, making them say things they don’t.

That right there is special pleading! Instead of being willing to do the homework required to know what you’re talking about you pretend that everything needed to understand the scriptures can be found in the scriptures – which is patently false because scripture doesn’t provide an ancient Hebrew (and Aramaic) lexicon nor an ancient Hebrew grammar! Those are necessary to even begin to read the Old Testament writings, but they can only be found outside the scriptures.

And you regularly fail to treat them honestly, refusing to do the necessary homework, as is evidenced by the fact that you twist what Peter wrote to try to make it about Satan and his angels when that doesn’t fit the rest of the New Testament at all – for example, Satan and company are most definitely not “[placed] in chains of darkness to be held for judgment”.

Since you set up a false condition there’s no point trying to convince you. You have demonstrated repeatedly that you have no actual interest in understanding the ancient text, you only want to make your translation say what you want. If you really wanted to understand then you would have started by seeking the parameters of the ancient worldview and the various types of ancient literature employed so you could make an effort to see what the ancient original audiences heard.

Your condition is like insisting that someone prove to you what camera Van Gogh used using nothing but the brushstrokes in his paintings.

He didn’t – as has been observed by wise Christians down the centuries, if you find that it appears that the “two books” of revelation are in conflict, then you are reading one of them wrong.

So your position is that God lied when He told us that nature tells us about Him – but neither the Psalmist nor Paul agrees with you; they both say that nature provides dependable knowledge about God.

You ascribe immense power to Satan, and in doing so you make God a liar. If there is deception going on, it is found in the error of refusing to let the scriptures be what they are, namely ancient literature written to ancient audiences – not sources of scientific information.

2 Likes
42

They nicely bury a lie in there: they do not practice historical-grammatical interpretation because they ignore the first half of that when they refuse to address the historical context, which under the definition of the historical-grammatical method includes the ancient literary type along with the culture and worldview of both the writer and the original audience.

Which includes evidence about not just science but about scripture.

I don’t follow it because it contradicts the reality of what the Bible itself is.

Somehow it strikes me as amusing that a Roman Catholic Cardinal is plainly more humble than YECists.

1 Like
43

I am concerned about the tone of some of the posts on this thread, even though the community has not flagged them. Please refrain from statements that would imply a questioning of others faith and personal comments. While I know feelings are strong, please try to keep statements and responses both kind and impersonal. It is a fine line between allowing honest expression of disagreement and avoiding personal attacks, but I know you can stay on the right side of that line.

1 Like
44

I was going to respond to Adam directly but it is more appealing to respond to someone whose viewpoint is closer to my own. I was going to say that the ‘fundamentals’ are not ‘what’ are followed but rather one ‘way’ to follow scripture. But as you say it starts off with assumptions which belong to someone but not to the Bible’s authors or intended audience. They are simply the most simplistic way one could understand scripture. Simplicity isn’t always inferior but if you really value the God and traditions of Christianity it is probably worth a better, more honest and open, inquiry than that.

@jpm I hadn’t gotten as far as your last post when I posted. Please feel free to delete it if it crosses the line, no explanation necessary.

45

It also evokes the modern Christian fundamentalist movement which began in the late 1800’s, about the same time as the founding of the SDA church although the two are different in many aspects. “The Fundamentals” was a set of essays published from 1910 to 1915, and was a distillation of the movement which included what we would recognize as modern creationism.

This aversion to modernism is echoed in many of @adamjedgar 's posts where he is as critical of “secular science” as he is of any specific scientific theory.

3 Likes
46

The odd thing about it is that their approach to scripture is based on a very secular concept.

47

It is ironic when you really start to see how true this is… to be hung hoisted by your petard

I went looking for a quote and now find myself rereading Tremper Longman’s chapter on evolution in his book Confronting OT Controversies… have you ever looked at it?

48

Nope. If I added it to my reading list it would be somewhere around #300.

49

I am critical of anything that is non biblical and that is the difference here.

I am Christian, a follower of the bible…I am not a follower of secular Scientific interpretations that are not in harmony with very obvious biblical statements regarding events and the age of the earth. The irony of this is, you make statements against me…and yet when i bring up 2 Peter 2 where the apostle Peter states Noah was saved from a global flood and Lot from saved from the destruction of Sodom and Gomorah…there is no response…crickets! Now i have also included the apostle Luke making the same claims as Peter…and well the evidence against TEism is even more damning because Luke was a disciple of the apostle Paul…so this means that Paul too would have believed the literal historical accounts of Creation, the Flood, and Sodom and Gomorah because Paul trained Luke!

that is the thing about the bible that so many simply don’t get…the bible is consistent in its doctrines. God doesnt say one thing to one individual about His wishes, and then tell someone else something that is at odds with the previous statement. Even in the covenants that He made with His people, the only difference between the Old and the New Covenants is that in the New Covenant it is God who takes the initiative not the people. He did that because the people made a promise to Moses in the presence of God “all these things we will do” and then they broke that promise. So God decided in the New Covenant that He would write his laws on our hearts and in our minds instead of on tablets of stone!

50

There is no such thing as “secular scientific interpretations.” There are honest scientific interpretations, and there are lies.

The rules of science are exactly the same for Christians and atheists alike. They are exactly the same whether God is at work or not. They are exactly the same whether miracles are a legitimate explanation for the evidence or not. They do not depend on how old the Earth is, or on who did or did not evolve from what.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Your interpretations of the physical evidence that we see in nature must consist of honest reporting and honest interpretation of accurate information. This should be completely non-negotiable for everyone. Measurements must be accurate and honest. All evidence must be accounted for. Quotes must accurately reflect the context from which they were taken. Interpretation of errors and discrepancies must be proportionate, neither exaggerating them nor downplaying them. Attempting to twist evidence to try to make it support a young earth, a global continent-shaping flood, or non-evolution, when quite clearly it does not support any of these things, is not being “critical of anything that is non biblical.” It is lying.

Talking about “secular science” or “secular scientific interpretations” is like talking about “secular facts” or “secular honesty” or “secular measurement.” It is simply patent nonsense.

4 Likes
51

and don’t you find it rather ironic that one may essentially say ALL AIG and Creation Ministries, SDA Universities scientific interpretations are lies and the non Christian ones are truth?

That’s a red flag of monstrous proportions when one also considers that it just so happens that the ones you call truth directly discredit the bible narrative and these are the same ones that AIG/CM/SDA universities are in harmony with the Bible!

thats my entire point on these forums…you guys simply ignore the red flags that destroy any notion of your faith. Anyone who cant even follow their own philosophical writings I argue is NOT actually a supporter of said philosophy…they are deniers of it! TEists are not really Christian…they are evolutionists who believe evolution is also a religion.

52
  • Yesterday, I watched Robin Parry’s 5 part presentation regarding the topic of “Creation Out Of Nothing.” The last video was subtitled: “Is it biblical?”
  • The question has stuck with me, strongly.
  • IMO, prefacing every thought, word, and deed with the question: “Is it biblical?” can lead a person into a very strange world. In fact, Parry wrote a book: The Biblical Cosmos: A Pilgrim’s Guide to the Weird and Wonderful World of the Bible
53

I have this book and am starting to read it. I am particularly interested in the chapter on sexuality. Because i read the bible quite literally, this is a particularly difficult social arena for individuals such as myself. I have no problem believing that homosexuals may be saved, just that i do not belive they can continue to practice that abomination and be saved. Christ, after writings the sins of her accusers in the sand said the women caught in adultery, “neither do i condemn you” but he went on to say, “go and sin no more”

John 8:1-11 A Woman Caught in Adultery

8 Jesus returned to the Mount of Olives, 2 but early the next morning he was back again at the Temple. A crowd soon gathered, and he sat down and taught them. 3 As he was speaking, the teachers of religious law and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in the act of adultery. They put her in front of the crowd.

4 “Teacher,” they said to Jesus, “this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 The law of Moses says to stone her. What do you say?”

6 They were trying to trap him into saying something they could use against him, but Jesus stooped down and wrote in the dust with his finger. 7 They kept demanding an answer, so he stood up again and said, “All right, but let the one who has never sinned throw the first stone!” 8 Then he stooped down again and wrote in the dust.

9 When the accusers heard this, they slipped away one by one, beginning with the oldest, until only Jesus was left in the middle of the crowd with the woman. 10 Then Jesus stood up again and said to the woman, “Where are your accusers? Didn’t even one of them condemn you?”

11 “No, Lord,” she said.

And Jesus said, “Neither do I. Go and sin no more.”

Longman says the following in his introduction regarding sexuality…
The author states the following:

Until the past few decades, the Bible was pretty much universally understood to prohibit homosexual activity, and even today the vast majority of the global church holds that view. However, some evangelical scholars in the Western church have reconsidered their opinion. Civil society recognizes same-sex marriages, and many churches, typically non-evangelical churches, welcome openly gay people into membership and even the clergy. What is new and what is addressed in this book are recent evangelical arguments that go along with the non-evangelical viewpoint and support affirmation of this new cultural trend. I will defend the long-standing and widely held traditional view.

Longman, Tremper . Confronting Old Testament Controversies: Pressing Questions about Evolution, Sexuality, History, and Violence (p. xvii). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

I think that whilst murderers, homos, pervets, thieves, liars, adulterers may be in heaven…it will only be those who have confessed their sin and made changes to their lives to not continue in such behaviour. It does not mean these individuals are not allowed to fall into temptation, however, a serious effort of conscience is required in my opinion. One cannot simply throw ones hands in the air and say…its hopeless i give up. The biblical model is that God will offer his helping hand in order to navigate through ongoing temptation…that’s the point i think. We arent saved b y our own efforts, however, our efforts (or failure to even try) certainly condems us (as Jesus demonstrated with the parable of the talents)

54

With respect to the reoccurring topic here I would love to see your comments on the chapter on evolution. Especially on the opening of it where he addresses hermeneutic issues.

55

I would describe it as deeply confused, to the point of being schizophrenic.

I have seen @adamjedgar argue vehemently that Christians should reject science. In the very next moment he strongly disagrees with my statement that AiG’s claims are not scientific. He wants to argue that AiG is doing science so their conclusions should be accepted, but then argues we should reject conclusions reached by science.

It appears to me that they want the respect that science has earned without actually having to do the science or being beholden to the scientific method. They just want to call it science and not have anyone question it.

1 Like
56

You haven’t shown us any scientific interpretations. In order for us to call them lies they would have to exist.

What you appear to have are interpretations that aren’t scientific.

The problem is that you have yet to present any scientific models that are consistent with your interpretations of the Bible. You claim that these models exist, yet you aren’t able to present them. So what should we take away from this?

For example, you claim that there is a scientific model demonstrating that the genetic variation in a created kind was inbuilt in a single breeding pair (or 7 breeding pairs for unclean animals I would suspect). Where is this model, and where is the data supporting it? What did this inbuilt variation look like at the DNA sequence level? How did it work? What were the mechanisms involved?

It could be that you are honestly mistaken and that there isn’t a scientific model for inbuilt variation for created kinds. That’s fine. However, I would hope that you would understand why we feel a bit frustrated when we are accused of not accepting scientific models when those models don’t exist.

1 Like
57

Other way around I think, as you need more breeding pairs of stuff you eat. But, you make a good point. A group from our church is going to the Ark Experience this fall, and it will be interesting to hear what they bring back. I have no interest in confronting or changing minds, but asking questions to help them think about it seems a reasonable approach.

1 Like
58

Yes, you are right. In my defense, I was the Bible trivia king when I was in Sunday school 40 years ago.

That’s a good point, and one that sheds some light on why there can be disconnect between groups. Biologists are very familiar with the data in the field, so they immediately understand the implications of YEC and what those implications should look like in the data they are looking at. Normal people (i.e. non biologists) aren’t aware of this data, so it is easy to understand why they wouldn’t see these problems.

For example, 7 breeding pairs means 14 alleles at most for a single gene. Is that what we see in the felids? Is there just 14 or fewer alleles shared across 41 cat species? I suspect that we could find more than 14 alleles for many genes in just one species. So what in the world is this “inbuilt variation” thing? How does that even make sense?

However, how many normal people even know what an allele is at the genetic level? Probably very few, which has at least been my experience. I can fully understand why inbuilt variation would seem reasonable to many people.

Of course, this raises some very serious ethical questions when it comes to the behavior of professional creationists who do understand these topics.

2 Likes
59

Honesty is universally recognized as an attribute of piety and Christian virtue. What I find ironic and immensely depressing is the willingness of apologetic organizations to lie in the supposed service of defending creation.

2 Likes
60

Go back and read what I wrote, Adam. Properly.

If you do, you will see that I pointed out t you that it is nothing to do with “Christian scientific interpretations” versus “non-Christian ones.” The criteria that distinguish between truth and falsehood are exactly the same for Christians as they are for atheists. Science has rules and honesty has rules, and if you don’t want me to tell you that AIG, CMI, SDA and so on are lying, then you need to justify their claims in terms of those specific rules.

I’ve made this point to you over and over again, Adam, but as it stands, you don’t seem to even care to understand what the rules in question are, let alone stick to them. You just seem to be intent on repeating “secular science interpretations” like some sort of parrot no matter how much I tell you that it’s nothing of the sort.

1 Like