Evidence for evolutionary creationism

[Mervin_Bitikofer]

@Burrawang

If there was no fall, then we (humanity that is) would be in our original state, i.e., sinless, blameless and innocent before God. There would be no need for Jesus to give of Himself unto death to pay the price incurred by His own Holy character. In the sense of the crucifixion and only in the sense of the crucifixion, there would be no need for that to have taken place if we did not fall. But unfortunately, we (right back to Adam) did fall.

The point you make here, Jon, is I think, revealing and gets toward the heart of something that has been one of the core issues - not just for YECs but for modern Christendom in the west generally (though I would say YECs are right in the heart of it). And that is this: there is an assumption (and not a biblically supported one so far as I’ve seen - though its antithesis has lots of biblical support) that the “original” creation was pristine and complete in every sense of the word (both physically and spiritually). With that, then, goes a view (which you did not explicitly state above, but which often rides along implicitly) that Christ was then a “Plan B” that had to be brought into play after disaster struck. He’s the ‘clean-up’ crew. There is some scriptural truth in some of that - don’t get me wrong. But not all of it. This is where your assumptions come to haunt you and separate you not only from being able to read reality rightly, but separates you from being able to fully imbibe (imbible? ) the scriptures rightly as a trustworthy workman. Christ was never a ‘plan B’! And nor was creation ever fully ‘realized’ or ‘complete’ or ‘perfect’ even before “the fall”. Christ was there in the beginning, and I for one believe that the incarnation was always in the plan - the Creator coming down and enjoying a Sabbath rest in the temple of the creation - very much including each of us as that temple now. There was always a wild, chaotic world outside that garden that would need ‘taming’ and stewardship, and we were meant to be God’s joyful agents in all that labor. The more I read of Moses and all the prophets and apostles, the more this all seems apparent to me from that narrative and the more it appears that the modern obsession with tying to force-fit biological and geological sciences into a modern-minted (and science-centered) theological theme (which is exactly what you YECs do!) the more I see that I would not only have to throw out science, but I would have to also throw out nearly the whole of scriptures in order to go along with your narrative! In short - the YEC narrative owes more to Plato (and really … Epicurus) than it does any of the scriptural testimonies.

That is why so many of us here choose to pursue the truth of God’s creation and written revelation (both) rather than to depart from both of those things to instead pursue a tradition of men that has, for many, supplanted any proper understanding of scriptures. Seen through the eyes of Christ, how could we choose otherwise? I know you won’t be able to leave behind all the erroneous manmade traditions quickly - it took years and decades for some here to extricate themselves. And when you’ve been immsersed so long into sources that have so misled you, it’s hard for the human mind to leave that deeply engrooved mental rut. But we’re glad you’re here! (Terry’s impatience with you notwithstanding). It’s a step toward taking an interest in ‘rightly explaining the word of Truth’ as Paul exhorts Timothy.

Blessings to you;
-Merv

[Alanpav (Alan pavelin)]

With respect, I think it’s important to understand that the scriptures are not necessarily intended to be a literal factual account of historical events, like a school history book or newspaper report. That’s not the way the writers thought. As regards the creation stories (there are two, which cannot both be right in the literal sense), the ancient writer, or writers, were simply explaining that everything is created by God, using their own thought-forms. Unless you take a literal approach to the whole Bible, which immediately throws up lots of contradictions, there is no problem about accepting evolution rather than “creationism”.

[gregoreite (γρηγορεῖτε)]

Once upon a time many decades ago, I was blind to the truth and I believed precisely that; but thanks to God’s grace my eyes were opened and now I see the Truth. Jesus is our Saviour and our Creator; indeed He is the Creator of all things.

I now understand that Genesis is accurate historical narrative and means exactly what is states.

That’s strange! I’m in the same position, but I came to the completely opposite conclusion. But before we proceed any further, let’s get something cleared up. When Jesus has his famous conversation with Nicodemus in John’s Gospel, he tells Nicodemus he must be born “from above”. It is Nicodemus who thinks Jesus meant born “again”. How did Nicodemus get this wrong? Well, he thought Jesus was saying you must be born “from the top” - a colloquial way of saying, starting all over again. However, all through John’s Gospel, “from above” is about the realm of the Spirit.

There is a danger here in thinking that your spiritual experience, or what you think is your spiritual experience, somehow gives you the right to think that the way you approach the Bible is the correct one. It won’t be long before you run into the Pentecostal who believes he or she has had the “second blessing”, and that consequently they have a better insight into the Bible than merely being born “again” would give.

[jammycakes (James McKay)]

@Terry_Sampson

• a literal Adam,
• a literal Eve,
• a literal Garden of Eden,
• a literal tree of knowledge of good and evil,
• a literal deceiver, the talking serpent, and
• a literal Fall;

None of which require the Earth to be six thousand years old or the Flood to have extended beyond the drainage basin of the Euphrates and Tigris.

[Terry_Sampson]

• Yeah, odd isn’t it?
  • The Bible doesn’t require a belief that Genesis is history, but YEC-ism says failure to believe those six things “makes Jesus irrelevant” and, oh, by the way, so does failing to believe anything else in Genesis, Go figure.
• But YECs don’t put themselves above the Bible or God, and God forbid anyone accuses them of teaching nonsense.
• Has anyone done a deep dive into YEC psychology?

[Burrawang]

@Mervin_Bitikofer

The point you make here, Jon, is I think, revealing and gets toward the heart of something that has been one of the core issues - not just for YECs but for modern Christendom in the west generally (though I would say YECs are right in the heart of it). And that is this: there is an assumption (and not a biblically supported one so far as I’ve seen - though its antithesis has lots of biblical support) that the “original” creation was pristine and complete in every sense of the word (both physically and spiritually). With that, then, goes a view (which you did not explicitly state above, but which often rides along implicitly) that Christ was then a “Plan B” that had to be brought into play after disaster struck. He’s the ‘clean-up’ crew. There is some scriptural truth in some of that - don’t get me wrong. But not all of it. This is where your assumptions come to haunt you and separate you not only from being able to read reality rightly, but separates you from being able to fully imbibe (imbible? ) the scriptures rightly as a trustworthy workman. Christ was never a ‘plan B’! And nor was creation ever fully ‘realized’ or ‘complete’ or ‘perfect’ even before “the fall”.

Thank you Merv for your interesting post, it does appear that you do have an incorrect idea of what I believe, of course the incarnation of the Son, born a man Jesus was never Plan B. God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit blessed Trinity is omniscient, He is in eternity and knows All things,thus He knew that Adam and Eve would fall in the Garden, (but it was their free choice to do so). There was no Plan B, Jesus came to save us from the wages of sin is death.

@Mervin_Bitikofer

And nor was creation ever fully ‘realized’ or ‘complete’ or ‘perfect’ even before “the fall”.

I believe that after creation was completed, but before the fall, the creation was complete and perfect. God stated that the creation was very good. Unfortunately, since that point in time, we have been going downhill, so to speak, things have been unwinding, species have been going extinct, but in the ‘Biblical kind’ sense no new species has appeared. Not even one! It is only because all the diversity of life started out as perfect that their respective genetics enabled breeding of closely related family members up to a point in time when the genetic mutational load reached the point where the risk of the expression of some of the more serious mutations would cause birth defects that God prohibited marrying close family members. Thus Adam and Eves children (with near perfect genomes) would have married their siblings initially without any ill genetic effects, (birth defects), something that is abhorrent these days because of the very high likelihood of severe birth defects as our genomes accumulate mutations with every generation and most, (in fact nearly all) of those mutations are NOT removed by natural selection, because they are too small, near neutral, in effect thus they continue to accumulate and get passed on to the next generation. At some point the genomes of all species including us will reach error catastrophe and extinction. Except that I think that God will step in (the second coming of Jesus) before that happens.
Thus it seems quite logical to me that the creation, described by God as very good, was perfect in the beginning.
I am growing weary of the incessant barrage of being thrown into some sort of stereo typical bogeyman that it seems Biologos poster’s including you, pigeon hole as YEC’s that are to be put down at all costs.
It may surprise you to know that people who believe that the creation account in Genesis is historical narrative come from ALL denominations, be they Baptist, Presbyterian, Anglican, Catholic, Pentecostal, Methodist, Lutheran, Seventh Day Adventist and I could go on for ages but what is the point. Do you really believe that all those people are deceived about what God has so plainly written as history in the Bible?

@Mervin_Bitikofer

In short - the YEC narrative owes more to Plato (and really … Epicurus) than it does any of the scriptural testimonies.

What a revealing statement! It is precisely this type of unmitigated falsehood that might well give you a pat on the back from your Biologos peers, but does you no favours when confronted with the truth.

All the very best Merv,
jon

[jammycakes (James McKay)]

@Burrawang

I am growing weary of the incessant barrage of being thrown into some sort of stereo typical bogeyman that it seems Biologos poster’s including you, pigeon hole as YEC’s that are to be put down at all costs.

It’s not about treating YECs as bogeymen, Jon. It’s about holding them accountable for the scientific and factual integrity of their claims. The thing you need to understand here is that science has rules and honesty has rules, rules that are the same for both “operational” and “historical” sciences, rules that are the same no matter what your worldview, and if you want to be taken seriously, you need to make sure you are sticking to them.

[rsewell (RON SEWELL)]

@Burrawang

Thus Adam and Eves children (with near perfect genomes) would have married their siblings initially without any ill genetic effects, (birth defects), something that is abhorrent these days

This is 100% made up. There is no Biblical support for Adam’s children indulging incest, nor is it ethical to marry your sibling if genetically tested. Cain found a suitable wife, was concerned for his safety when encountering other people, and built a city. It is obvious that chapter 3 of Genesis assumed a populated Earth.

@Burrawang

because of the very high likelihood of severe birth defects as our genomes accumulate mutations with every generation and most, (in fact nearly all) of those mutations are NOT removed by natural selection, because they are too small, near neutral, in effect thus they continue to accumulate and get passed on to the next generation. At some point the genomes of all species including us will reach error catastrophe and extinction.

Sanford’s Genetic Entropy, which is what you are referring, was never a coherent proposal and has been thoroughly discredited. Of course, you cannot go from benign mutations to hooves up without selection being a factor along the way. His own influenza paper disproves Genetic Entropy where Sanford himself concedes that the virus persisted for thousands of years in nature.

Sanford Fails Population Genetics | Book Review of Genetic Entropy

[Paul_Allen1 (Paul Allen)]

Homo Sapiens may have evolved (under God’s sovereignty) but then God created Adam and then Eve separately from the evolved humans. This allows for two timelines. The first millions of years and the second matches the dialogue of Genesis.

The fall happened, and spiritual death affected everybody and everything.

[Burrawang]

Hi James, incorrect on all counts, rigorously performed science and a correct faith in the the Bible to mean precisely what it says. The language at the beginning of Genesis is not poetry, it is not metaphor it is not parable, IT IS Historical Narrative in every sense.
Thus Adam and Eve were the first humans there were no others prior to themRegards,
jon

[St.Roymond]

@Terry_Sampson

According to Burrawang and Shaun Doyle’s Young Earth Creationism, their creed is that there was:

• a literal Adam,
• a literal Eve,
• a literal Garden of Eden,
• a literal tree of knowledge of good and evil,
• a literal deceiver, the talking serpent, and
• a literal Fall;
• without which Jesus is literally irrelevant.

AH.

Well, Christians have known better than that for just about two full millennia.

@Mervin_Bitikofer

able to fully imbibe (imbible? )

LOL

Love it!

@Mervin_Bitikofer

The more I read of Moses and all the prophets and apostles, the more this all seems apparent to me from that narrative and the more it appears that the modern obsession with tying to force-fit biological and geological sciences into a modern-minted (and science-centered) theological theme (which is exactly what you YECs do!) the more I see that I would not only have to throw out science, but I would have to also throw out nearly the whole of scriptures in order to go along with your narrative!

I definitely agree.

@Mervin_Bitikofer

In short - the YEC narrative owes more to Plato (and really … Epicurus) than it does any of the scriptural testimonies.

And as a philosopher Plato is not trustworthy – he makes that evident when in his writings he recommends actions for philosophers that he defines as contrary ti sound philosophy – he is condemned by his own words.

@Alanpav

I think it’s important to understand that the scriptures are not necessarily intended to be a literal factual account of historical events, like a school history book or newspaper report.

Or as I like to put it, a friend’s great-grandfather’s diary, in English, of events he experienced.

@gregoreite

There is a danger here in thinking that your spiritual experience, or what you think is your spiritual experience, somehow gives you the right to think that the way you approach the Bible is the correct one.

A major cause of false teaching down through the centuries!

@Burrawang

I believe that after creation was completed, but before the fall, the creation was complete and perfect.

Unfortunately that’s not in the text, it’s an import from Greek philosophy.

@Burrawang

It is only because all the diversity of life started out as perfect that their respective genetics enabled breeding of closely related family members up to a point in time

That’s a nice piece of science fiction, but it has nothing to do with the text of the scriptures.
This is one of the things that really bothers me about YEC: it pretends to do science when mostly it’s doing bad science fiction, all invented apart from the text!

@Burrawang

@Mervin_Bitikofer

In short - the YEC narrative owes more to Plato (and really … Epicurus) than it does any of the scriptural testimonies.

What a revealing statement! It is precisely this type of unmitigated falsehood

Except it isn’t false – it’s a demonstrable link.

@rsewell

This is 100% made up. There is no Biblical support for Adam’s children indulging incest, nor is it ethical to marry your sibling if genetically tested. Cain found a suitable wife, was concerned for his safety when encountering other people, and built a city. It is obvious that chapter 3 of Genesis assumed a populated Earth.

Yep – bad science fiction.

[St.Roymond]

@jammycakes

It’s not about treating YECs as bogeymen, Jon. It’s about holding them accountable for the scientific and factual integrity of their claims. The thing you need to understand here is that science has rules and honesty has rules, rules that are the same for both “operational” and “historical” sciences, rules that are the same no matter what your worldview, and if you want to be taken seriously, you need to make sure you are sticking to them.

Most definitely.

@Burrawang

Do you really believe that all those people are deceived about what God has so plainly written as history in the Bible?

Well, it’s either that or do what YECists do and claim that the vast majority of Christians are deceived – YECists are, after all, a minority.

[T_aquaticus]

@Burrawang

Hi James, incorrect on all counts, rigorously performed science and a correct faith in the the Bible to mean precisely what it says.

One of the hallmarks of rigorously performed science is falsifiability. This means that hypotheses have to describe evidence that if observed would falsify the hypothesis.

With that in mind, what would falsify YEC? What features would a geologic formation need in order to falsify the claim that the Earth is only a few thousand years old? What features would a geologic formation need in order to falsify the claim that there was a recent global flood?

From what I have seen, it doesn’t matter what is observed. You are ready and willing to invent something from whole cloth to explain how it is consistent with a young Earth. For example, accelerated nuclear decay is used to explain away the presence of large amounts of daughter isotope in rocks. That’s invented from whole cloth, and even worse it predicts that the Earth was a white hot mass of plasma just a few thousand years ago. I hope you understand that the Earth was never a white hot mass of plasma a few thousand years ago. As part of this complete invention you are also suggesting that the most fundamental laws of physics were changed all willy nilly for no other reason that to make problematic evidence go away. That’s not rigorous science. You certainly wouldn’t apply this same process at your job, would you?

[St.Roymond]

@Burrawang

IT IS Historical Narrative in every sense.

Nope – that didn’t even exist as a literary genre back then. The only way that could be the case is if God overrode the consciousness of the writers, which is something demons do, not God.

[St.Roymond]

@T_aquaticus

What features would a geologic formation need in order to falsify the claim that the Earth is only a few thousand years old?

To anyone who’s taken more than an introductory university-level geology course, that one’s easy!

@T_aquaticus

From what I have seen, it doesn’t matter what is observed. You are ready and willing to invent something from whole cloth to explain how it is consistent with a young Earth.

That’s also my experience for the last thirty years – no exceptions.

[Burrawang]

@rsewell

@Burrawang

Thus Adam and Eves children (with near perfect genomes) would have married their siblings initially without any ill genetic effects, (birth defects), something that is abhorrent these days

This is 100% made up. There is no Biblical support for Adam’s children indulging incest, nor is it ethical to marry your sibling if genetically tested. Cain found a suitable wife, was concerned for his safety when encountering other people, and built a city. It is obvious that chapter 3 of Genesis assumed a populated Earth.

Hi rsewell, yes the Bible does not tell us where Adam and Eve’s children found their spouse. But it seems to me to that they did not have any choice initially because there were no other people on Earth, thus it is a logical deduction that they married their siblings as there were no other options.
It would have been safe to do so way back then with perfect to near perfect genomes, the risk of birth deformities from genetic errors was effectively nil, but as time went on and the genetic mutations accumulated, there came a point in time when it was no longer safe for siblings and close relatives to marry, and so God forbade it from that point onwards. It is because we live on the post side of that point, that it is morally correct to abhor incest because of the high likelihood of both parents giving the same genetic mutations to their children that can result in severe birth defects. As that is the case most cultures rightly prohibit the marrying of siblings and close relatives.

@Burrawang

because of the very high likelihood of severe birth defects as our genomes accumulate mutations with every generation and most, (in fact nearly all) of those mutations are NOT removed by natural selection, because they are too small, near neutral, in effect thus they continue to accumulate and get passed on to the next generation. At some point the genomes of all species including us will reach error catastrophe and extinction.

Sanford’s Genetic Entropy, which is what you are referring, was never a coherent proposal and has been thoroughly discredited. Of course, you cannot go from benign mutations to hooves up without selection being a factor along the way. His own influenza paper disproves Genetic Entropy where Sanford himself concedes that the virus persisted for thousands of years in nature.
[/quote]

Retired Professor John Sanford (Cornell University) is absolutely coherent! It is nonsense to suggest otherwise. A rigorously thorough treatment refuting your claim that Sanford’s Genetic Entropy was incoherent is below to confirm that the claims you have made regarding this are false:

Responding to supposed refutations of Genetic Entropy

[copyrighted content removed by moderator, see link above]

So you see far from being as you claim, Genetic Entropy is a very REAL phenomenon and is incessantly accumulating in genomes every generation.

AN IMPORTANT TECHNICAL NOTE HERE ABOUT THIS WEBSITE IS THAT IF YOU WISH TO READ THE COMMENTS BY Dr JOHN SANFORD YOU WILL HAVE TO CLICK ON IT AND MOVE THE CURSOR SLIDER TO THE RIGHT. Furthermore, this website appears to not bring the images and graphs across, thus it is far preferable to read the article at the CMI link below

It is easier to read at the CMI website, the link to the original article is:

Responding to supposed refutations of Genetic Entropy

All the very best,
jon

[boendennis (Dennis Boen)]

Hi Jon. My perception…you made a hard turn and followed the apologetics/proof texts trap. That’s why several folks (Ian Barbour) place absolute atheists and literal fundamentalists in the same “discourse” category. The mistake made starts on the first day of earth’s creation. The two opponents named try to pull a mechanical, physics, approach from that first chapter in Genesis. Rather, John Walton has convinced me that the intent of the author(s) of Genesis and, indeed all of at least the Old Testament, as they were guided by the Spirit in their day, writing to their target readers in their context, was to address God’s plans and purposes for his creation. I’ll stop there…

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@Burrawang

I believe that after creation was completed, but before the fall, the creation was complete and perfect. God stated that the creation was very good.

If it were perfect, why did not God say so?

And any place that sin can enter is not perfect.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@St.Roymond

YECists are, after all, a minority.

And the vocal ones are self-righteous and falsely noble about it.

[St.Roymond]

@Burrawang

But it seems to me to that they did not have any choice initially because there were no other people on Earth, thus it is a logical deduction that they married their siblings as there were no other options.

Except that is not in the text. It may be a traditional belief, but it is not in the text. Even if you (improperly) take the two Creation accounts as literal, that is still not in the text.

@Burrawang

It would have been safe to do so way back then with perfect to near perfect genomes, the risk of birth deformities from genetic errors was effectively nil, but as time went on and the genetic mutations accumulated,

Sheer science fiction without basis in the text.

@boendennis

Rather, John Walton has convinced me that the intent of the author(s) of Genesis and, indeed all of at least the Old Testament, as they were guided by the Spirit in their day, writing to their target readers in their context, was to address God’s plans and purposes for his creation. I’ll stop there…

Walton is pretty darned good. He gets a little overboard with his “function not material” theme, but apart from that he should be listened to by all Christians.