I didnt say understanding biochemistry made you an expert on evolution, but certainly it should inform your understanding. They may be viewed as quite different fields of study, but I sometimes think that is the problem - scientists staying within their own boxes, as if they have nothing to say about other fields. Some scientists have bemoaned the very narrow fields of study that most are involved in.
Regarding the mRNA vaccine, the reason I was surprised is that once developed governments around the world forced employers to require their employees to be vaccinated, precisely because it supposedly reduced transmission significantly. It now transpires there was no actual research carried out into reduction of transmissibility before the various health authorities gave them the green light. A number of people, mainly those in the medical and caring professions, lost their jobs due to that requirement, which I think is a disgrace. This is what happens when transparency is ignored.
Thank you. It is correct Genesis is not concerned with Science. I believe the writer(s) of the Pentateuch wrote what they were defninly inspired to write. My position is that science has taught us over the years how the the data support the creation of the universe and the creation of the earth. In addition other science has shown us through the fossil record how man evolved beginning back in Africa before migrating around the world. Science has indeed shown the mecanism and daily learns more, particulaly on the biology front. A Genesis writer no matter how inspired could come close to writing any of that. The writer wrote in the limits of his own understanding. So a general view of evolution theory to me fits with the Genesis creation story as presented in Genesis 1; 1-2:3. It is not unreasonable to allow that God created by evolvement and still accomplished His purposes in Genesis. Keep in mind that certain aspects of evolution seem patently absurd and one has to subscibe to that which seems to fit with scripture and without scientific merit. Hope this helps explain my position.
I was addressing the issue of whether biochemists should be listened to on the subject of evolution, simply because they are biochemists. My assertion is that they should not be. A biochemist can of course develop expertise in evolution and then deserves a hearing, just like any other expert.
There is no question that biochemists can bring useful insights into the study of evolution, as can experts from a number of other fields. Since part of what I’ve worked on counts as evolutionary biology and since my background is in experimental physics, I’m certainly not interested in gate-keeping.
When were mandates imposed? In the US, at least, the first vaccinations of health care workers began in mid-December 2020, while the first study I’ve seen of the vaccines’ efficacy against infection dates from late January 2021. Other studies followed soon after.
Years ago, I read Andrew Parker’s book, The Genesis Enigma. He postulated, if I recall, the Cambrian Explosion was a result of the development of the eye or photosensitivity. That made predation more efficient. His wonder, I believe, was that in Genesis on the 4th day we have a return to the question of light.
n introduction to natural history with a hint of Genesis thrown in.
Oxford evolutionary biologist Parker does not profess to be a particularly religious man, but he is intrigued by a simple question. How did the writer of the first chapter of Genesis—the biblical creation story—basically get it scientifically correct? Never mind the seven-day part, which the author easily dismisses. Parker is astounded that the order of creation described in Genesis follows the order of geologic and life evolution as science understands it. “Either the writer of the creation account of Genesis 1 was directed by divine intervention,” he writes, “or he made a lucky guess.” This mystery is the Genesis enigma. Parker believes a lucky guess to be all but out of the question, and he views the accuracy of the creation account to be a proof of the existence of God, or at least a higher being of some kind. The author takes the reader step by step through the creation story, explaining how each segment aligns with an era in the evolution of the earth and the life inhabiting it. The creation of the sun is followed by the creation of the earth, with its oceans and land masses, followed by the earliest life forms, etc. Eventually Genesis tells us that lights divide day and night, a step which Parker ties to the development of eyesight in life forms and the evolutionary revolution that ensued. Aquatic life came before land life, though the writer of Genesis had no scientific way of knowing this; birds have their own special mention in the story, and they are indeed evolutionarily distinct. Parker raises plenty of interesting questions, but he focuses almost exclusively on natural history, barely scratching the surface of the background of the text he is highlighting. Only in an appendix does he begin to delve into the rich textual and historical research about the creation story in Genesis.
I was impressed in a funny kind of way but this 'Light switch" Hypothesis and the beauty of Genesis in this.
I mean it is a correlation made up in our minds based on on our desires to see something that is not really there. We are overlaying our scientific views onto a non-scientific text. Sort of like how palm readers read fortunes and people believe they are real because they see correlation and read specifics into the vague statements made. Not that scripture is palm reading, but that we are looking for something that is not there.
Good point. My area of expertise is Psychiatry. I am not a researcher but have tremendous respect for the hard science in Psychiatry. It is so easy to project our wishes onto observations. That is a real problem. But the opposite is also true. This is particularly problematic when scientists try to understand religious issues, which I think this blog does admirably in addressing. I just looked up Andrew Parker’s credentials at Oxford. I am always humbled by such people. Yet when he shares his amazement at Genesis is he projecting or explicating?
I think the scriptures are very much like that. Certainly this is true for the parables which were told by the Lord as much to reveal as to conceal. But I think there is truth in other aspects of the scriptures that are not accepted by theologians. For example, no one or very few believe that the chapters which were later added to the Bible are inspired, yet one can make a case for this.
One truly gifted writer who helped me tremendously with the reliability of the scripture was John Wenham. His book, The Easter Enigma help us see what may not be so easily visible. The narratives about the resurrection and his attempting to study and share a harmony I believe are gifts. He is also well credentialed.
In Science as in religion, doubt is part of intellectual honesty and humility. I believe Parker’s observation though my be less projection and more listening to that small, still voice.
His son Gordon, is someone that helped me as I was being exposed to OT criticism. Just to see someone willing to take on the hard questions was a real encouragement. His commentaries on Genesis should be interesting to look at and compare to other views on the creation account.
This book based on a 2015 lecture series looks very approachable and seeks to clarify key ideas from the Word Biblical Commentary which was written 30 years prior.
“It is the argument of this book that Genesis 1–11 sets out with vivid clarity some of the key theological principles of the Bible, from the unity and sovereignty of the Creator to the importance of the Sabbath and marriage. It shows and teaches the pervasiveness and depth of sin and portrays its dire consequences. It pictures a God who demands complete obedience to his laws, yet who is amazingly long-suffering and forgiving of mankind’s sinful ways.”
Thank you. I will read this. One of the fun times I had was studying Genesis using classical commentaries like Adam Clark, Matthew Henry and even more modern commentary like Roy Stedman. What used to be one of the most difficult books became one of my favorites. This personal study done each morning for about 30 minute, took about 3 years. It helped spark an interest in the Hebrew alphabet and probably contributed to my memorizing Psalm 119.
One of the cool websites I use is Archive. It gives instantaneous books and has been a treasure. Gordon Wenham’s book “Rethinking Genesis” is not listed, but the following is: World Biblical Commentary Genesis 1-15 which I imagine is the same thing.
Yes. Highly respected commentary in the evangelical world. I have only briefly looked at it to see if he developed the chiasm in Genesis 7. I would like to read his Rethinking Genesis. A small reading group here might be worth considering. I skimmed the beginning and it seems he doesn’t touch on evolution as he doesn’t find it relevant to understanding the creation account in Genesis.