there is no big different from species to genus. so its doesnt matter.
Do you realize that extending the record of the family back does absolutely nothing to extend the record of the individual species?
there is no big different between genus\family and species in general. its just a variations in the kind. so if we can push back genus we can push back species. simple logic. so do you agree that we can push back an ape to the dino ages?
I certainly agree that there were no worldviews changed at that debate, however I completely disagree that Bill Nye is a very nice guy. His statement that teaching contrary to conventional wisdom (i.e. global warming and evolution) is tantamount to child abuse. Not only is this incredibly condescending but it also represents a closed mind.
I am essentially a YEC believer but always listen to other points of view. I find the official views of BioLogos to be antithetical to Christian teachings but such are the times we live in.
The debate was a while ago now but as I recall they both got picky regarding which questions they would address and used their time as more of a series of prepared remarks rather than answering pointed questions.
Jon, So would you expel a member from your church if he or she believed in Purgatory?
Or if he or she opposed infant baptism, and favored baptism at some age of consent?
George Brooks
So you blast Nye for being close minded but yet you say stuff here at Biologos is antithetical to Christian teachings? Sounds like you’re being hypocritical here or am I missing something from your statement?
I’m merely being honest about my point of view. I’m not pronouncing judgement, only professing opinion. My understanding of the bible is that it clearly calls for a special creation of man and beast. Theologically speaking there must be a fall to warrant salvation.
Scientifically speaking, I don’t find the evidence does a very good job of supporting naturalistic evolution, and a blending of the two really is a “god of the gaps” argument. I specify “I don’t find…” because I view the evidence through a worldview that God is so there is no need to assume naturalism where it cannot be found, and I continue to look at the evidence to see if it points elsewhere.
We all hold opinions and those opinions are shaped by our worldview. Mine is that the way to salvation is by Jesus Christ, not disavowing evolutionary theory. The position of Bill Nye is clearly stated that teaching a belief contrary to his regarding evolutionary theory (and/or global warming) is abusive to children. I don’t see an equivalence there. My position welcomes debate and allows for dissent, his demands conformity and would evoke the power of law to enforce it. (last I checked child abuse is illegal)
In my defense, I do think you missed something in my statement.
Not sure how you got there from here. I wouldn’t belong to a congregation where these things were taught but only in favor of more sound teaching, not animosity. I don’t believe Biologos’ position is sound theologically or scientifically. I believe it adopts the reasoning of the naturalist and tries to assimilate theism into it.
Please don’t misunderstand, my disagreement is fixated on the origins debate and not anti-science in general. There is certainly a place for nature, its study, and its role in life. I’m offering very simplified generalizations for the sake of brevity.
So a church that I attend wouldn’t teach such as you describe, but I would never support expulsion for holding them. Similar disagreements exist over cessation-ism and while some very emotional arguments are made there is common ground.
The position that man evolved from lower life forms denies the special creation described in the bible. Why wouldn’t I call such a position antithetical to Christianity which clearly adheres to a biblical account? Jesus referred to himself as the second Adam, implying a first.
If you can see Jesus Christ as God having taken on flesh for the redemption of man and still rationalize a naturalistic evolution then God bless you. I can’t and don’t see why anyone would.
“Jon” - - If God went through a lot of trouble zapping DNA molecules over millions of years to groom the creation of Humans as we
know humans today - - that seems pretty special to me.
George Brooks
See? We disagree. Yet I’m not calling for your position to be deemed illegal.
The idea that Bill Nye can make such a statement and retain the persona of “nice” is at the very least cause for concern. I don’t even think it’s close on the nice scale.
Jon,
The First Adam was the first hominid of our lineage deemed by God to be a morally free and morally
responsible agent.
Since the threshold for moral agency would be one of those mysteries known only to God, it’s hard
to say whether it was the 500th iteration of Homo sapien, or the 500,000th iteration of Homo sapien.
Every generation would be available for being genetically ‘fine tuned’ by God’s hand.
George Brooks
George,
I understand how you get there, but I don’t take the bible as allegorically as you. That said, I wouldn’t fight to the death over this issue. I would vigorously defend Jesus Christ as the one and only savior, but these matters are suited for disagreement.
There are strengths and weaknesses for both creationism and evolution, IMHO the hybrid view invites the weaknesses of both and creates a few of its own.
But if this position leads you to faith in the Gospel of Christ then what do we have here beyond spirited banter? If you find offense in my position please know that I’m sincere in what I believe and have diligently studied the matter to the extent of my ability.
Like most who frequent these forums I love to argue. This is something I’m trying to let go of so I can win people for Christ instead of arguments.
I fear I’m not doing a great job.
Jon, I think God-led evolution is the only answer.
George
why? 654321
Because it fits the reality of science with the existential bonus of the Divine…
Not really, there is another answer that fits with science and reason - evolution.
We definitely don’t agree on the current state of science. I’ve read a few too many research papers to call their evolutionary conclusions “science”.
Evolution is a fact.
Sure … and God is the reason.
George
really? who are you trying to convince with that rhetoric? yourself?