please don’t leave me hanging…
What was Luke’s point in saying that David was the son of Jesse?
What was Luke’s point in saying that Jacob was the son of Isaac?
and what was Luke’s point in saying that Adam was the son of God?
What Luke’s point in presenting what seems to foolish, simplistic me to be a straightforward, uninterrupted, complete geneology from Jesus all the way back to Adam who came straight from God?
Eddie: I gave you a faithful answer given the question you asked. Concerning this question, of course I believe that the Bible teaches special creation. With the notable exception of a single, unique demographic of people who wish to believe that both evolution and the Bible are true, special creation, especially the special creation of mankind, is an obvious, uncontroversial, and very important teaching of the Bible.
The point is that Jesus is a “new Adam.”
Not really. I’m saying it is possible to believe Adam was not the first man (or even a real person) and it is possible to argue that Scriptures do not clearly affirm that he was, and it is possible to do all this without it irreparably destroying a person’s confidence in the truth and authority of Scripture.
You said accepting evolution “requires us to call into question the authority of the prophets, the Gospels, and the epistles” and somehow people who don’t believe in a historical Adam and Eve cannot believe anything else “Scripture affirms.”
I think this is a ridiculous assertion. You can’t tell other people what they believe or speak to necessary causal relationships in other people’s belief systems. I personally know many people who do not believe Genesis speaks of a literal Adam and Eve, but who absolutely affirm the inspiration and authority of Scriptures, the historicity of the Gospels, and the reality of Jesus’ death and resurrection.
This is an interpretation issue, not a biblical authority issue, not a faith issue. You’ve made it quite clear that you think this is not an interpretation issue, but some sort of logic failure. I don’t agree, but you don’t need to repeat yourself unless you have a better argument than the one you have offered here, which I simply don’t find that compelling.
1 Like
What does a verse about speaking in tongues and prophesying in the assembly have to do with this topic? 
1 Like
It really seems like you are unable to accept the idea that MANY Christians are perfectly content with the idea that God controlled Evolution… and that these same Christians do not view Evolution as Atheists do … but as one of the ways God unveils his cosmic purposes.
It’s probably time for you to move on … because every time you insist that Christians can’t hold to these views you come off as pretty insulting.
Hi Joe,
Hope this Tuesday is a good news day for you and yours.
I appreciate your desire to approach the discussion thoughtfully. I will try to restate your argument in a manner faithful to your thought, and then apply that argument across the scientific endeavor. If I inadvertently misstate something, please feel free to correct.
You have been stating that biologists make the following claim:
“We don’t need God to explain the origin of species; therefore all of us, regardless of our religious inclinations, should exclude God from having any role in creating life.”
I don’t agree with your generalization about biologists, by the way: many Christian biologists (and Jewish, and Muslim) disagree vociferously with their atheist fellows. But let’s accept your statement in arguendo, and apply the underlying principle behind your statement to other aspects of the scientific endeavor:
-
Physicists could say: “We don’t need God to explain how the world works. Gravity, light, relativity, quantum mechanics, etc. are self-evident truths and the equations work without any divine intervention. Therefore, we should exclude God from having any role in the workings of the universe.” Indeed, some physicists and atheist philosophers made this claim well before 1859.
-
Astronomers/astrophysicists could say: “We don’t need God to explain how the universe, the galaxies, the stars, and our planet came into being. A quantum fluctuation resulted in the Big Bang, and the equations of astrophysics explain how galaxies, stars, and planets came to be. No need for God; we should give up such childish, superstitious notions as divinity.” Indeed, prominent astrophysicists like Carl Sagan and Lawrence Krauss have made exactly this claim.
-
Some mathematical theorists have made similar claims, as well. The numbers explain truth, not God, the claim goes. And atheistic chemists could make similar claims about molecules, atoms, and chemical reactions.
My response to unbelieving scientists is that they are practicing circular reasoning. The scientific enterprise makes the methodological assumption that causation within our universe can be explained without supernatural intervention, And yes, e = mc^2 everywhere you look. But the assumption is still an assumption. How did the “laws of nature” come to exist, though? The atheist assumption is wrong; as the Scripture teaches, God created the universe, and the orderly way it functions, to give us a place where we can thrive in a relationship with Him.
The atheist might respond: “how do you know that God created the universe? It looks to me like I don’t need him.” To which I would reply: “I know this because of His marvelous interactions with the people He loves through the ages. These interactions have included His dealings with Israel, and most especially revealed in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus the Messiah. And He has even, most graciously, given me and my fellow believers the presence of His Holy Spirit, though we are most undeserving sinners.”
Now let’s return to biology. If I accept the fundamental claim of atheist biologists–i.e., science leaves no room for God–then there is no reason in the world to deny the fundamental claim of atheist physicists and atheist astronomers (and atheist chemists, etc.). On the other hand, if I reject the claims of atheist scientists in disciplines like physics and astronomy, then on the same grounds I can reject the religious claims of atheist biologists.
This is why I (and many, many others in this thread) believe that so strongly that it is a tragic mistake to accept the central tenet of atheist scientists and philosophers, to wit:
If we accept the underlying principle behind this assertion, we can’t draw a boundary at the shores of Evolution Ocean and claim it can’t go farther. It would have to apply also to how the planets move, how the weather works, how we human beings deal with one another, and what happens to us after our mortal life ends. I know you have dealt personally with this issue; so have I, and probably most if not all of the other participants on this forum.
That’s why I’m so deeply perplexed that you insist, “No! Biologists are just wrong about evolution!” Your reasoning should logically lead you also to claim, “No! The physicists are just wrong about relativity and and quantum mechanics! The astronomers are wrong about the Big Bang! The meteorologists are wrong about the weather!” You would be on much firmer ground, I believe, to instead make your ground truth the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, and let that undergird your conviction that God created the universe and life, which He continues to sustain by His providence, love and power. Then we can say: “There is no such thing as a purely natural process. God upholds every ‘natural’ process by His providential love.”
As you think about what I have just stated in this post, I hope you will supplement by reading the links I posted, and giving some thought to those articles, as well. Thanks.
Grace and peace,
Chris Falter
4 Likes
Hi Joe,
I haven’t read “How to Be a Christian…” by Giberson, but I’ve listened to hours of his presentations. Based on what I’ve heard him say, I suspect that you have not given this short statement the broader context that the rest of his book almost certainly supplies. In his presentations, he has made clear that He still accepts the first chapters of Genesis as a metaphorical account. So when he says he has come to a new understanding of the origins of sin, for example, what he rejects is that the first sin was literally the ingestion of a particular piece of fruit from a particular tree located between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers 6669 years ago. He does not reject the truth that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”
Have you read the entire book by Giberson, or are you relying on a secondary source?
1 Like
If you had ever seen me golf, you would realise that any 30 foot putt sunk by me is in itself compelling evidence for the existence of God. Here’s a question for you. Do you think that ID requires front loading information into the genome or do you think God adds information at specific points in evolutionary history?
A riddle. The bat flew through the air. What was the bat made of? @gbrooks9 @Chris_Falter @Casper_Hesp @fmiddel @jpm @Christy @deliberateresult
1 Like
Literalist reading: flesh and blood, as the only kind of bat that can fly of it’s own accord is the animal.
Poetic reading: wood, as this is derived from “Casey at the Bat” and occurred right after he struck out.
Scientific reading: inadequate information is given to formulate a valid hypothesis.
Spiritual reading: Dust. Ecclesiastes 3: 19 For the fate of the sons of men and the fate of beasts is the same. As one dies so dies the other; indeed, they all have the same breath and there is no advantage for man over beast, for all is vanity. 20 All go to the same place. All came from the dust and all return to the dust.…
1 Like
I’m going with ash, because I played much baseball in my youth.
1 Like
So… how does being taught evolution by BioLogos lead one to Atheism? I think your fears are pretty unfounded as long as BioLogos is in the picture.
This is fair Eddie. Of course God could have established conditions in such a manner that life would have inevitably evolved. Of course the process could manifest purpose as you say; that is, the process could manifest the purpose of He Who established the initial conditions. But the deterministic cause-and-effect nature of nature, in and of itself is not purposeful.
I think you and I would agree that the laws of nature manifest clear purpose. If I could risk further speculation on what you might think, I would say that you would also agree with me that the fine tuning of the universe for life is clear evidence that the four fundamental forces and the laws of nature constitute strong evidence that all matter and energy have been constrained to clear, purposeful ends. But let me continue to emphasize that the purpose (as in intentionality) is external to the process.
Now we come to life. Life is fundamentally different than the rest of the physical world. Many who have responded to me here (and I am truly grateful for the willingness to dialogue honestly and passionately that I have found on this forum) seem to want to characterize life in the exact same way they would characterize rain and puddles and other purely physical phenomena. That does not work. Indeed, when we fail to distinguish life from the inanimate physical effects that are regularly produced in this universe, we are already half way to atheism.
A life permitting universe that is devoid of life, as our universe was for a long time and still is with one exception, does not guarantee the eventual emergence of life. Life is special. Life cannot be explained in the same manner as rain and puddles can be explained. Life does not simply “emerge” from the regular workings of nature. In the four fundamental forces and the laws of nature, we clearly see the evidence for the extraordinary fine tuning that a life permitting universe requires, and if you are like me at all, you will rightly see evidence of purpose. But you will not see the purpose itself. You will see the evidence of purpose.
From a purely physical standpoint, abiogenesis is always affirmed to be effectively impossible and scientifically falsifiable (that is, it is an event that lies way beyond the bounds of probability). The extent to which abiogenesis is taken seriously is an exact measure of our collective unwillingness to entertain special Creation and has nothing to do with any scientific consideration. But from the sequence hypothesis forward, we have come to understand that the foundation of life is not physical at all; it is information. And information is immaterial. Information always comes from a mind (please recognize that I am speaking of information in a narrow, rigid sense; that of functional, prescriptive information, not mere shannon uncertainty).
To sum up, then, nature manifests purpose of a material universe capable of supporting complex living organisms, but the cause-and-effect determinism that brings about puddles and rain in a manner that we can comprehend is not sufficient to account for life, which is fundamentally different from the inanimate world. Cause-and-effect determinism cannot account for the presence of functional prescriptive information, which is the foundation of all life.
2 Likes
And THUS, Joe, your summation is why so many people have no problem finding God at the heart of the evolutionary process.
It may not be the scientific conclusion … but it is the faithful one…
Hello Joe,
Maybe I’m not following you, but that seems to be a sweeping generalization. To begin to support your claim of “always,” would you mind providing a few examples of such affirmations?
Hello Joe,
You might want to get a more historical context on your claim of vitalism.
One powerful example is the now totally discredited idea of vitalism in DNA replication, which was held by some biologists. Arthur Kornberg demolished this (while winning a Nobel Prize) by showing that DNA could be replicated in a test tube with purified proteins and subunits. As far as we know (and we don’t know everything), life is not fundamentally different from the rest of the physical world in that it follows known chemical and physical laws.
You seem to be proposing a mere God-of-the-gaps, which in my perception greatly diminishes God.
2 Likes
That’s what I am saying! Life is not the result of natural processes. Your example is inappropriate on two levels: first, the “purpose” for the garden is the purpose of your wife, as you plainly point out. But more than that, you are talking about a garden “growing.” Why does the garden grow? Because that which grows in the garden is alive!
Here is a more apt analogy: Your wife designs and builds your backyard, to include a garden area complete with a brick walkway, shaded bench, and sprinkler system. Now, did this garden area come about through purely natural processes or by your wife’s deliberate designs and steering of events?
False dichotomy. It’s neither “purely natural processes” or only my wife’s “deliberate designs and steering of events.” For example, regardless of her planning and purposes, she cannot, apart from natural processes, make the garden grow.
That’s not to say that God can’t “make the garden grow.” He does. How? Through the natural processes that he instigated and that are not outside of his control. But if not “natural processes,” then…what? He engineers every photosynthesis process? Every instance of cellular mitosis?
1 Like