You couldn’t have tried too hard … google “Gerd Muller evolution”. Better still … “evolutionnews.org Gerd Muller”.
Any pastor would be justified in rejecting (neo)Darwinism as an explanation for the history of life simply on scientific grounds - science - it’s a weak theory. The.Modern Synthesis is fine when it comes to explaining genetics fluctuations in extent populations, but as.for explaining why life.on earth developed the way it did, forget.it. Darwinist folklore persists in the scientifc community only because it can’t think of anything better.
1 Like
Interpretation, interpretation, interpretation.
Everything we read comes through some sort of lens or filter of interpretation, often subconsciously. This, however subconscious it may be, is something of ours, not something inherent within the text.
“Inerrancy” (and its cousins “plain reading” and “literalism”) are themselves such interpretative filters.
It is perfectly possible fully to rejoice in the creation accounts of the first chapters of Genesis and their being “the word of God”, and simultaneously fully to rejoice in ancient universe, ancient earth, evolution (including human evolution) as being “the works of God”.
They only appear to be in contradiction when we fail to consider the interpretative filters that we ourselves, albeit often subconsciously, bring to our reading of either (or both).
YECs use this to defend “plain reading literalism” (i.e. their chosen interpretative framework) of six 24-hour days. But pause. Why would what Jesus says here require us to apply such a modernist interpretative framework? It doesn’t, does it?
Again why would “God-breathed” require us to apply such a modernist interpretative framework to its “all scripture”? It doesn’t, does it?
The man-made YEC insistence that the first eleven chapters of Genesis must be read as modern, western-style documentary-history is merely an assumption (and badly flawed) about their chosen interpretative framework.
“Biblical inerrancy”, despite the word “biblical”, isn’t primarily about what the Bible says. It is, rather, almost entirely about what modern YEC folk think the Bible ought to say. It’s far about the lens than the book behind the lens. It’s about man-made opinion, not about the Bible itself.
Interpretation, interpretation, interpretation. And that includes “inerrancy interpretation”, “plain-reading interpretation”, “literalist interpretation”, etc.
I hope that helps.
3 Likes
Do you mean this?
Gerd B. Müller | Evolution scientist | The Third Way of Evolution
Home | The Third Way of Evolution
I believe you have discussed him at Peaceful Science, as well.
Thanks.
Search results for ‘gerd muller’ - Peaceful Science
Do you understand the difference between a theoretical branch and a real branch established by fossil evidence?
Thanks for the direct, Randy and @Edgar. It is sort of a sign of the times when a soccer player pushes a scientist into page 3 of a google search. Anyway, I see he is one a the proponents of the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis, which has some interesting aspects and is a fertile field, though it appears Evolution News does their best to misappropriate his views as usual from the articles I see there.
2 Likes
Scientists disagree, and I think we’re a better position to evaluate the strength of evolution as a theory.
2 Likes
Are you a scientist? Do you know any pastor who is? I just don’t understand what any of this has to do with following Jesus.
1 Like
You might find this article intersting:
1 Like
You might be better served by reading Muller’s original article, rather than relying on quote mining from Evolution News. It is a good article, by the way, and interesting reading.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rsfs.2017.0015
“I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially to the extent to which it has been applied, will be one of the greatest jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity it has.” Muggeridge
That two people (Collins is the other) with IQs approaching infinity holding such divergent views, is in itself a riot. (Why do I have the feeling God is in the background cracking up? Maybe that’s why we are here: To make God howl with laughter and actually cry from laughing so hard at what total birdbrains mankind is.)
Beauty is cool. Look at the rock formations, up close, from Perseverence on Mars, to be stunned by the extraordinary splendor of all He made.
I know Someone, personally, Renoir, Monet, Picasso and Rembrandt can’t touch. Mozart, Beethoven, Puccini, The Beatles are mere amateurs compared to the One who makes music with the wind rustling leaves in trees.
I end up with my shorts tangled up wrapped around my head proving I am right while forgetting to thank the One who gave me eyes to see and ears to hear beauty I’d always missed before He opened them.
1 Like
Only thing is that Collins is a scientist, Muggeridge was not. If Collins made a comment about the business of journalism, it would have the similar import.
4 Likes
How predictable - I knew you’d resort to the “quote-mining” accusation.
I know, except, I think we end up focusing to such an unbelieveable extent on our chosen speciality, that we can’t see obvious blunders others can who aren’t so focused, you know?
Remember when Feynman dropped O-ring material into a glass of ice water as a member of the Rogers Commission investigating the Challenger disaster? They spent months and millions to uncover the exact cause of the failure. He took the rubber out of the glass and shows how in 32 degree temperatures it became too brittle to seal the solid rocket booster joints.
He was reluctant to join the commission. After all, he was a theoretical physicist, known for his work in the path integral formulation of quantum mechanics, the theory of quantum electrodynamics, the physics of the superfluidity of supercooled liquid helium, as well as his work in particle physics for which he proposed the parton model.
They didn’t need him to figure out what was staring them in the face. He was a tad overqualified.
1 Like
They aren’t theoretical. A nested hierarchy is an objective measurement.
Also, DNA is just as real as fossils and the morphology of living species.
Do you accept shared ancestry between humans and other apes?
1 Like
That isn’t entirely true. While Feynman did show that the seal became brittle, he did not show that it became too brittle to seal the joint, nor did that experiment demonstrate that the failure happened at that joint. If memory serves, Feynman learned of the potential problem with the seals from the internal documents within the company who built the booster rockets.
There were engineers who knew there was a real risk of those seals failing before the disaster.
1 Like
Sometimes it is obvious. Sorry for being redundant. But, always good to go to the primary source, which EN was good to link in their article.
1 Like
Feynman pressed the red button on his mic. “This is a comment for Mr. Mulloy,” he said. He held up a chunk of O-ring for the TV cameras, explaining, “I took this stuff that I got out of your seal, and I put it in ice water. And I discovered that when you put some pressure on it for awhile and then undo it, it doesn’t stretch back. It stays the same dimension. In other words, there is no resilience in this particular material when it is at a temperature of 32 degrees. I believe that has some significance for our problem.”
Rogers broke in. “That is a matter we will consider in the session we will hold on the weather,” he said, “and I think it is an important point, which I’m sure Mr. Mulloy acknowledges.” But there was no denying the impact Feynman’s demonstration had on the proceedings. His waving a chunk of chilled rubber for the cameras would be played and replayed all over the world. As Feynman’s friend and fellow physicist Freeman Dyson put it, “The public saw with their own eyes how science is done, how a great scientist thinks with his hands, how nature gives a clear answer when a scientist asks her a clear question.”
Officials lied during those hearings. Rogers was afraid to do his job. Feynman made crystal clear how basic error cost lives.
1 Like
Hmmmm. Where’s the Resurrection on that scale? The Incarnation? The mass murders of the OT?