No, they don’t.
Fossils aren’t the only available evidence… Namely, we have morphological and genetic evidence.
3 Likes
I accept that evolution is the best scientific explanation for the history of life on earth, although I’m sure it’s not the truth.
Not only is universal common descent not validated by the fossil record, when it comes to explaining how novel body plans and organs arise, I find (neo) Darwinism throughly unconvincing - unsurprisingly, it appears that many evolutionary theorists feel the same way (eg, Gerd Muller).
1 Like
All I could find on him was about a professional soccer player. Your statement could read “few evolutionary theorists feel the same way” and be just as accurate or more so. The difference in many and few is one of perspective, I suppose.
I am not trying to start anything, but I presume that this particular thread was created to discuss how to bring up the acceptance of evolution as a means of God’s creation to one’s pastor, not to debate if it’s true or not. Just trying to ensure that the discussion is appropriate for the topic brought up. Don’t want a low juice to squeeze ratio here for the scope of this thread. I respect everybody’s postulates but I don’t think these particular ones belong in this discussion. Blessings. I comment in peace.
4 Likes
Thanks for keeping us on track. Along those lines, I have thought that discussions of this type should probably be held outside the church in community discussions, and would suggest not making it an issue in church fellowships. When the pastor is the one making it an issue, it does indeed get sticky.
2 Likes
Yeah, I wholeheartedly agree. I am completely ok with church service discussing what is of greatest importance to the body and believers, things of this relevance indeed are of a more focused study.
Ah go on Adam, as they say in Ireland. Start something! The pastor might as well reject electromagnetic theory and I’m sure many do. What this has to do with following Jesus I cannot possibly imagine. What is more important is how we as followers of Jesus deal with those afflicted with motivated reasoning which afflicts three of my family directly and one of those afflicts another in consequence. I try and emulate Seneca with those so afflicted, but I’d love to be able to help the particular victim of a victim. And I can’t either!
1 Like
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.