The problem is, how far do you go, and what are the implications?   It is also   a simple but wrong solution to simply say that it does not matter how man was created, or whether he was not directly created at all.   It is also  simple and wrong to say that man falling into sin is only an allegorical or sylized literal (meaning metaphorical)  idea.   It seems that because it is difficult to believe that God could make man out of dust, or woman from man, that we must find another interpretation?    God could not do that, and therefore we must find another answer?    But how could God create the universe in the first place?   Where did God get that power?    

Professor Davis Young once said in a lecture something along these lines, "I think the earth is old, the geological record looks old.  That's based on my understanding of geology right now.  Granted, 500 years ago scientists believed the sun revolved around the earth.  They were proven wrong, 500 years from now, today's scientific knowledge might be proven wrong."

While I agree that science can study and observe, such studies and observations need to be interpreted.  Interpretations and understandings change over time.  Therefore, the church must be very cautious in using scientific theory to interpret scripture.  While scientific discovery may inform us about things contained in scripture, it is a very dangerous thing to suggest that scientific knowledge trumps the special creation of humanity by God, as described in Genesis.

If you haven't watched "Privileged Planet" yet, I encourage everyone to do so.  In the movie/documentary, the filmmakers/scientists challenge Carl Sagan's premise in "The Late, Great, Planet Earth."  By examining all the factors needed for life on a planet orbiting a star, in a solar system, in a galaxy, they conclude that the earth is extremely privileged.  The mathematical probability of one planet having all the requirements for life, all at the right time, is a crazy number.  The chances of having all the needed factors (20 factors are mentioned in the movie) in more than one planet is extremely unlikely.  After watching the movie, I was convinced that it is much more likely that God created the entire universe in a very short period.  And though it looks like God created an old universe, the conclusion is not that it is necessary for the universe to be old, but to be the size and diversity it is for the creation of life, and human life in particular.  Could God have done it over a long period?  Sure, but that is not the only conclusion to draw from scientific evidence.

Furthermore, evolution or change over time, while observable in short periods, such as the changes in the automobile over the last 100 years, does not explain changes in species.  Scientists have tried to demonstrate the changes proposed by Darwinian Evolution, but have not been able to do so.  Scientific knowledge regarding cells, let alone DNA, cannot explain it.  And, if it were possible, the length of time needed for changes resulting in what we can observe now, would require a universe far, far older than what old earth/universe theorists hypothesise. 

And that's not even dealing with the impossibility of abiogenesis, the creation of life from non-life.  It just doesn't happen.  Even accounting for God's activity and intervention, there are still other obstacles to overcome.

Finally, I agree with Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, who said, as soon as you move away from the special creation of humanity, Adam and Eve in the garden that's when you get rid of the saviour.  For without special creation, without the innocence with the ability to sin, then there is no fall, and no need for a saviour.

Let's be careful with science and theology, respecting each discipline, but keeping the general revelation subject to the special revelation.  Thinking about the article, thinking about the questions, I was reminded of the question put to Eve, "Did God really say...?"  One can almost hear him ask, "Did God really create humanity specially, in his image?"

By definition God can't 'use' evolution or its processes.

All I have to say is that we sometimes forget  that God is also the God of science.  he certainly gave humans the ability to study his creation and I think even reach certain conclusions that certainly support God as creator.  We're seeing that evidence more and more.  I think George is right -- God created it.  If he chose to create it over billions of years that's his business  and to not allow for that possibility is to minimize God's creative power.  If we have the ability to measure the speed of light in three different ways and come to realize that some of the light we see from stars is billions of light years away, should we assume that God's just been playing a trick on us all and making it look like it's been there that long while it's actually only been there 6000 years?  That's silly.

Science and Theology walk a fine line together, but there is room for them to walk together.

Hi Allen!

Of course God is the God of science and God, by definition, being all powerful, all knowing, etc. can do whatever he wants to do.  On the one hand (the Bible) we have evidence of a process of creation.  On the other hand, (empirical observation) we have evidence of the result of that process of creation.  Being stuck in the present, we're only ever able to hypothesise about the past.  Something to ponder, if you believe that God created Adam as it is described in Genesis, forming him out of the dust of the earth, breathing life into him, did God create Adam as a mature human being?  If so, why?  You can hypothesise that Adam had to be mature in order to be able to reason, obey, function and survive apart from other human interaction.  Genesis seems to indicate that Adam was formed quickly, and fully mature, for the purpose of survival, to fulfil God's commands (tend the garden, name the animals, not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil), etc.  If Adam had to be fully mature in order to function and survive, then one could hypothesise that the universe also had to be created fully mature in order to support Adam's life.  So, it is not as though God lacks the ability to create over a great period, or that he's trying to play a trick on us, rather, for life to exist on planet earth, the universe has to be exactly the way it is, as old as it is.  He created it mature, in an instant, just as he created Adam mature, in an instant.  Nor should we be put off by the suggestion that God somehow limits his power.  We know he chooses to do so, as Christ chose to humble himself and take on human flesh.

Science and theology are complementary disciplines, for sure.  We've seen the error of using the scriptures to define or limit science (Jesus said the sun rises and sets, therefore the sun moves around the earth!).  Thus, we also must be careful to use science to define or limit theology.  At the end of the day, science is the attempt to understand the empirical evidence.  That understanding is limited and therefore should be placed under the authority of special revelation, for the same reasons we place the teachings of the church (creeds, 3 forms of unity, etc.) under the authority of scripture.

Allen, "that's silly" you say.   I think you need a better justification than that.   God's foolishness is greater than the wisdom of men... did I get that right?    Does silly include people who restore old automobiles to look like new?   Or young actors who play old people?   What's the definition of silly?   Maybe the apparent age of the universe is old to us because we are not using the right glasses.   But, besides that, even if the universe was old, does that prove evolution?   In the theory of evolution, they are tied together.   But an old universe could exist without biological evolution. 

Faith in God is the first thing that many people call silly.   Are they right? 

Allen, I'm antagonistic towards the use of the word "silly".    I just think it is important to keep in mind the fact that many people would claim that for Jesus to feed 5000 men (plus women and children) with five loaves and two fish, would just be plain silly.  

When we measure two distant objects by the angle of difference, and calculate their distance and thus the age of the light we are observing, it would seem to be silly to say that they are younger than 10,000 years.   Perhaps so, but perhaps also there is a reason we do not yet know.   This reason may be "miraculous", or it may be a phenomena not yet known or understood.   There are some aspects apparently about the expansion of the universe for example which are difficult to measure in terms of estimating events of the past. 

I don't think God threw in dinosaur bones to throw us off.   But it is possible that the assumption about the age of these dinosaur bones is way off.  

Bottom line is that dinosaur bones do not prove maco-evolution.  

Those who are not scientists often approach science as if it were some type of demi-god.   Science is only a refined way of making observations.   Science includes mathematics, statistics, and probabilities.   Science also includes assumptions.   The main assumptionis always uniformity, continuity.   Science will always deny miracles because they do not fit into the assumption of uniformity and continuity.   Science by itself will deny the resurrection based on observation and probability.   However, Christians practicing science can do so, if they realize  the limitations of science, and use science in the context of God as creator and sustainer.  

Vanderweit's recent banner article about evolutionary teachings, neglects this important aspect of science;   that its deductions often relies on unprovable assumptions.   Often even atheistic scientists admit that 'science" makes mistakes, such as the prediction of the coelanth being a prehistoric fish since it was in the 'ancient" fossil record.  But they claim that science corrects itself, without realizing that the mistake was not a scientific mistake of observation or deduction, but a mistake based on an incorrect hypothesis, on incorrect assumptions.    Yet, due to their blind belief in their hypothesis, they continue to maintain this hypothesis, this theory.   They generally refuse to consider any other hypothesis that may operate outside of their "naturalistic" and "atheistic" parameters and assumptions. 

They also want to force deists to operate outside of the context of their deity, in spite of all their protestations to the contrary.   This is a subtle but dangerous and a sad side to this discussion.   They are saying in effect, "oh yes, you can have your god, of course, but please don't let it affect your work, your science, your public life, and not even your private life too much.   it's a good side-line, a bit of personal comfort, but mostly not-relevant to anything important..."    They prefer the blind watch-maker to a personal God.   This is their context; this is their assumption.   What is our assumption? 

Darwin, Hegel, Marx, Modernism, Kuhn, Scientific Revolutions...

Darwin's theories on evolution fit in with the dominant philosphy of his time.

Hegel's philosphy of the dialectic says society is moving towards greater and greater levels.

Hegel was highly influential on Marx. The social revolution of Marx is part of the dialectic.

Modernism was at its highest point at this time. There was great optimism about the human race.

Enter Darwin. evolution fits this philosophy. Evolution is another dialectic pattern. The human race wtih all of its great achievements is the crown of creation, and we can only get better...

We must keep in mind that this is not so much science based on pure obectivity--Darwin's empirical observations about the nature of nature (metaphysics) and the nature of humanity were rooted in his preusuppostions. His worldview was shaped byh the dominatn philosophy of the time.

When Christians say evolution might be ok, then they should realize they are borrowing from a "modern" worldview, chiefily a Hegelian worldview rather than a biblical worldview.

I would rather base my convictions on a Biblical worldview.

Enter world war I. Then World War II. Hegel's optimism was shattered. Postmodernmism begins to develop. The human race is seen in all of its ugliness.

Thomas Kuhn writes a book called The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, arguing that all science is rooted in a person's worldview. (He doens't use the term worldview, if I remember my reading correctly). Scientific theories are slow to be changed or proven wrong because each scientific age has a set of convictoins why which one operates on. If you operate on different convictions and challenge a current theory you are deemed heretical in the scientific world. In other words, your world view or set of presuppostions determines how you look at the scientific data. Therefore science is always changing based upon the world view.

Given the history of philosphy and the history of scientific thought, why would we Christians base our beliefs about Genesis on something that is in perpetual flux? Why would we lean so heavily on ideas that arose out of a false worldview? Of course not evey worldview has it wrong. Van Til and Bahnsen show us how there is some truth in every worldview.

I fear that this allowing of the evolution view point is another way our denomination is becoming more like the world. We of a Reformed background with the greats like Abraham Kuyper should very well understand the importance of a distinct Biblical worldview rather than always trying to accomodate to the secular worldview of our age.

Thanks for this.

It is a significant part of the discussion that is forgotten.

I have been looking for a resource that traces the history of origins and haven't been able to find.

Anyone know of one out there?

Steve Van Noort and Chad Werkhoven, in their 6/03/2011 postings do add very helpful thoughts to this discussion.  I would like to echo some of these concerns.  My own reflections (over the past 27 years) and reading in this area lead me to share the following concerns:

1.  I am concerned that we not capitulate to what we are told is the "vast consensus" and the "overwhelming evidence" that leads to believe that theistic evolution assuming a gradualist, uniformitarian development of life is the only acceptable view to be held by prudent and informed believers.  We are often accused of taking a "God of the gaps" approach, yet few acknowledge that there are many inconsistencies and "gaps" in neo-darwinian evolutionary theories.   Let's be done with saying that young earth, 24-day creationists are incapable of doing responsible and credible science.  Let's quit dissing "intelligent design theorists as not quite doing responsible science or engaging in "folk science" at best (ala Van Til).  It seems to me that even theistic evolutionists fall under the banner of "folk science."   All creationists of young earth or old earth stripe that i know, believe in evolutionary processes for adaptation and change within species.  But we've moved into a whole new realm of speculative and interpretive theorizing when we move to evolution producing new species out of existing species.

2.  Lets agree that, beyond the core doctrines of the Scripture, which are perpiscuous (sp?), some of these areas aren't, e.g. trying to lay rationally bare all points of the interplay between God's predestining decrees and man's will.    But I would contend that the "Book of General Revelation" has greater perspicuity only in science done in present time with immediately observable phenomena, but increasingly less so as we move to the earliest beginnings.  Science in this realm is, of necessity, more speculative and open to misconstructed hypotheses, etc.  So, when we get in a shoving match between the Book of Special Revelation (i.e., the Scriptures) and the Book of General Revelation (i.e., creation and our scientific approximations of how it works), humility is in order when speaking of beginnings on both sides of the conversation.  Scripture should not be the first to be radically reinterpreted or scrapped.  

I'm not terribly sympathetic when our own scientists "whine" that if God, by an intervening miracle, produced in a moment or a day a fully mature human that in all other situations would appear to be at least 20-30 years of age, that God is somehow "playing a trick on us."  This is unworthy and anthropomorphizes God's motives for what He has done.  Simply because the earliest points of beginnings might be beyond the reach of our ability to give a total scientific explanation doesn't mean that God deceived those who are called as scientists to unfold and explore His creation.  Frankly, I have not been sold on a young earth and 24-hour days of creation; yet, I would still maintain it is possible and not improbable given the character of almost every other miracle God has done as recorded in the Scripture, e.g. water-to-wine,  feeding the 5000 and the resurrection.  

So, when we come to the first humans I fully believe it possible to believe that two individuals were created by a special immediate act of God.  Literarily, I can see how "dust of the earth" could also be figurative and not exclude evolutionary processes just as "knit in my mother's womb" figuratively describes conception and gestation culminating in actual birth.  However,  I more appreciate Derek Kidner and Tim Keller as they attempt to craft a "permissible" view and a "possible" view that still takes seriously the historic event character of the opening chapters of Genesis.  I'm not comfortable with the idea of pre-hominid forebearers of the human race, but these two efforts at a concordist approach to Scripture and Science strike me as much more faithful to both. Kidner and Keller and others rightly see that to deny the two original humans (even if culled from pre-hominid forbearers) results in no gospel.    I am convinced, moreover, that neither science nor our theologizing will be able to conclusively nail down these matters.  Is it possible that God created in 6 24-hour days and is it unworthy to embrace a personal preference for this view of origins?  I think not.  Is it permissible and possible to see a vastly old universe and interpret Gen 1 as a highly stylized and exalted prose, using figurative descriptions of God's creative work that in no way address the actual length of days or the processes by which He formed man from the "dust of the earth"?  Certainly!  But, as Keller et al. warn, Genesis 2 is a retelling not in conflict with Genesis 1 but more is narrative more historical  in character  than poetic and, even if culled from 10 or 100,000 pre-hominds, the first two humans were at the very least such upon whom God bestowed His unique image and who fell in an actual historical fall.  To say otherwise, Keller notes, is unsafe and not necessitated by either science or Scripture.  Some theistic evolutionsists have even admitted with a bit of a sneer that Common DNA (between primates and humans) does not conclusively prove Common Descent, but as easily argues for Common Designer.  So, even 98% shared DNA between humans and primates does not compel or prove the view that man arose from primates via evolutionary processes.  But this admission has been dismissed with a sneer by some who derisively chide that we're putting God in the gaps.  Folks, frankly I think permissible and possible is the best we can get in this area.  You may like one view better than the other, find it more compelling, and only one view (maybe with modifications) will actually be found to be true.  But If our theologizing in some areas of reflection must admit to unresolvable mystery, why don't we expect the same of some areas of  the scientific enterprise?

My concern is that no miracle recorded, of the original creation or any other, in Scripture can be scientifically analyzed to correct conclusions about age and processes; not any.  If we say of the more traditional views of biblical origins that they're to be scrapped because they cannot be harmonized with our current scientific musings, what do we do with all the rest biblical miracles?  Are they, too, suspect? Surely we are not suggesting that creative miracles in the scripture could not have happened because they do not conform with the current scientific consensus of gradualistic, uniform evolutionary processes.  Did Jesus "deceive" or "trick" the crowd at the wedding in Cana by producing a grape wine of the best sort from water and not even using the grapes or normal processes of fermentation?  Did he do this to trick scientists or play games with them? Did He sin against the calling for scientists to explain the creation when he produced from a few loaves and fishes, by a creative miracle, enough food to feed a crowd of more than 5000?  This spontaneous production of so much food from so little original biomass certainly could not be accounted for by our scientific formulae of physics and matter.  No, I don't want to argue for a flat earth or a geo-centric universe or repeat the historical tragedy of censuring Galileo. But neither do I want to utterly cave to a science held hostage to atheist materialism and make as Berkhof called it a "theology of embarrassment."  

I would like to see our institutions of Christian learning invite to their faculty the diversity of theoretical views and their proponents, within the bounds of what scripture may, with integrity, be considered to allow.  Wouldn't it be neat if Calvin and Dordt and Wheaton, et al. all had on their faculties colleagues in the sciences and the theology departments of young earth and ancient universe, of a limited theistic evolutionary view, some of intelligent design, all respectfully reflecting, interacting in a robust conversation without hubris and thinly veiled slander?  I fear when we let one group get a lock on our institution and we refuse to hear dissenting voices we create a worse environment for doing responsible science and theology.  I think this is especially true in this matter of bio-origins and the beginnings of all things.  I believe our Synod needs to do something constructive to address these matters.  Simply dropping Declaration F or reinstating it does not fix the problem.  I initially felt reinstating Declaration F was called for, but I do no longer.  But I believe the recent articles by Daniel Harlow and John Schneider have not been helpful either, however well intentioned these men may be.  

Sorry for being so long and rambling.  But I hope this gets traction with some of us in the conversation.  I'm praying for our Synod and all you delegates, our professors and the churches.  May God guide and lead us well and for His glory.

Mr. Black, Mr. Grey, Schleirermacher, Derrida, worldviews...

young earth evidence certainly makes it possible for a young earth.

Evolution evidence certainly proposes the possibility of a very old earth.

As long as you look at science both views will be possible. And I fear if it is just science vs science we will get nowhwere in the debate. I twill be like Mr. Grey and Mr. Black talking to each other (see Van til, The Defense of the Faith). I appreciate young earth  evidence because it gives evidence to the view I support. . But neither side can prove with absolute certainty. I wish evolution supporting people and young earth supporting people will acknowledge what Thomas Kuhn has said, we interpret scientific data based on our worldview. Evolution supporting people in my experience tend to be arrogant making it seem like science is the end all and be all. If we are like Mr. Grey and Mr. Black we get nowhere.

A better approach is to look at the worldviews behind each positoin. This is a presuppositional approach. Do seminaries no longer teach Van Til for apologetics? Do seminaries not make their studetns read Thomas Kuhn?

The Worldview of a "Christian" evolutionist

1. limited effects of sin upon human reasoning. We can rightly and accurately make scientific claims apart from the special revelation and having our eyes opened by Jesus Christ.

2. if science contradicts scripture then science trumps scripture. God's Word is no longer authoritative, infallible, inerrant, and so forth. Science is God's infallbile book or rather our empirical observational abilities is Goid's infallible book.

3. The bible is not clear. Rather we have to deconstruct or peel away the layers of cultural rhetoric to get to what the Bible really means. I hear ehcoes from Scleirermacher and Derrida. Philosphers of the past still live today.

4. view of God: God is limited to working in scientific systems. No room ultimately for miracles.

The World View of a six day creationist or young earth

1. sin greatly affects human reasoning. We can only correclty interpret science through the Word of God. We need renewal of the mind that only comes through Christ as he peels away our scales. Secualr scientists do make correct claims, but only in so far as they operate under common grace or they borrow from a Christian worldview even though they do not know they are borrowing.

2. God's Word is the ultimate authority because God's word is authoritative, inerrant, infallible. God cannot lie. We can make mistakes in interpreting science and even in interpreting scripture. Yet we can rightly know creation and the Bible.

3. The Bible is clear. It was written in historical settings and so forth, but there is a perpescuity that does not lead to the extreme of deconstruction.

4. God can do miracles. Science cannot explain miracles such as Lazarous being raised form the dead or Christ's resurrection or the tongues of fire and so forth.

Conclusion

science vs science will get us nowhere. We are better off fighting against worldviews.

Now you have to ask yourself, like Van Til would ask: can the "Christian" evolutionist worldview sustain itself?

I would say no. Because ultimately it does not leave room for God to save us through Jesus who was fully man and fully God. And this does not offer an adequate solution to the problem of evil and our need for salvation. For the very possiblitiy of a "Christian" evolutionary worldview, it has to borrow from the young earth worldview, as it still wants ot maintain some notin Biblical authority and historicity of Jesus Christ.

Steve, it is good to fight against worldviews, especially in the church.   Philosophers and theologians love to fight and debate worldviews.  But for a worldview to mean anything to a scientist, you must be able to demonstrate and show how it is affecting the scientific work they do.   It is not just enough to say that it must be having an impact.  You have to show the mechanism of the impact of their worldview on their work. 

Our christian colleges would spend their time more profitably if they challenged the theory of evolution scientifically as well as philosophically and theologically.    Maybe it is an uphill battle.  But there are plenty of people, scientists, schools, colleges and universities who defend, accept, and swallow the theory of evolution and use it as a basis for interpreting everything they see.  We do not need any more of those.   We need people who are willing to stick out their necks, to postulate alternate theories, to examine other possibilities, to critique the status quo (which is the evol theory)  and to search for other mechanisms.   We really don't need a christian college that teaches and lives by a theory that ridicules scripture, miracles, belief, faith, God.   There are plenty of secular universities that do that. 

The fact that we're having this conversation even now, in 2011, is ridiculous. The amount of scientific illiteracy in the comments here is also ridiculous. Evolution isn't something you can just wish away - it's a fact, more proven and better understood than gravity.

I mean, seriously. How can you justify this in the face of all the evidence? I've never been so ashamed of my denomination.

For more of my thoughts, I wrote a lengthy article here. But seriously, people, come on! Didn't you ever take bio in highschool?

Stephanie

duplicate post.

This is my last post on this. I have said everything I could to philosophically defend the "traditional" view.

I do not have time for spell check either. I write in haste so I can get other work done.

I am not sure how evolution is more proven and understandable than gravity. Under "normal" circumstances every time you throw an object up in the air it falls at 9.8 m/s/s. Every time. I am not aware of any "natural laws" that we can measure happening right now in the area of evolution.

However, if you want to insist on evidence, there is plenty of other evidence that shows that evolution can' thappen and the earth is young. One of these authors is Micheael J. Behe has a book called Darwin's Black Box. Also, I remember in seminary we had a guy from a university talk about the inadequies of evidence for evolution.

for every scientist that that cites evidence for evolution there is another scientist that can cite evidence against evolutoin and young earth. There are some brave ones who risk being ostracized andgo against the popular trends in the scientific community. I am thankful for any sacrifice they make. they go against the trend to stand for what they beleive in the truth.

I am convinced that evolution is not the way to go for the following reasons

1. Thomas Kuhn has shown that science is always changing. And any change usually comes at great sacrifice because the scientific community often persecutes those who go against it, even when the established community is wrong. this may be happening right now as there are scientists challenging the established norm of evolution.

2. Science then is not based on pure empirical evidence. All evidence is filtered through a worldview. Your worldview determines your conclusions. That is why scientists can find evidence for both positions.

3. the worldview of an evolutionist and even Christian evolutionist does not square away with a world view formed by sound exegesis of the Bible. As shown above the evolutionist worldview cannot support itself.

4. so why would you change the so called traditional understanding of the Bible's view on creation  just because  science filtered through a faulty worldview says so?

thanks for sharing your personal blog. I am disturbed how you have bought into a secular world view. You write, "They would rather appease the members that think evolution is evilution and who haven't moved beyond the bronze age. They would rather tiptoe around knuckle-draggers than take advantage of our increased knowledge to better understand our place in the universe."

So apparently a presupposition (or heart commitment) you hold is that the latest scientific evidence and what is accepted at large by the community is the way to interpret all of reality, even the Bible. If that is a presupposition of your then you must know that this is a statement you TAKE ON FAITH!!! This belief of yours is no more or less faith based than the view that God created the world in six 24 hr days. This often gets scientists riled up: their views are based on dogma just as much as any religion.

There is no way for you to substantiate that your interpretation of science is correct. David Hume has proven that a long time ago. All you can do is say this is the evidence and it is excpeted by community, therefore it is likely true. that is the best you can say: evolutoin is likely true. And Thomas Kuhn also has shown that the scientific is always changing. what starts off as persecution often turns into acceptance by the whole community. Therefore something as highly theoretical as evolution can only be hypothosized that it is likely true. I wish the scientific community would acknowledge this more.

Similarly, the evidence that shows a young earth or no evolution is evidence that only shows it is likely true.

Therefore, highly theoretical areas of science can only show something is likely or possibly true.

Would you base your view of creation on something that is only possibly true?

Would you say that anybody who goes against the prevailing scientific commmunity is in the bronze age when they can only say it is possibly true?

why do evolutionists get all riled up over something that is only possibly true? Is it because they don't want to be persecuted?

There is absolutely nothing compelling about current science to lead me to accept evolution. There is nothing compelling in science to alter the traditional understanding of Genesis. As for me, I think the more solid ground is to stand on a Biblical worldview. General revelation should always be interpreted in light of God's Word. It is Jesus Christ who opens our eyes to see the world for what it really is. Let's look at the world through the lense of scripture rather than vice versa.

Good posts, Neil, I appreciate your views.    and Steve, too.  

Hey folks, discussion is fine.  Disagreement is fine.  But making personal attacks on those who hold a different opinion are not so fine. Let me remind you of the comment policy that governs the Network:

"Comments on The Network are monitored to make sure they are appropriate and respectful. When commenting please take note of the following guidelines.

1. Speak the truth in love (Eph. 4:15): No profanity, vulgarity, or racial slurs. Attacks on individuals or groups will not be tolerated.
    
2. Stay on topic: Comments and posts that have strayed too far from the original subject matter will be deleted or moved."

I'm new to the Network myself and am on it because I was asked to make some comments about Synod 2011.  I don't know how the folks in charge of the Network enforce these policies, but I'll bet they'd rather have those who post be respectful to each other than deleting what's been posted.  When stuff's deleted, conversation stops.  So let's have a good conversation guided by the comment policy.  Thanks.

A quote from your link:   "Unfortunately, Behe doesn't mention the Krebs in his book. A pity. Here is a complex biochemical system, clearly an excellent hook on which to hang his thesis. Right?     However, closer inspection of the literature reveals problems with such a "Krebs cycle is irreducibly complex" hypothesis..."

Why would you try to refute a comment that Behe never made, as you acknowledge yourself?   Seems a bit like bait and switch? 

Irreducibly complex does not mean that you could not have a smaller eye, or a different eye.   It means you need more than half the parts to make it work.   If you take 90% of it away, you do not have something useful, and usually if you take one small part away, it is also not very useful.   This reduces the chances based on random mutations, to get a combination of simultaneous mutations that would produce something useful, and this must be combined with a larger organism in which there are other parts that are also complex, and need to be there for the whole organism to function.   It is not only that you need all the parts, but they must also be there at the same time, in the right position, of the right size, and fitted together properly, and then hooked up to the larger organism properly.   A perfect eye without a brain behind it would also be useless. 

The eye of the ragworm is useful to the ragworm, but not to the human;  it would be like walking around with your eyes closed. 

The beefalo tends to revert back to the bison.  This appears to be more of a selection than a mutation.   There is an assumption by evolutionists that recessive genes must have originated from a mutation, but how is that proved? 

You say that evolution is not antagonistic towards God.   But I would say that you are looking at the theory with the eye of the ragworm.   In other words, whenever someone might suggest that perhaps some species or great orders were individually created, the evol theory and those that propose it and support it would laugh.   They would say that scientific investigation has nothing to do with religion, nothing to do with any interventions by God.   It deals only with naturalistic explanations of how things happen and how they came to be.    They would declare the feeding of the fivethousand impossible, and therefore irrelevant, and scientifically untrue.   There would be no examination of possibilities, no testing of alternatives.   It is a belief system that does not tolerate other hypotheses. 

The theory of evolution also suggests that man is nothing more than a sophisticated animal, no more and no less.   That religion, and our idea of god is something that evolved throughout time, and is continuing to evolve, due to our relationship with the rest of nature, our fear of the unknown, and our desire for security and purpose.    That God is man-made, rather than man being God-made.  

Facts are proven by the theory, and the theory proves itself.   (Instead of the other way around.) 

Computers, cameras and toasters are extensions and creations of man.   Used well, they can be good, and used poorly they can be antagonistic towards God, like the people who made them.   

If there was no macro evolution, then all species have existed together at some point. God would have had to create over time or the ark would have to be bigger plus the fossils should show modern animals with the dinosaurs. You people realize this isn't that important to what we are supposed to be doing?

.

Ezekiel 37:5
This is what the Sovereign LORD says to these bones: I will make breath enter you, and you will come to life.

Ezekiel 37:6
I will attach tendons to you and make flesh come upon you and cover you with skin; I will put breath in you, and you will come to life. Then you will know that I am the LORD.’”

Ezekiel 37:10
So I prophesied as he commanded me, and breath entered them; they came to life and stood up on their feet—a vast army

Isaiah 42:5
This is what God the LORD says— the Creator of the heavens, who stretches them out, who spreads out the earth with all that springs from it, who gives breath to its people, and life to those

Isaiah 42:5
This is what God the LORD says— the Creator of the heavens, who stretches them out, who spreads out the earth with all that springs from it, who gives breath to its people, and life to those who walk on it:

Job 32:8
But it is the spirit in a person, the breath of the Almighty, that gives them understanding.

Hello.

I've just joined the Network, and enjoyed reading your discussion on a subject that is of great interest to me.

Let me make a few comments.

Science and theology are both human endeavors. When we do science, we learn about how God sustains and governs his creation, and when we do theology, we learn that God made everything that is, we learn how he covenants with humans who rebel against him, we learn of the plan of salvation, and we learn how to live as Christians. While scientists make mistakes sometimes, so do theologians. We have learned that we were mistaken about some things we thought the Bible clearly taught. Today, we may be at the point in our understanding of Genesis, where the Church was at the time of Galileo in their understanding of the structure of the solar system and universe.

I would encourage you to look at an interesting table at http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/1_beyond_handout_b.pdf. Surveys show that most scientists do not fall in the last column, as is commonly believed, nor in the last two columns. They are mostly in the first three columns. A high percentage of Christian scientists are not in the first column, but are concentrated in the second and third columns.

My Christian scientist friends believe that they serve God by studying his creation, and rather than finding reasons not to believe, they find their wonder and awe increasing as they learn more about his work.

As a Christian geologist, I am delighted that our theologians and other scholars are looking at Genesis more carefully. The key messages are, I believe, God is creator, and we should worship and honor him, but we fall very short. These messages are presented in the language of ancient times, using ancient understandings, and the idea of a three-tiered universe with an inverted dome above Earth, infertility always being the "fault" of the woman, ancient men being fertile only at ages that are multiples of 5 (usually; see genealogies), for example, are probably neither part of the message or historically accurate, even if they are in the Bible.

If you would like a copy of the table that I've highlighted a bit, drop me a note. I'm happy to answer geology questions, too.

Sorry for being long-winded!

Blessings.

wow...  just caught up on this topic and it's posts...  well, what blows my brain is the concept of a God Who always was, is and will be, never had to be created... He's the "Uncreated Creator"... .   Then let's throw the angelic and demonic beings in to make it more interesting... when where they created, and how did lucifer fall, how was hell "created"  etc... for me, believing creation is easy after these. 

so if we struggle with the concept that God made the world like He shares with us in His Word in Genesis,  what do we do with believing in a God, that never had to be created and is perfectly good, all powerful, all knowing, everywhere present, 3 in One Being, etc.?  That's the BIG step of faith for me... my mind cannot compute it...my mind "chokes" to borrow a crc pastor's phrase.  To me, creation is an easy step, if we are believing in an almighty, powerful God, Who has always existed, breathes light at 186,000 miles per SECOND... (yes, that probably caused quite a bang!  I could feel the concussion of a little M80 explosion)  He cares about  and numbers every hair on our head... mind boggling as well...  has our earth spinning @ 1000 miles per hour and I'm not sure what word to use for us hurtling around the sun @ a wild and crazy 67,000 miles an hour ((93Million mile radius x 2 X pi)/365/24hrs) and we're not even aware of it!

so here's my 5 loaves and 2 fishes worth... if it's from the LORD, He will multiply it...  last year my 10 year old son had to do a report for school, it was on Mt. St. Helens... in doing the research with him, we discovered that what happened in seconds/minutes through the explosion, later looked like it had happened over millions of years... I will try to find the article on this...

second, I have had Divine timing of events in my life, where the statistical probability is off the charts.  Not just once, but  often...  If this happened once in a lifetime, we could statistically accept it, but this is a fairly common part of my walk with Him as I follow the leading of His Spirit.  He surprises me with the most amazing timing that can only be orchestrated by Him.   So, what do you do with promptings by the Holy Spirit?  No scientific explanation for that. 

Is believing in creation ridiculous, irrational?  I call it super-rational.  God is often very counter-intutitive.  just think about tithing in a bad economy...don't make no sense... Oh, wait, that means it does, but only because God is part of the equation. 

 Just curious what those with the evolutionist view think about the molecular structure of laminin?   I will try to find something to post on that as well, but encourage you all to look it up.

lastly, I think it is interesting that there seems to be a lot of confusion about how the world started and how it's going to end...  these discussions are interesting, and I'm surprised at the energy put into this discussion, but as "nobody" posted...

" You people realize this isn't that important to what we are supposed to be doing? ""

so, if intellectuals think I am very "silly" and simplistic, I'm totally ok with that...  should they be ashamed that we are part of the same denomination?  I hope not..  .we need to honor the Church (not science), the Church is the Bride of Christ, and Jesus is very protective of His Bride.  I have struggled with denominational concerns on other issues, and still do, but the answer is not attacking each other, the Church.  Our battle is NOT against flesh and blood aka each other, it is against the enemy and he is the father of lies, it is his native language (Eph. 6/John 8).   as someone discussed in an earlier post, every world view (that is not 100% God's), has some truth in it... but  then the enemy twists and perverts the rest. 

ps. Ken, aka "nobody" - glad to see you're still here and posting =)

““Ah, Sovereign LORD, you have made the heavens and the earth by your great power and outstretched arm. Nothing is too hard for you.” Jeremiah 32:17 NIV

 on June 15 @22:25 there was a posting in this discussion by "nobody"...  who is also named Ken.   he hed been a fairly active "poster" on the network and I had been missing his posts, and somewhere on one of the forums I saw that in May he had requested his account to be closed... so when I saw the June post, but under the name "nobody" instead of Ken.  I was glad he was still involved.  however...  I haven't seen anything from him again, and praying he's ok... 

so Ken, if you read this... I miss your thoughts, and you are not a nobody...

ok... I was going to post something on Mt. St. Helens, and the network was denying access the other day, so will try to do that later...

I almost forgot, but in another blog this topic came up which reminded me I was going to post this article on Mt. St. Helens and its implications on evolution and for creation..

http://nwcreation.net/mtsthelens.html 

Geologists have long been aware that some deposits are, indeed, laid down catastrophically. We do not, however, extrapolate from that and conclude that ALL deposits are catastrophic. Yes, during a volcanic eruption "laminae" may be laid down rapidly. Those are made of volcanic debris that is erupted explosively. This does not mean that similar layers of other materials were also laid down rapidly.

For example, mud that has been deposited in an environment where there is no evidence of turbulence or rapid flow of water, would not be deposited rapidly. Indeed, when water transports a variety of particle sizes at high velocity, the larger (heavier) particles settle out first, as the velocity decreases, with the finest particles settling out last, taking some time to deposit, even when the velocity is essentially zero. This is illustrated by Stoke's law. (Warning: most of us will get bogged down quickly, even catastrophically, once we get past the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article on this.)

Volcanic deposits of "cinders" and "ash" obey this law, too. Finer particles travel farther and settle more slowly. (This is a generalization. Various factors may affect the results.)

God governs and sustains his creation all of the time. Stoke's law illustrates one of the ways by which he normally operates, not capriciously and unpredictably. One God, in control of everything. We don't have to run around nailing things on trees to deal with the unknown.

While your comments are accurate, that is, not all deposits need be catastrophic, and while it is true that certain particles of different sizes and densities settle out in water at different rates, often at vastly different rates, we need to be aware that basically this says nothing about how slowly or how quickly the various laminae, as well as other earth layers, were laid down.  The different rates of settlement for   particles of various sizes deposited simultaneously in water,  tend to range from seconds to days, not to years or decades, even though this will vary a bit depending on the depth of the water. 

Oh the universe is full of amazing and wonderful things and very few subjects have been the source of more fiery debates than the topic of evolution. But in all the hubbub of debates about creation, or intelligent design, or cosmological origins one major facet of the Christian faith goes unnoticed: the explanation for the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Though the evidence for evolution is vast and far reaching and applied to origins, none of the same thinking has been weighed and married to this oft-neglected field.  If we as Christians are failing in our embracing evolutionary models in regard to Creation, we have been woefully neglectful in explaining the resurrection of Jesus Christ in terms of modern science.

In this post, I wish to posit a few possible reasons why the resurrection was not a miracle, but actually quite natural, spontaneous, and purely physical and why the Church must embrace this explanation to prepare for the future, especially in light of the overwhelming amount of data in support of biological evolution.

The proof I can offer is not as nebulous as it may seem. We Christians often supply a few proofs that the resurrection happened so we don’t have to belabor the point. He was seen among witnesses. His grave was indeed empty. His death was sure. And the actual resurrection accounts for the apostolic beliefs.

But this in no way implies that God couldn’t have used spontaneous and natural processes to ensure that this resurrection would happen. We must not allow magic or miracles to discredit the very reasonable faith that we Christians embrace!

First we have to admit that Jesus was fully man so he was limited by the knowledge of his day. He didn’t have a clue how he would live again or even if he would live again. He was under the impression that the “glory” was the process of dying (read the entire book of John) and then he cried about it when he was going to die. That’s not the reaction of a person who knew that they would die and come back.

Second, the disciples were surprised by the resurrection. They didn’t have a clue he would do what he did and that would only make sense if it was in fact spontaneous and natural.

Third, we have perfectly good explanations for a physical, random, non-miraculous resurrection. For example, we know that there are an infinite amount of Earths. Given an infinite amount of Earths, there are an infinite amount of circumstances. Just like our Universe came into being because in an infinite number, the chances of something happening are sure to happen, then the chance of a person dying and coming back from the grave most definitely would happen. In fact, I’d bet in this infinite series of worlds, there’s a good chance that each of us get our chance at resurrecting randomly.

Even if we didn’t posit infinite Christs, we can posit infinite physical universes where the laws of death and life are different.  With science firmly in our grip we can conclude that God used processes—like an infinite multiverse or infinite Christs—to arrive at a natural, spontaneous , physical and non-miraculous resurrection from the dead.

We haven’t even looked at Quantum particles which can be in two quantum states at the same time until observed. So Christ, while observed, w as in an alive state (a binary position of 1) and then he was in a two simultaneous states of dead and alive (0 and 1). If the quantum vacuum can bring something in from nothing, then the chance for Christ going from one binary state to a second one is infinitely possible. Heck, this could be a midichlorian process for all we know.

Fourth, we Christians need to stop being afraid of scientific explanations especially since Science is God’s hands. The very smart people (who incidentally are much smarter than us) have told us that the impossible is just that and if it’s physically possible it’s infinitely more probable than the impossible. We need to stop being unscientific, embrace the sciences which are also God’s revelation, his second Bible as it were, and teach that Christ’s resurrection was natural, spontaneous, physical even if ultimately belonging to God.

In conclusion, we must embrace this lest Science, and the world, moves on in their Copernican revolution leaving us behind mumbling about our magical myths. If we truly want to engage the world and not be relegated to a position of non-importance, we must employ robust scientific thinking with the defense of our faith proving that God is not only reasonable, he is constant. We cannot allow Christianity to become a cult—but this is what will happen if the Church continues to turn its head from scientific explanations!

While I appreciate your comments Hedzer, i think you miss the boat when suggesting that christians are afraid of scientific explanations.  Whether God chose a method to heal the blind that was supernatural or natural but unknown is not the primary issue.  When we fully understand what we call the supernatural, perhaps it will seem natural to us.   But we do not need to suppose that God can only work by methods that man in his sinful condition ought to be able to understand.  God is not limited to our parameters.  God is not limited by our capacity or by our knowledge, nor by our arrogance.   And our scientific explanations today are sometimes just as arrogant as the opinions of the 'scientists' of copernicus and galileo's day, or the doctors and healers of Jesus day. 

I just became aware of another book called: "Unlocking the mysteries of creation."  The Explorer's guide to the Awesome Works of God.   copyright 2002.   by Dennis Petersen.  Master Books, Box 726, Green Forest, AR 72638.

I have just opened a copy of this on CD, and I don't know if the book is available on-line.   But it raises some very interesting questions just in the first fifty pages, and makes points about the unreliability of radiometric dating, for example, among other things.   The book is about 240 pages long with numerous references sited.   Dennis first obtained a B.S. (science), and a M.A. in museum administration, spending several years as a museum curator, and then later took courses at a Canadian Bible College, and then taught there for four years.   He founded the Creation Resoure Foundation in California.

I'm not suggesting that he is more expert than everyone else, but he asks good questions, and reveals many inadequacies of the evolutionary paradigm. 

So in addition to Walt Brown's book, this one might be worth reading.

Ken, wow. Good response. I’ll try to respond to both of your posts in this one response.

You said:  "I'm not at all uncertain. Are you? Your comment about reef growth, "At...approx one-half metre per year, it might have taken about 300 years to form", is a case in point. You can plug in any number you want, realistic or not, and get the result you want, but that doesn't prove or disprove anythiing. You need to consider all of the data."

My response is that yes, I am uncertain about many things. That is what makes learning interesting. I realize that plugging in .4 m per year does prove or disprove anything; it merely indicates a possibility. This number is possible, based on some present day data, but that does not mean that it actually happened that way. But even if it took twice as long or four times as long, then the reefs could have formed in 1200 years.

You said: " our material on the growth of the Andes is confusing to me because it is unclear what is a quotation and what is your commentary" I try to put quotation marks around quotes – I believe I did that there

You said: "So the Andes may have had a growth spurt, and geologists have discovered something we didn't know before. This doesn't significantly change the plate tectonics model, and is a much more complicated situation than reef growth or evaporite deposition." The article indicated some significant changes to the plate tectonics model would be required. But my point was only that the amount of time for something to happen in geological history still appears to be relatively fluid.

You asked: "In answer to your final question, let me ask how much sea water would have to evaporate in order to precipitate the amount of salt in the Salina Group in Michigan. " I think I already gave a number for the amount of normal sea water to evaporate, something between 1500 and 6000 feet of water. For highly saline water, slightly more than a tenth of that amount would be required.

You said: "The deepest crustal rocks in Michigan are granites and metamorphic rocks, the kinds of rocks that we find in the depths of mountain belts, and the surface of this basement rock is rather flat, which suggests that there were mountains here at one time, and those mountains were eroded away."

My reply is that your reasoning could go both ways based on what you are saying here. In other words, in this location, the granites and metamorphic rocks remained in place, rather than being uplifted into mountains. The Canadian Shield is full of this type of rock as well, which is near the surface. The literature indicates a belief that this used to be many large mountains at one time. The reasoning is that rocks found under mountains are similar. Other evidence is lacking, apparently, since as mountains erode, the roots of mountains rise up. So in this case of the Shield, any mountain roots would be much smaller than they were originally, but then how would we know really? The article I saw also indicated that there used to be hundreds of volcanic belts in this area, each one with several hundreds of volcanos and numerous vents.

You said:

My response: Yes, probably, some material is recycled from other writers. But the evolutionary theory proponents do this all the time. Continually. Many evolutionary geologists do nothing else than recycle the thoughts of others. And many of those thoughts are already recycled. Generalizations about "orthodoxy" and "worse science" is also a recycled thought, and the judgement about "worse science" is often based on whether it fits with the prevailing paradigm or not. From my point of view, the absolutely worst science has been the evolutionary science around the assumed evolution of man. Distorted and misrepresented data, fossils, fraud, unscientific assumptions, etc. When some words by some evolutionary scientists are quoted out of context, it is simply to highlight the fact of what they have said, and not to sugar-coat it. Many evolutionists ignore those statements because they are too difficult to deal with.

You said, "On the subject of radiometric dating, many are "expert" on the subject who have never done anything with it."

My reply is that the experts should be able to use radiometric dating objectively. But it is not as simply as a chemical test for chlorine, or for acidity, or for aluminum or arsenic in water. Radiometric dating requires a tremendous number of assumptions. The actual testing of chemical content of material, including the evaluation of proportions of various isotopes, is not the problem. That can be done objectively. What cannot be done objectively is the assumption of what that proportion should have been originally, which is what the whole radiometric dating process relies on.

You said:

This illustrates my point. Is the dating method determining the age, or is the assumption about age made already before the dating method is used? If the method is ridiculous for this known- to- be- relatively- young basalt, then how can the same method be used to indicate that some other basalt is very old? Maybe it is also young?  

Ken, no need to begin insulting me.  It will not help your case.   "I have not been paying attention."?  While its true that it takes some time to digest another person's comments, I am indeed paying attention, and my comment was made quite light-heartedly, just as yours was earlier about my supposed propensity for assuming everything happened quickly.   Nor do I claim that the laws of nature have ever changed;  only our perception of them, and how they apply. 

Have you ever read Walt Brown's book, "In the Beginning:  Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood."   He looks only(almost only) at scientific principles, mathematics, physics in terms of evaluating his hypothesis.  Even supposing he was not entirely accurate in every aspect, since after all he is pieceing together something by extrapolation, he provides a new way of looking at the geologic evidence. 

About plate motion, as I said before, (were you paying attention...:o)  )  present rates of something are not indisputable indicators of what happened in the distant past.   We cannot do this with automobiles, with technological advancement, and probably not with plate tectonics.   If we only used present rates of observation, we would not come up with theories of hundreds of belts of ancient volcanoes consisting of hundreds of individual volcanoes and vents each, in the Canadian Shield area. 

You said: 

You said,

but, wikipedia and others disagree, "Igneous rock is formed through the cooling and solidification of magma or lava. Igneous rock may form with or without crystallization, either below the surface as intrusive (plutonic) rocks or on the surface as extrusive (volcanic) rocks " wikipedia

You said:

If this were as simple as it sounds, then using the K-Ar method to detect age of basalt formed by a recent volano would not be a problem.  However, as you earlier admitted, some non-radiogenic product (presumably the same isotope indistinguishable from the radiogenic) was also trapped in the basalt (igneous).   So your statement is misleading.   Its presumption appears to be  incorrect. 

From Roger Wiens(Los Alamos, NM), "Although potassium-argon is one of the simplest dating methods, there are still some cases where it does not agree with other methods. When this does happen, it is usually because the gas within bubbles in the rock is from deep underground rather than from the air. This gas can have a higher concentration of argon-40 escaping from the melting of older rocks. This is called parentless argon-40 because its parent potassium is not in the rock being dated, and is also not from the air. In these slightly unusual cases, the date given by the normal potassium-argon method is too old". "  

The assumption is that these cases are unusual.  

I wonder if you guys could continue your discussion over email.  Every time you post, some of us are getting (multiple) emails and this seems to be a conversation just between the two of you. 

Rob (and everyone else) - Each email notification gives two unsusbscribe options at the bottom: 1. unsubscribe from a specific discussion, 2. unsubscribe from all notifications across The Network. The first option is what you want.

Having said that, your suggestion is still a good one if no one else is participating in the discussion any longer. That's always a bit of a judgement call though, as some might want to listen in.

Anyway, I hope this unsubscribe info helps. It's easy to opt out of email notifcations for a specific discussion whenever you want to.

Thanks to everyone who has participated in this discussion - it's been a popular one!

Thanks Jonathan -- I tried looking the other day for how to do that, but I couldn't find it under my account settings (however, now I saw the link in the email).

And I apologize if I came across as being negative -- I don't want to discourage the conversation, as it's a worthwhile one to have.  I just thought this one might have worked better via email after it came down to just the two people.

I was asked to be a guide for Synod 2011.  I was discouraged because so few people commented.  I was told by the Network people, "Don't be discouraged.  A host of people listen in even though only a few comment."  So, let Rob sign out if he wishes, but let others benefit from Ken and John's discussion.  Carry on!!

Many people often think that evolution is a scientific explanation and "creation" is a religious explanation.   Nothing is further from the truth.   Macro-evolution is actually a religious explanation for our existence, which depends on supernatural events such as genesis of life from non-life (for which there is no scientific evidence), or such as the big bang (which has never been observed, is not testable, repeatable as scientific "facts" must be).   Nor is there a preponderance of evidence for the development of "more advanced" species from other species.   Nor is there any significant observable evidence of the constant attempt of various species to differentiate into new species.   The cited "evidence" is sparse, and highly debatable. 

The evidence of DNA replication indicates self-correction in DNA mistakes, as well as the simple unlikelihood of survival of significant DNA mutations that might lead to new organs or new species. 

It is also interesting that the theory of uniformitarianism was first initiated not by scientists, but by a lawyer named Charles Lyell, who postulated that "the present is key to the past".  Ironically, "As his eyesight began to deteriorate, he turned to geology as a full-time profession.["(Wiki)   Although Lyell was a teacher of Darwin, "Lyell, a devout Christian, had great difficulty reconciling his beliefs with natural selection . '(Wiki)   Eventually he did somewhat reluctantly endorse evolution as a theory. 

Charles Lyell got his idea of uniformity, the present is the key to the past, from James Hutton, who originally apprenticed as a lawyer but who trained and became a physician.  

 It is also interesting that Charles Darwin was not originally a scientist, but rather had an education and degree in theology.  He began with attempting to get an education in medicine (which was pushed by his doctor father), but neglected those studies, and eventually achieved an "ordinary" degree (Bachelor of Arts) in order to become a parson (his father's second choice).   It appears he was not too interested in following his father's wishes.   He never did become a parson. 

He was influenced slightly by Lamark who theorized on ''acquired" inheritance, which has since been discredited.   He was also influenced more by Thomas Malthus, who postulated that the world would run out of capacity to sustain human life as the human race continued to populate.   He had lots of money from his father, and this allowed  him to roam the world, as well as to get in the door with various teachers, societies, and educated men. 

Thomas Huxley was defender of Darwin, and influenced the thought of the day.  In one debate,    " Thomas Huxley's legendary retort, that he would rather be descended from an ape than a man who misused his gifts, came to symbolise a triumph of science over religion.....  Huxley portrayed a polarisation between religion and science. He campaigned pugnaciously against the authority of the clergy in education,  aiming to overturn the dominance of clergymen and aristocratic amateurs under Owen in favour of a new generation of professional scientists (Wiki)" ." 

The influence of Darwin's own thoughts and speculations on evolution and survival of the fittest, as well as the adoration and support of the people of the day, led to Darwin's perception of God and faith and the body of Christ. 

 quote] "To Darwin, natural selection produced the good of adaptation but removed the need for design, ] and he could not see the work of an omnipotent deity in all the pain and suffering such as the ichneumon wasp paralysing caterpillars as live food for its eggs.[ He still viewed organisms as perfectly adapted, and On the Origin of Species reflects theological views. Though he thought of religion as a tribal survival strategy, Darwin still believed that God was the ultimate lawgiver.[ Darwin remained close friends with the vicar of Downe, John Innes, and continued to play a leading part in the parish work of the church,[ but from around 1849 would go for a walk on Sundays while his family attended church.  He considered it "absurd to doubt that a man might be an ardent theist and an evolutionist"[ and, though reticent about his religious views, in 1879 he wrote that "I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. – I think that generally ... an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind. (Wiki)"[/quote]

It would have been better for him and for science if he had remained an agnostic about evolution.