My Banner Article

Edwin, had commented some time ago, about John and I going back and forth, and maybe missing the original point of his article, as Edwin saw it.  As comments passed back and forth, it was obvious that we didn’t see eye to eye on the issue of evolution or creation, and of course that debate spilled over into other areas of theology, which may or may not be related, depending on how you see the implications. Then John brings a Philip Westra perspective and concern into the picture.  What I’m seeing, is that everyone has a box, John, Edwin, Philip, myself and others.  And somehow we all think my own box of correct Biblical interpretation is the only valid one.  Is that really true, that my box (and those that agree with me) is the only true box?

The Bible contains 66 different books or letters, written by a large variety of authors, over a long period of time, involving a variety of cultural settings.  Christians, in general, claim that these 66 books, taken together, make up the inspired (therefor true) word of God.  These various books apparently contain a consistent message that somehow hangs together without contradicting itself, although taken from 66 different books.  If there seems to be contradictions, they are only apparent, and it can be shown how conflicts for the most part can be shown to fit together when the apparent conflicting pieces are seen in light of other Scriptures.  Both John and Edwin have tried to show the consistency of their Biblical understanding.  They have also shown how the viewpoint of the other person is inconsistent with the Bible’s message in light of other Scriptures.  We are each trying to present a better argument to demonstrate that I’m right and you are wrong when it comes to the teaching of the Bible.

Theologians have been doing this same thing from before the time of Augustine and have continued right up into the present.  Just think of the multitude of Christian (at least, they call themselves that) denominations that there are at present.  Each denomination has their master theologians such as Calvin, Zwingli, Luther (the list could get extensive).  There the Pentecostals, Presbyterians, Baptists, Freewill Baptists, Particular Baptists, Dispensational Evangelicals, Roman Catholics, Mormons (they think of themselves as Christians), Orthodox, Methodists, each with their own seminaries having a host of Phd theologians on staff.  These theologians think that those outside of their own denomination are misinterpreting the Bible (an inconsistent message with contradictions) and their job, in their own seminary, is to do Biblical research to show how they can make a truly consistent (no contradictions) theology.  But none of these groups agree with each other or they would join together as denominations.  These differences are great enough that these denominations and groups separate from the others and have remained separate for years or centuries.  But each group, although having differences from the others, thinks their group is the only with a consistent theology without inconsistencies.

Yet they all claim the Bible is the inspired word of God and contains no contradictions (unless you look across the fence at another denomination). Reformed denominations have defined their basic theology by the three ecumenical creeds and the three forms of unity.  But there are few other denominations that would agree with those confessions, especially, the Canons of Dort.  But these Creeds and Confessions, in the Reformed mind, is what demonstrates the Bible’s consistent and noncontradictory message.  But even within the CRC confessional group there are those who look over the fence and try to wed Arminian theology to a five point Calvinistic theology, making their own box a little different from the denomination’s but showing from Scripture how their own box makes the best sense.

Within a given denomination, say the CRC, there comes a time when they want to ordain women deacons, elders, and ministers.  But the Bible clearly teaches that women are not to have authority over men.  So the CRC theologians get to work to show how maybe it’s time for a change and now when seen correctly, the Bible can teach that both men and women can have authority in the church and hold these positions.  How about a man being the head of his household, once understood differently than today, thanks to the good work of our theologians.  As in other denominations. a homosexual lifestyle will be approved for membership and service in the CRC, thanks to our theologians who will be able to bend Scripture to say what we want and call it a consistent Bible message of God’s love and justice.  I think many are working on that one even now.

All this happens, despite, the Bible’s teaching that the Holy Spirit will lead his church in all truth. So what does this all say about the differences that John, Edwin, Philip, and a hundred others (including myself) have as to what the Bible really teaches?  Does John really have the only truly consistent box, or is it Ed?  I will admit the many inconsistencies of the Bible.  You are fooling yourself if you think otherwise.  In fact they are glaring, such as with the teaching of Jesus and Paul as to salvation.  I think it may be better to make a choice, and I will choose Jesus.  His teaching is so much more reasonable and fits with common logic.  Have a great weekend.

Tonight our family went to a Baptist church to listen to a speaker from Australia explain how evolution was a faith, and how evolution contradicted the scientific evidence.  At this presentation, there were members from a Gospel Chapel, two Baptist churches, Mennonite churches, CRC, Pentecostal churches, Alliance church, Lighthouse church, Rom Catholic, and probably some others.  That kind of answers your comments on differences between denominations.  Similarities between christians from different denominations are ocassionally stronger than similarities within a particular denomination.  Neither the similarities nor the differences prove anything about the truth of scripture. 

The speaker mentioned that Jesus was a young earth creationist.  He quoted the verse where Jesus said, "In the beginning, God made them male and female..."  If people were only created/evolved in the last few 100,000 years according to evol theory, then they certainly were not created "in the beginning".  So changing the interpretation of Genesis also leads to changing the truth of what Jesus said. 

But for me the interesting things were the evidences against the necessity of evolution.  He gave the example of how the Carlsbad limestone caves were originally dated as 260 million years old.  Then that was changed in the 1950s to 7 million years old. Later it was changed to 2 million years old.  Finally the sign was removed completely.  ....   Same cave.  Same evidence.  Different ages.  Why?  well different assumptions and different interpretation.  Science in this is not so straightforward as non-scientists seem to think.  

How about formation of stalactites?  Supposedly it takes thousands or millions of years to form... 0.13mm per year...  but, there are man-made mine caves less than 100 years old which have sprouted Stalactites which are almost twenty feet long... which at the average rate would make them 24000 years old.  Obviously, some of the estimates and assumptions do not match the known evidence. 

He pointed out that Darwin said the number of transition fossils should vastly outnumber the endpoint fossils. To date it is still difficult to prove that any one fossil is a transition fossil, never mind that there should be countless undeniable numbers of them, not just one or two scattered possibilities.  Both Jay Gould and ___ Patterson experts in paleontology have apparently agreed on this point, and yet they are evolutionists.  

The speaker himself has a degree in science (biology/paleontology) and diploma in Education and was an atheist until the age of 19.  At that time he became a Christian when shown the poverty of evolution theory.  He claims to be an exception to the rule that apologetics do not convert people, since it was directly the evidence against evolution that converted him to follow Christ.  He has been speaking against evolution for the last 40 years, and as a travelling ministry for the last 17 years. 

Now I'm off to read a book called, "Evolution's Achilles Heels", written by 9 PhD scientists from Australia, New Zealand, USA, Romania, and Canada with forward written by another PhD and the book edited by yet one more PhD.   I personally don't think you have to be a PhD to understand all this evidence, but for those impressed by titles...    It is only 260 pages, and should be an interesting read.  

Thanks, John, for your simplistic answer in regard to the differences between denominations.  All those (from different church groups) going to the Baptist church the other evening to hear a speaker with a narrow message condemning evolution, went because of a common premise (that evolution is a religion and is false).  You all were able to set aside your many differences in order to celebrate your common core belief.  But within that group if the topic got changed unexpectedly to the “gifts of the Holy Spirit” or “infant baptism” or God’s plan for Israel at the end of time or what does it mean when Jesus said, “this is my body... and this is my blood...” or can women be ordained as ministers in the church, or to what extent is Jesus fully God, or are children of believers members of the church or what is the continuity between the Old and New Testaments, or how many dispensations (Dispensationalism - dispensations of how God saves people) are there described in the Bible or what is the proper interpretation of the book of Revelation or is baptism necessary for salvation, and the list goes on almost endlessly as to the topics where there would be complete disagreement between those same church groups.

Your premise of sharing a common interest and persuasion as to evolution, is like asking if the same group could get together and enjoy a football game together, or if all football enthusiasts agree and are comfortable in their beliefs as to God.  The fact remains, you can make the Bible say anything you want it to and most of the differences are not minor.  The differences were serious enough to cause church denominations to split and form new denominations.  Or I could ask you, would you feel comfortable leaving the CRC to become a Pentecostal or Roman Catholic?  There’s your answer, John, about the homogeneity of church groups and as to the importance of how the Bible gets interpreted.

The many differences as to Bible interpretation says there are no clear answers in the Bible and that there are inconsistencies and contradictions.  Otherwise, all Christians would be on the same page.  And my attempt to rationalize those differences and smooth them over may be different than your attempt, or the Baptist attempt, or the Pentecostal attempt, or the Roman Catholic attempt.  And the fact that there are so many interpretations says the Bible is not as clear a Revelation as you make it out to be.

As to the meeting the other night, the speaker could shed a lot of light as to why evolution does not make scientific sense.  If speaking to a panel of scientists, could he also show the scientific evidence as to why a young earth with a literal six day creation would make perfect scientific evidence?

Edwin, you suggest that God brought the world into its present physical condition thru evolutionary processes.  This appears to be a faith statement on your part.  Since you don't say that your idea of evolution is different than the general theory of evolution as proposed by Darwin, Dawkins, et.al., then it is necessary that you have an explanation for how and why God is in control of this process.  Evolution was promoted both before and after Darwin as an explanation that could eliminate God in the equation;  it was not promoted as a way of honoring God.  So you would need to explain how it honors God, and how it is indicated by scripture, and how biology/geology/paleontology proves it, and how this demonstrates God.   What evidence do you have for an endpoint?  How do you know that human beings are the endpoint... according to the theory, they could just as well be an intermediate inferior step towards the progression of something better.   In a way, this is what Hitler proposed in terms of racial superiority, that one race could be superior to another.  Why was he wrong?

So, if God is playing a role... then what role is God playing?   Is your idea of  this role consistent with who God is, how he has revealed himself in scripture?   When we think of the natural laws of physics, mathematics, such as gravity and consistency of numbers and objects, we see God as a God of order, of beauty, symmetry.  Evolutionary theory would see God as a God of disorder, randomness, accidents, death and destruction and survival.  If this is how God created, then what does the world need to be renewed from?  What does it need to be saved from?

I note that you did not address the fact that scientific evidence/knowledge is indicating less and less support for evolution over time, as I noted in the example of human and chimp genome dissimilarities.   What would it take for you to lose your faith in evolution?

John

Last night I was listening to Hank Hanegraaff (Bible Answer Man broadcast) on the radio, and I found it interesting that he became a Christian at the age of 29 by examining the evidence for creation science.  When he realized the poverty of evolutionary thought, then the message of scripture made more sense to him.

Another Christian apologist, Ravi Zacharias, also is quite strong in his opposition to evolution.  Born in India, he was an atheist until the age of 17, when he became a Christian after attempting suicide.  He is considered by some to be the leading Christian apologist of this time, and has been preaching internationally since 1977, as well as speaking at universities, colleges, and other groups of young adults.   A very sharp guy.

And then, as I mentioned previously, the speaker Peter Sparrow, who was convinced by anti-evolutionary evidence that maybe God was real after all, and became a Christian at the age of 19.

Don't underestimate the power of apologetics as a tool for witness.

With consideration for Jolanda's comment that one should not dominate a discussion... which I appreciate, I can only say that Edwin Walhout dominated the page of the Banner with his article, and comments, objections, etc. did not have the same space or weight permitted.  His article made some of my children question the integrity and faith of the crc, and others were also affected similarly.  So I think it is legitimate to respond to every concern and question and "truth statement" made.  I certainly don't mind if someone else responds instead of me, but I hope I will be forgiven for filling in the gap in the meanwhile.

I have been reading the book, "Evolution's Achilles Heels" by the 9 PhD scientists.  It's somewhat technical and difficult, although yet written in a way that the points can be understood.  I've finished the first of 8 chapters, which is a chapter on Natural Selection by Dr. Donald Batten.  What is the point of this chapter in a nutshell?  Well, creationists also accept natural selection.  But they believe that natural selection works against evolution, not for it.  It is a conserving action, weeding out harmful mutations.  It does not create additional genetic information, but generally reduces the genetic variability within a species or a kind.  Haldane's dilemna of population genetics indicates that in 10 million years with a fixed beneficial mutation rate of one per generation, under idealized and unrealistic conditions, the maximum amount of the human genome that could be generated is only 0.02%.  Under realistic assumptions, the amount would be much, much lower.  However, the genetic difference from the supposed common ancestor is at least 5%, and probably 12%, so much more time would be required to generate the genome, even if the genome was somewhere 50% similar to ape and 50% similar to human.  At a 5% difference, it would take 250 times longer under idealized conditions.  And this is only under the assumption that new genetic information could actually be generated, which does not appear to be the case, since observed mutations are almost always deleterious, or even when beneficial, are caused by a loss of information, or a loss of a genetic inhibitor, or activation of an inhibitor, and not by actual increase in new genetic material.

In the Second chapter, "Genetics and DNA", Dr. Carter points out that evolutionists assumed 97% of human DNA was junk DNA, because of their presuppositions.  This was found to be in error, and in fact every indication is that almost every part of the DNA plays a role and function.   Most genes in the individual DNA often play a dual or triple regulatory function, so that the 23,000 genes in the human genome can produce 100,000 proteins.  The ENCODE project, which spent $3 billion to map the 3 billion letters in the human genome found out all sorts of things that make it more unlikely that evolutionary processes could have ever resulted in the development of new species from different species in a macro sort of sense.

God's creation is much more complicated and complex than we have thought in the past, which makes it less and less likely that undirected macro-evolution could be the mechanism for generating the creation we see today.

Chapter 3 of the book, "Evolution's Achilles Heels" was written by Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, a PhD in Physical Chemistry, and chess master in New Zealand.  His chapter is on the origin of life.  He covers several topics in 32 pages, but what I found interesting was his discussion of probabilities, and the elemental basic requirements for life.  Apparently, the hypothetical minimum genome consists of 387 protein-coding genes, and 43 RNA-coding genes.  This would be for a mycoplasma which is about the simplest organism found.  Mycoplasma genitalium (a bacterium) has the smallest known genome and contains 482 genes comprising 580,000 bases.  

The chance of attaining the minimum, making very generous assumptions (generous means unrealistic), is about (10) to the power of -5000.  Like guessing a 5000 digit PIN on the first try.  Evolutionists say that given enough time randomness makes anything possible.  Sarfati says there are 10 to power of 80 atoms in the universe. 10 to power of 12 atomic interactions per second.  10 to power of 18 seconds since the evolutionary big bang.  This makes only 10 to power of 110 interactions possible. The chance of getting the minimal life is one in 10 to the power of 4925.  Not enough time.   No chance.  Impossible through randomness.  It is statistically impossible. 

This does not include all the probabilities necessary for developing this simple life into all other life forms through sheer random chance of obtaining favorable mutations and additions of information which are not lost.  So Edwin, what would it take for you to lose your faith in evolution?  

John, I’m not sure who you are debating with in some of your later responses, especially the last one, but it doesn’t seem to be Edwin or even myself.  He has said many times, and I agree, that the evolution of the world and life, is theistic.  A theistic evolution sees God’s involvement throughout and doesn’t involve randomness in the least.  Your questions and comments would be like my asking of you, what are the possibilities of someone speaking a word on six consecutive days and a different part of the created world would comes into being.  If evolution is theistic, then randomness or possibilities plays no part, and you have no argument.

John, it sounds to me that you are arguing a straw man of your own making.  You seem to be saying that because evolution, as described by Jonathan Sarfati (or yourself), is impossible (impossible probabilities), therefore theistic evolution is also impossible.  You imply or say evolution directed by God boils down to creationism.  That’s not true.  God can change the numbers that Sarfati suggests to anything God wants in order to make evolution definite.  God can work through natural law (they are God’s laws, after all) in the same way he works to accomplish his purposes for individuals, the church, or the kingdom of God.  Or don’t you think that God works through natural law to accomplish his purposes?  You see, God is not subject to randomness and yet works through natural law.  You say that “evolution requires the undirected, random mutations....”  But theistic evolution is not undirected or random.  Your argument holds no water.

Well, once again John, you have responded to another’s response with questions, rather than acknowledging that a God directed or theistic evolution makes sense and still remains true to the theory of evolution.  Most of your objections to evolution are overcome when one realizes that it is God directed.  As an orchestra conductor is able to direct all the variety and number of instrumentalists to make beautiful music, so God can direct the evolutionary process to bring about a wonderful creation without interfering with the evolutionary process.  Undoubtedly, as you point out, an evolutionary process without God would be extremely difficult, if not impossible.  But with God at the helm, all things are possible.  And so the process remains evolution.  As the Bible points out, not a hair can fall from a person’s head apart from God’s will, or is it a sparrow falling to the ground?  All of life happens (according to the Bible) according to God’s purposes, and yet he works through the normal means and laws he created.  So also with a theistic evolution.  And scientists are increasingly unearthing the evolutionary process that God has used.  Maybe with time, the scientists will better understand the process that so far is wrought with problems, but eventually will make better sense.  As least for now, to most scientists, evolution makes the most sense and is the obvious direction to pursue.

It would seem John, that God works through natural order and laws to bring about the healing of a terminally ill person, even though 50 years ago there would have been no possible healing, his fate would have been sealed, doctors would have said impossible.  And even today, when a person is healed, Christians give thanks and credit to God.  The laws were already there 50 years ago, but their discovery came later.  Science is continually learning how to overcome the hurdles of the past.  Why isn't it possible that hurdles today will be solved tomorrow, especially as science is in already in the process of solving some of the riddles of evolution so that it looks increasingly more realistic?

John, you may think it is the other way around, but the fact that the scientific community in general (other than new earth Christian science) is continually gravitating toward evolutionary theory says otherwise.

Interesting side note to this discussion, is that Michael DuMez has just written an excellent article called "Jurassic Ark", in the the on-line Banner.

John, as I have shared several times, I am no expert when it comes to science.  So if you asking me for scientific evidence and examples to demonstrate that science is overcoming the hurdles of the past in demonstrating the reality of evolution, then you are asking the wrong person.  What seems to me to be evidentiary is the testimony of the vast majority of scientific opinion and findings.  You could not get the majority of the scientific community to agree on evolution without what they consider as strong supporting evidence. And this strong opinion comes from a variety of scientific fields, such as molecular biology, genetics, anatomy, paleontology, geology, and probably more.  In contrast, I could take your word that there is no evidence to support evolution.  Hmm, I think I’ll trust the experts when they tell me that there is an abundance of evidence.

Thanks John, for your response.  As far as I can tell, you think that someone (Darwin) at the front of the line  passed a message back to the rest of the scientists behind him and they all blindly believed what he told them.  And now for the last 150 years all their research has been for naught because they thoughtlessly bought into his original theory. Their research has counted for nothing, in fact for the most part it is bogus.  They are just spreading lies and trying to convince the public of Darwin’s and their own lies.  It’s good to know where you stand.

But now, as to your theory.  You are convinced that some 10,000 years ago, in the span of six actual days, God created all that there is.  Of course with a span of six days, you or scientists can’t really distinguish between the first day, or the fourth, or the sixth day, because I doubt that there is any mechanism to distinguish dating to such precision (as to measure days).  As to testing all the created world came about instantaneously.  Ten thousand years ago, wham, bam, and the world in its present form came into being.  Now tell me, John, what scientists are you following and believing to swallow such a tall tale and to disregard all the scientific evidence that would go counter to such a theory?  Oh, ya, it’s those nine PhD’s in the book you’re reading.  And their information comes from four or five pages (Genesis 1 and 2) written some four thousand years ago.  Isn’t that the theory of origins they buy into?  And you say to me, “When you say you will trust the experts, I say you don't know what you are talking about.”  It sounds to me, as though you have already jumped off the bridge.

Thanks again John for another insightful response.  But I still question your insight.  I notice that the latest book you’re reading goes to great lengths to disprove evolution, for example to discredit all the dating methods that scientists use to support an old earth (at least, that was the bulk of your latest response).  I suppose those methods should be discarded because they are so unreliable.  But they aren’t, are they?  It is because, on the whole, they are reliable, therefore scientists continue to use those methods, refine them, and come up with other means to measure age that measures under different circumstances.  But, on the whole, the methods used to measure age give a generally good idea of age, whether billions, millions, or thousands of years.  Do they calculate correctly in every instance?  Of course not.  But you don’t take the exception (as your Dr. Jim Mason has done) to discredit the whole system or mechanism for determining age.   That would be like finding a mix of chemotherapy drugs that works well in 90 percent of the cases for colon cancer, but then discredit the mix because it didn’t work well in ten percent.  So it’s easy for you to find exceptions to different (maybe even every) dating method, and then say the exception proves the invalidity of the method.  Again, John, you are grasping at straws to disprove evolution.  

The fossil evidence is just one case in point.  Young earth scientists can discredit some of the fossils found that evolutionists believe fill some of the gaps to support the development of life from earlier forms.  But again the exception doesn’t disprove the rule.  With the advances and growth in geological sciences the fossil evidence is now abundant.  And now to find an exception and say this disproves the rule is silly.  Even secular scientist will willingly admit that mistakes have been made.  But you can’t discredit the abundance of evidence for the sake of the few miscalculations that have been made.  The abundance of evidence is continually making a sound case for evolution.

But now for what is truly silly John, the suggestion that the earth and its inhabitants are no older than 10,000 years when nearly all the scientific evidence points to a much much older earth.  And yes, the authors of your latest book, do begin with a beginning premise from the Bible that the earth cannot be older than 10,000 years.  That’s the beginning presupposition for them.  And to hold such a presupposition, your scientists have to disprove any evidence that says the earth is older.  But pointing out exceptions in the present and mistakes of the past doesn’t fool many today.

Hey John.  I have to admit, you do have me at a disadvantage.  Once again, I’m not a scientist, don’t even come close.  So I have to rely on others, even as I hear you doing (the book you are presently reading), and you are a scientist.  I don’t think you are on the cutting edge of research, but you do have some understanding of what’s going on in those fields.  You ask me for examples, but isn’t that just you, trying to push me into a corner?  What am I supposed to do, read some evolutionist expert, look for an example in his research or book, then bring it back to you, so you can tear it apart?  I don’t know if what you or they tell me is really true, or how to scrutinize theirs or your findings.  I really think those beyond yourself are the real experts.  I can go to a hospital or a medical expert with serious symptoms of illness, and I have to take the word of the doctors when they give me a diagnosis.  Even getting a second opinion leaves me in the same position of having to rely on the experts.  It’s my opinion that there are many more experts on the side of evolution.  You can bash their findings endlessly, even as I”m sure they could do to you.  But they are not involved in this particular debate, so you get to do the bashing with no opposition.  If they were involved in this debate, they would not walk home with their tails between their legs.  And it would be foolish of me to think that they are not doing their work with integrity.  So you can keep pushing me for examples, but that makes you sound like a bully.  That leaves me with having to pick a side to stand with.  To me, it makes much more sense to stand with those who have put in the abundance of work and research.  It feels, to me, like choosing to stand either with a professional team or a little league team.  I’ll go with the experts.

All that being said, what bothers me more, is the foolishness of the creationist perspective.  Everything created instantaneously and simultaneously at a single point in history (all within six days).  That means, as to dating, everything is the exact same age, to within a week (as to the original creation). I imagine young earth creationists (apart from geneologies) can date the origin of the universe to within a week, or at least to a year or two.  You may think that science and dating methods can back this up, but to the scientific community it sounds like foolishness.  And it does to me.  Theoretically, young earth scientists should be able to determine whether the origin of the earth and all of  life was 10,000, 8,000 or 8,543 years ago, using the dating methods that they have found to be accurate.  That’s the theory for young earth creationists, and again it is based on a couple chapters of the Bible.  That may make sense to you and to some Christians, but it’s a theory that has to be accepted by faith because it doesn’t have the evidence to back it up.  That’s the nature of religious faith, believing that which is not seen.  It has to be accepted by faith because it involves a huge miracle and it can’t be explained otherwise.  And it’s based on faith that the church (some churches) expect its members to accept this teaching, and not based upon scientific evidence.  It’s also the reason that young earth creationists spend the majority of their effort trying to disprove evolution rather than proving an instantaneous creation (that’s based on faith).

I suppose you are right John, to some extent, when you say that both evolutionism and creationism involve faith.  But that doesn’t mean that belief in evolution necessitates whether a person believes in God or not.  Belief in Biblical creation does necessitate such belief.  In fact, that is the beginning presupposition.  A scientist should (and most do) do his evolutionary studies apart from any opinion about God.  The evolutionist is simply looking for a natural explanation for the development of life.  He looks at the facts or his findings and based on those findings comes up wth a theory of what those findings demonstrate.  It’s when you add a philosophy (cosmology) to your findings that you come up with an “ism.”  Hence evolutionism.  But then this is a mixing of science and cosmology, and not true science.  Creationism necessitates a cosmology, in fact begins with it.  So, you see, the faith element is entirely different for the person who believes that evolution explains the origins of life.  He may or may not believe in God.

Of course creationism or belief in a Biblical creation, begins with the presupposition that God has done this (brought into existence the world and all of life), in fact, has done this according to the outline laid out in Genesis 1 and 2.  You, John, because you have some sympathy for the findings of evolution (dating and age findings) are now willing to stretch the Genesis account to include something never intended by the author of the Genesis account.  I’m sure Moses was not thinking of days in terms of years or even millions of years for part of creation and twenty-four hours days for the rest.  That takes away from the plain sense of reading the text.  If God could create the animal kingdom in a matter of a few actual days he could do the same with the rest of creation.  That’s the point of the Genesis account, not to differentiate the length of days in the account.  That’s where the young earth creationists are attempting to be true to the text of Genesis.  But they are beginning with big presuppositions which shades their whole scientific endeavor.

You have pointed out previously that buying into the theory of evolution necessitates an atheistic cosmology. Even the evolutionary scientists have claimed that.  But certainly not all, or even a majority, have made that claim. And it’s not the begriming premise.   And for those scientists that do claim evolution necessitates an atheistic perspective, they don’t really understand what God can and can’t do.  Randomness does not exclude God from the process or development of life over time to its present forms.  In fact Reformed Christians would say God works in and through what appears to be random or coincidence.  In fact nothing happens by chance, even the falling of a single hair to the ground (again, or is it a bird).  Isn’t that the point of Peter’s address to the Jews who had crucified Jesus but God was at work, despite their ill attempts, to accomplish the salvation of many.  Isn’t that Paul’s meaning, when he says that everything happens by the hand of God, or when he talks about the Pharoah being a pot made for the seemingly ill purpose that God intended.  Isn’t this what Christians have in mind when they talk about looking at a quilt from the back side and it looks ugly, but when seen from God’s perspective is beautiful (like seeing it from the front)?  Atheistic evolutionism (evolution + cosmology) has a narrow understanding of what God can and can’t do, or what might make sense in the mind of God.

I don’t know John.  Going back and forth with you makes me a little weary.  Maybe it does for you, as well.  I think that may be why Edwin dropped out a long time back.

As to your last response, you did a lot of speculation as to a naturalistic explanation of the first four days of the creation narrative in Genesis.  You want to be true to the intent of Scripture and yet true to science (general revelation).  Sounds admirable.  And even though you admitted that what you stated could be totally out, you probably put more stock in such speculations you have made up than in evolutionary theory which has a lot of research behind it.  It sounds a little bit to me, that for you, speculation is ok as long as it doesn’t agree with evolutionary theory.

Here’s another take (my speculation).  I think there’s a possibility that as to primary causation Genesis is saying that God is the creator God.  He stands above it all.  That’s the important message for the ages.  As to secondary causation a face on reading of Genesis made sense to the people of Moses’ day.  That’s as far as their science would let them go in that early stage of history.  And a day was a day, as Moses would have understood it. Today, as to primary causation, the message is the same.  But today with the advances of science, people are still trying to make sense of origins as to secondary causation.  And maybe on both sides of the issue there is both speculation as well as research.  This includes Christians on both sides of the evolution/creation issue.  Maybe too much is being made of secondary causation when reading the Bible.

I know, for you, an actual Adam, seems very important.  Without him a lot of theology seems like it can thrown out or watered down.  It sounded to me, as though Edwin was trying to come up with a way to be true to natural science and to the Biblical account.  I know you disagree, and I understand.  A lot could be at stake.

For me, I’m a theist.  That means, in one way or another, God is involved.  I’m not near ready to dismiss him.  I’m not sure I want to keep this up endlessly.  Honestly, I thought you would wear down before me.  But looking over these responses, as well as others (to other articles) I think you are the energizer bunny.  It’s been fun.  And thanks for the food for thought.  It’s been good.

I promised to add a last post about the last chapter in "Evolution's Achilles Heels", Edited by Robert Carter, PhD, and published by Creation Book Publishers, of Powder Springs, Georgia, USA.  The first seven chapters emphasize what they call fatal arrows in the achilles heel of the evolution theory.  This last chapter deals with human response in the context of this theory, in terms of ethics and morality.  So, some quotes below.

William Provine said, " ... my views on modern evolutionary biology ... tells us loud and clear, there are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind.  No life after death... no foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning for life, and no free will for humans, either."

Richard Dawkins:  "I am a passionate Darwinian when it comes to science, when it comes to explaining the world, but I'm a passionate anti-Darwinian when it comes to morality and politics."

"If evolution is true, reasoning is just an epiphenomenon of the brain and the results of the laws of chemistry and random processes."

CS Lewis:  If evolution is true and accidental,   "... then all our thought processes are mere accidents - the accidental by product of the movement of atoms. ... why should we believe them to be true?"

Dr. Susan Blackmore:  "In the end nothing matters.  If you really think about evolution and why we human beings are here, you have to come to the conclusion that we are here for absolutely no reason at all."

Jeffrey Dahmer:  "I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime."

Matthew Piercy:  "Evolution reduces humans to the level of animals, making it just as acceptable to put down a human as put down a dog."

Darwin:  "At some future period...the civilized races will almost certainly exterminate and replace, the savage races through the world."

In both world war 1 and 2, Germans (and others) espoused various types of eugenics.  A Nazi propoganda film of 1937:  "In the last few decades, mankind has sinned frightfully aganist the law of natural selection.  We haven't just maintained life unworthy of life, we have even allowed it to multiply!"

Stalin read Darwin's "Origin of Species" when he was thirteen.  This book convinced him that God did not exist.

Mao Zedung's two favorite books were by Darwin and Huxley.

The columbine killers were wearing teashirts with "natural selection" printed on the front.

The Finland killer of seven students and teacher  had revealed before his crime that "life is just a coincidence... result of long process of evolution and many several factors...  ...It is time to put natural selection and survival of the fittest back on track. ...I have evolved higher."

So are all these quotes just accidental random events that mean nothing?  or do they indicate something real and true?

What 'science' is Walhout referring to? There are many credible, PhD credentialed researchers and scientists who will give excellent proofs for a young earth explanation of the universe: and explain how light which is stretched out with the heavens now reflects an old universe, while earth which was created in a gravity well does not have such age; and population models based on Noah and his family entering the Ark about 2348 BC do indeed work out. The population models for 8 adults from that time to the present account for the current world population. Simply put, who or what will one trust? Will a person trust the Word of God first and evaluate all discoveries and worldviews through its lens or will a person press the Word of God through the sieve of ever changing secular science? Walhout seeks to make peace with the world at all costs. The Word of God calls us to faith which interprets our world according to God's revelation. All disciplines are to be subservient to the Word of God. It is a pity that Walhout and many others who claim 'science' disproves the Bible refuse to examine the work being carried out by Young Earth Creationist Scientists. All through my schooling I have been required to read about evolution, Big Bang theories, an ever changing idea of how old the earth must be. It is refreshing to read Young Earth Creation Scientists who propose what the Bible teaches does in fact fit with scientific observation. Such a position as I hold, creation some 6,000 years ago, does fit well with the Word, our creeds and confessions and does mean I get ridiculed by many peers and colleagues in our denomination. No matter. I'd rather seek peace with God and His Word than hold to a false peace with the world. I am appealing for Christians to get more widely read. To read the work of scientists who are Young Earth Creationists and then evaluate their work against the work of others. See how we can truly test the spirits of this age. Shalom.

I was too curious and wanted to try Robinson buckler then i contacted him through his email, he assured me 100% that he will heal me, i pleaded with him to help me out. My experience with him was great, he healed me just as he promised. he sent me his medication and ask me to go for a medical check up after two weeks of usage. i agreed with him i took this medication and went for a check up, to my greatest surprise my result was negative, i am really happy that i am cured and healthy again. I have waited for 3weeks to be very sure i was completely healed before writing this testimony. I did another blood test one week ago and it was still Herpes negative. so i guess its time i recommend anyone going through the same way. reach him through his email address: Email:  Robinsonbuckler11@gmail. [email protected]

[Arthritis]

[Herpes]

[Love spell to get Ex back]

[The Opioid Epidemic]

[Stroke]

[Obesity]

[Infertility/Impotency]

[Eye Problem]

[Fibroid Tumor]

[Enlarge Prostate]

[Weak erection]