Roger, it is interesting how you make adamant extended statements about what I believe based on so little evidence. But I understand you are doing this in order to find out how I will respond. My basic response is that sometimes we over-doctrinalize things. By that I mean that we make definitive distinctions that scripture does not make. For example, we are saved by faith. Jesus even said to at least one individual that her faith had saved her. The epistles also say the same thing. Not saved by works. But James clears up how works fits with faith. We can only show our faith by our works. (The woman whose faith had saved her, had annointed Jesus with oil.) Abraham was justified by his obedience, which came from his faith. No works, no obedience, means no faith. Beyond that, we should be careful not to make more definitive statements than what scripture makes.
Bible is also clear that we are sinners. Psalms say there is no one without sin. Paul says he was controlled by the sinful nature. But God's spirit changes that nature. To talk about this in the abstract is sometimes interesting, but is not valuable as applying it to your own life. The question is not how many people has God saved. The question is: do you love God? If you love God, then you know you belong to Him, that God loves you, and you know that you want to do what God desires.
The mystery of whether God chooses us in spite of our rejection of Him, or because of our love for Him, or both, or either, is not something that we need to butt heads about. The difference between reformed thinking and free-willism is not as big as some like to make it to be. Left to ourselves we all sin. We all deserve judgement. We all have a tendency and an inclination to reject God. With God's grace, with God's spirit, we can love God and live for God. The details are mysterious. Some people accept Jesus quickly and willingly while others fight, kicking and screaming before they accept him. Others reject Christ until the day they die. Our job is to accept Christ, and then to share Christ. To give God the glory and not take the glory for ourselves.
If scripture speaks of this relationship between God and the believer in different ways, then we should not deny our ability to speak of it in different ways.
We cannot save ourselves by blaming God for our own sin. We cannot save ourselves by our own good works. We must accept Christ, and then acknowledge that it is a free gift, including even the faith to accept.
Ephesians 1 gives God the glory for our salvation, and for granting his spirit. Even blaming God for not saving everyone is a backwards way of praising God for saving some. Suppose he had saved no one? But the mystery and uncertainty of not fully understanding God's mind is not something we will solve on this side of heaven.
When you say I don't like this or that about scripture, you are mistaken. I don't say I like this or don't like that about what scripture says or about what Jesus says or what the epistles say. What it says is what it says and I simply try to understand it, or at least accept it. When it says seemingly contradictory things, I believe these things fit together in a comprehensive whole. I do not claim to have more wisdom than God. I certainly do not have the authority nor even the ability to judge God. So if I did not like something that Jesus said, that would be an indictment against me, not against Jesus, nor against scripture.
So you ask me, "what makes you think that God created all there is, including our world...". My question to you is this: do you think God is the creator? Did he create everything? Did someone else create some of it? Did it create itself? Are you concerned about whether God is the creator, or about how he created?
Thanks for your replies, Edwin. Developmentalism. That is what you believe in... apparently. Hmm. See I believe that God develops things, and we develop things... but I believe not in developmentalism. I believe in God and trust scripture.
Although the renaissance did believe in enlightenment, but that did not have much to do with God's purpose, but rather with a humanistic approach to life.
So you believe in sin... but have difficulty explaining it, if it is simply a natural outworking of evolution which god used to create. How could you say that sin is not just a human construct? Why is sin not just the natural impulses of the evolutionary process? And if it is, why would god want us to change these predatory impulses? The predatory impulses which he created? (I mean lying, stealing, lusting, adultery, cheating, killing....)
The reason why distinguishing evolution and naturalism is significant, is that naturalism implies that God has nothing to do with evolution. On the other hand, if God does have something to do with evolution, then you need to ask what and how. Because evolution certainly defines sin differently than God does.
You say that Jesus now sits at the right hand of the Father. That he is ruling in the world. Where do you think he was sitting when the world was created? When you attribute progress or "more just" to Canada and USA and Europe (presumably) than Egypt and Greece and Rome I would agree that you are possibly right. But the issue is not developmentalism. The issue is God's grace and the witness of Christians. For example, the abolition of slavery in the USA and the destruction of the slave trade in Britain. Mostly motivated by christian men. But keep in mind, the USA was already a country for almost 100 years before that, and settled as colonies 200 years before that. And not by barbarian hordes.
Anyway, it is not in citing examples of this and that, which we can prove progress or not. One nuclear bomb seems to outweigh a lot of progress, especially since it is part of the progress. Scripture is a better guide. And scripture promises times of blessing, and a time when Satan is released, that great beast. It also promises a judgement of those who disobey God. It also promises that there will be a time when no one has to teach his neighbor about God or salvation, because everyone will already know. But this seems to be heaven itself. There is no sense of an evolutionary process leading us to become better. Rather there is a declaration of needing faith and God's spirit, not to evolve, but to become new. To be born again.
Thanks for your reply. At least we are beginning to understand you.
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?
What I mean by faith in evolution, Roger, is that people believe in it whether they understand it or not, and whether they can prove it scientifically or not. Whether evolutionists are atheists or not, they generally examine and assume evolution from the perspective that God does not influence it. Evolution is primarily history, paleo and geological history. Evolutionists will say that God has no direct involvement; this is an atheistic position, even if the evolutionists themselves are deists. It's like saying that everything that happened to King David, or Pharaoh, or Jesus, was just an accident of history. That God had no purpose in it. That God also does not do miracles, nor does his spirit influence anyone. It's that type of atheistic mindset that says that there really was no flood caused by God, and that destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was no act of God.
I am somewhat willing to stretch the length of days before the sun and moon became visible on Day 4, because of the possibility that it does not violate scripture itself. If a day was really long (measured in hours or by an atomic clock) because the earth was not spinning, or for some other reason, it would still be a day by an evening and morning. Think of a space ship beyond earth's horizon, which does not experience a morning and evening. But that is different to me than saying that millions of days or years happened during that period. I am willing to stretch the length of days if the evidence requires it, which it may not do when we fully understand what the physics is telling us. But extending the length or number of days after animals and fish and birds and man were created seems to me to violate the principle of the good creation in scripture and negate the entire point of the genesis story.
Speculating on the first few days of creation in the genesis account, we see that the earth was there, but had no viable form, and was dark. Then light was created, which we could say perhaps was the source of stars of the universe, and a source of day and night for the earth. The earth then became divided into waters above and waters below, the appearance of an atmosphere. Still no land. The third day, dry ground appeared, a very dramatic physical thing. Presumably mountains, valleys, seas, oceans. A major shift of elements and rocks. Before this, just water. After this, land. Was this associated with a difference in the properties of the earth such as its rotation, polar angles, etc.? The same day, we get seeds and plants and trees, presumably at the end of this day. The fourth day, separate lights, the lights that we identify today with day and night, ie. sun and moon and stars. We had light before, but now the lights are separated into distinct bodies such as sun and stars, and reflected on the moon and other planets. This is speculation, and could be totally out, or partially out as far as trying to find a naturalistic explanation. Whether God sent another planet or star to collide and cause the earth to begin its rotation and orbit, or whether He simply touched the earth with his finger to make it spin... well, we don't know.
But we do know that seeds and plants needed to be directly created, because they could not create themselves. Science tells us they cannot create themselves. We know that fish and birds and reptiles and other animals needed to be created, because they could not and cannot create themselves, not even by accident. There is no reasonable naturalistic explanation for how they came about. Once they came about, they seem to be able to change a bit, but not in a grand evolutionary sense. And scripture is pretty clear that God created man from the dust of the earth, not from some animal. God used some of the same principles for creating man, that he used for creating mammals. He used nervous systems, blood, endoskeleton, dna, and bimodal principles. But again, similarity of design does not mean similarity or inheritance of origin.
Jonathan Sarfati wrote a book called, "Refuting Compromise" which you might want to read if you are really interested in pursuing this idea of theistic evolution. It will probably clarify the difficulties.
In my perception, it is ironic, Edwin, that on the one hand, in your world, Adam never existed, yet on the other hand, God still spoke. As your own arbiter of what to accept and what not to accept in scripture, it is difficult to carry on a rational discussion. By your standards it would be as easy for me to deny that God spoke at all. Especially that he spoke creation into existence, which you seem to deny anyway. (or are you now suggesting a punctuated equilibrium? or God of the gaps?).
It sometimes seems that the strongest believers in raw evolution theory are those who do the least examination of the empirical difficulties with it.
Scientists who study origins without considering God' s word, and His role, just might be the same as a mechanic trying to understand an engine without considering the fuel that makes it meaningful Just because they are studying God's world, does not mean they are listening to God, anymore than a teenager riding a God-created horse down a God-created trail to a God-created stream is listening to God. Although scripture does say that even those who have not heard of Christ are still without excuse before God, because they can see God's hand in the world around them, if their hearts are open.
Thanks for your reply. You admit you are not a scientist. I have said many times before, and now again, that it is interesting how strongly those who have the least understanding of science are often the strongest defenders of evolution. My scientific ambition is not to disprove evolution. I will leave that to others. My objective is simply to open minds to the possibility that macro-evolution is a myth. Based on observable scientific evidence. And based on the lack of evidence to demonstrate macro-evolution "microbes to microbiologist". In any case, regardless of length of days, and regardless of age of the earth, evidence is required beyond coincidence and beyond conjecture to support evolution. The number of transition fossils should outnumber the number of defined species, due to the numbers required statistically to get evolution to work. We don't find that. We have also found that just because animals were absent in the fossil record doesn't mean they were absent in real life; so that is a problem for saying both when they appeared and when they disappeared or became extinct. Genetic similarities are just as much an argument for common design, as for common descent, so they don't provide proof of macro evolution.
There are many other reasons for not trusting the theory of evolution which I will not get into. However, you can check creation. com, answers in genesis, and Ian Juby's Genesis Week for more scientific explanations of why evolutionary theory is suspect. They are all available on the web, and present dozens of scientific reasons for distrusting evolutionary theory.
Keep in mind also that one of the great inhibitions for many to accept Christ is his scientific claim of rising miraculously from the dead. Scientific because it was observed by many people, and because he demonstrated that he could eat and drink afterwards. Miraculous because it is against the normal reality of death, which is irrevocable. And that's the wonder isn't it? The God who created the universe is not bound by the normal limitations He has put on it.
Edwin, it is immaterial to me whether you consider yourself liberal or conservative, and it is useless to me for you to consider me ultra-conservative, or ultra-liberal. Neither terms explains anything in the context. Rather, I take scripture fairly literally, the way it was intended. But I also understand science and understand nature fairly well. I have attended churches of more than 15 denominations, and have found brothers in Christ in all of them. I love to listen and sing to Christian music of almost all genres, and I enjoy all types of instruments in church. I have serious issues with the way the church order is written, and would be considered liberal on that topic. I absolutely detest being put into a box such as liberal or conservative, since it is not the point. I think theological positions are not dated or outdated, but rather they are scriptural or they are not. I find your understanding of theology as a mixture of Jewish and pagan Greek philosophy rather sad. Since I have taken philosophy courses for three years in university, both secular and Christian, I understand a bit of it. Just because there are some similarities in some ideas, doesn't mean that what scripture says, or what theology has said, is in fact a mixture of it. Rather, it could as easily be that what people see through a glass dimly in pagan philosophy, is actually a blurred observation of some of the ways God has revealed himself. Rather than saying that the pagan blind man sees the leg of the elephant, and that therefore the Christian who sees the elephant has adopted pagan vision when he too sees the leg of the elephant....
So if you are truly interested in educating yourself about evolution, why don't you watch the latest issue of Juby's youtube video on the whale and the cow, and vestigal organs, and what evolution has done with them? www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFchbdbQEA4&feature=youtu.be&a
Edwin, yes, I am throwing some science at you, because you said you believed in listening to God's word in nature, yes? How will you listen, if you don't? If ATP, and ribosomes, and the smallest cells, cannot be created thru evolution, then what can evolution do? In your idea of God-directed evolution, you have not explained what it is. I suspect you think that because their is natural selection of a sort, and because there are mutations, and because deep-time is postulated, that evolution must have happened. But none of these things are evolution by themselves. They can all exist outside of evolution. Evolution requires the undirected, random mutations adapting over time, genomes aquiring increase in size and information, and creating progressively more complex species thru time. God-directed evolution is somewhat of a misnomer, because it implies that God interferes in the randomness, and in the rate and type of mutations, to make huge improbable leaps. If that is possible, then essentially you are saying that things were created simply by God creating a new being with a new genome, all things after their kind, which is what scripture says. But that is not evolution.
In order to know whether your insights are valid, wouldn't you subject them to scrutiny? That would make sense, wouldn't it...?
Thanks for your reply on the theological problems.
As for Adam, it seems you insist that there is no lack of credibility of a type, if the type is not real. To me there is a lack of credibility. It would be like saying that you are following the teachings and person of an imaginary person. Yes?
If Adam didn't exist... like saying you are the third Edwin Walhout in this discussion... oops, I will have to quickly pseudonym another character to be the first. And then how would you respond?
How do you know the things in Genesis 3 are symbolic? or symbolic only? What evidence or proof do you have? I agree there is some symbolism attached, but does that make them only symbolic, or can they also be real?
Okay, interesting... you say that we all make the same choice as Adam and Eve (who are symbolic and unreal, according to you, and merely represent mankind). Yes there is a type of analogy there. But how do you know we all make the same choice as Adam and Eve? And if the choice Adam and Eve made was just symbolic and not real, how do we know that our choices are also just symbolic, and not real?
I am glad to hear that you do not have faith in evolution after all. It would definately let you down, since it changes every day.
It seems to me that when you say that God created the world developmentally, who could argue with that? Of course the world is developing, changing. We know climates have changed in the past. We know the flood was a huge developmental event, as was the spreading of people after the tower of Babel. We know nations come and go. We know Jesus was the fullfillment of prophecy; He came, he taught, died, rose again, and ascended to heaven, and will return again. All this could be termed developmental. But it doesn't have much to do with evolution. Again, I am glad to hear that you don't believe in evolution. Sometimes it sounds like you do.
The truth is that the Bible says that Adam and Eve were real, created, talked with God, and were the ancestors of all people. That's the truth. Not my truth, but the Bible's truth. The other bible writers believed it. Jesus believed it. the new testament epistles believed it.
Sorry to give you a hard time on some of these questions. Your article upset some of my kids who saw it, and basically came down to them thinking that the crc is advocating that the bible is made of fables rather than truth.
Roger, I appreciate your interest and involvement. It gave me an excuse to gather my thoughts, and additional incentive to read and understand the book I am reading, and now almost completed. I agree it can be wearying, even while challenging to engage on this topic.
I do not put much stock in my own speculations.... I only put it forward to demonstrate what it means to take scripture at face value, while still considering scientific observations. I think it is entirely possible that God created the visibility of light at great distance from the source, at the same time as the source was created. I think the appearance of time when it comes to starlight is also just as legitimate as my previous speculation. But I don't think it impacts who God is the way the theory of evolution impacts the character of God.
Your comment on secondary causation ... is too much being made of it? I don't know, but when people suppose that Jesus didn't do miracles, or that Elijah and Peter did not raise someone from the dead, they do that because they don't believe God has the power to create miracles (going outside natural laws). Evolutionary theory exhibits the same unbelief.
Ironically, it would take a real miracle for evolution to happen.
Like you, I think enough has been said. I may add one comment later when I have read the last chapter of the book, which is on the relationship of human nature to the theory of evolution. But that's it..
Thanks for being considerate and charitable in your comments, Roger. All the best.
Roger, I appreciate your comments, and I think I understand what you are saying. Many/most of your comments in the first two paragraphs I agree with... particularly the questions about how do we decide when the spirit was leading in understanding of scripture. That is a conundrum. I understand your comments about the seeming divergence between Jesus and Paul. I certainly see a difference in emphasis between the two dominant themes as you suggest. However, the two themes are brought together. They are brought together in James, and in the epistles of John. They are also brought together by remembering Jesus saying to the woman who annointed him, "Your faith has saved you" (not her action, not her works). Also Jesus said, that many would say, " 21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’ They prophecied, drove out demons and performed miracles. Are these not good works? Yes, they are somewhat rituals, and yet Jesus disciples did them too, and Jesus did not condemn them. In fact, he several times said to them, oh ye of little faith...
In other words, I think James does not indicate that we are saved by a faith in works. Nor does Jesus indicate this. Rather the faith must be evidenced in works, but the faith is in Jesus, in God, not in the works themselves. An analogy: someone who cooks, may provide food for many people in a restaurant, so that he can get paid. does he do it for love of the people in the restaurant? Yet, he cooks for love of his wife and children, so that he can buy food for them, and perhaps cooks it. Works done to earn salvation, and not done for love will in fact not earn salvation. And works done for love will also not earn salvation, but do prove the love which Jesus seeks. That is what the gospel of Christ says.
Luther was mainly irritated by James because of the context in which he lived. He had been trying to earn his salvation by being good, being a priest, visiting the relics, suffering, doing penance, obeying all the commands. When he realized the magnificence of grace, the reminders of his former life were difficult for him.
As far as the evolution discussion is concerned, for me the issue is not the six day thing. It is the issue of evolution. The six day thing is only pertinent in terms of how it affects evolution. Even though the way scripture talks about days as having a morning and evening, and the sense of the word seems to mean a literal not figurative day, even so, if a day was longer, having millions of hours, or if it somehow consisted of eons of time, that does not really change how God says he made man from the dust of the earth, and woman from man's rib. It does not change the fact of creating each species or kind separately from similar building blocks of carbon and proteins and amino acids and DNA. It does not automatically require that evolution must have happened just because of long periods of time.
In this video, Juby also explains how evolutionary thought has hindered true science in the understanding of vestigial organs. You seem to keep repeating that there is no evidence. But evidence not seen, does not mean that there is no evidence. The eyes need to be open to see it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFchbdbQEA4 Season 4, Episode 2. of Genesis Week.
You are right it is primary to consider what God is saying to us. But it is debatable that what you are looking at is from God. It is debatable what is "moving ahead" and what is moving backwards, or regressing. The world today often thinks that homosex is a completely natural activity, for example. I would characterize that not as moving ahead, but as regressing to a more primitive state. The world often wants to promote that all religions and values are equal in value; this is not "moving ahead" but moving sideways into an absurdity.
During the rennaissance, many enlightened philosophers were heralded as leaders and "lights" of the day. Many were atheists, agnostics or mere spiritualists. They were thought to be moving ahead, but in fact were often moving backwards to greek philsophy or semblances of it, and side stepping God's authority of creation and redemption of our daily lives. Some of them planted seeds that led to eugenics, and ethnic cleansing, and to racial superiority. Racial superiority is a direct natural consequence of the theory of evolution. Is this what we are moving forward to?
Psychologists consider themselves scientists as well, and have in the past often promoted certain behavioural and psychological theories which have done great harm to individuals as well as to society as a whole.
I'm a scientist too. I have some understanding of what kinds of evidence are required for a theory to stand up against challenges. I have a reasonably good understanding of C14 half lifes, and understand how similar principles apply to K-Ar, and other rock-dating methods, etc. I have seen fossils of pachyrhinosaurus being excavated. I understand genetics enough to understand selection of characteristics through heredity, and I have some cursory understanding of various types of GMO and GEO. I understand technological progress and development in the areas of direct seeding, GPS plant protection and nutrient management, robotic milkers, real-time moisture monitoring, 4-R method of crop nutrient management. I understand that some soils have declined in quality, while other soils have improved in quality in the last fifty years due to improved understanding and management. To suggest that I want to close my ears is ludicrous. Might I ask if you have really checked out and come to grips with the scientific objections to the "grand theory of evolution"? I mean scientific objections, not scriptural objections. Or perhaps it is you who wants to close your ears?
Posted in: My Banner Article
Roger, it is interesting how you make adamant extended statements about what I believe based on so little evidence. But I understand you are doing this in order to find out how I will respond. My basic response is that sometimes we over-doctrinalize things. By that I mean that we make definitive distinctions that scripture does not make. For example, we are saved by faith. Jesus even said to at least one individual that her faith had saved her. The epistles also say the same thing. Not saved by works. But James clears up how works fits with faith. We can only show our faith by our works. (The woman whose faith had saved her, had annointed Jesus with oil.) Abraham was justified by his obedience, which came from his faith. No works, no obedience, means no faith. Beyond that, we should be careful not to make more definitive statements than what scripture makes.
Bible is also clear that we are sinners. Psalms say there is no one without sin. Paul says he was controlled by the sinful nature. But God's spirit changes that nature. To talk about this in the abstract is sometimes interesting, but is not valuable as applying it to your own life. The question is not how many people has God saved. The question is: do you love God? If you love God, then you know you belong to Him, that God loves you, and you know that you want to do what God desires.
The mystery of whether God chooses us in spite of our rejection of Him, or because of our love for Him, or both, or either, is not something that we need to butt heads about. The difference between reformed thinking and free-willism is not as big as some like to make it to be. Left to ourselves we all sin. We all deserve judgement. We all have a tendency and an inclination to reject God. With God's grace, with God's spirit, we can love God and live for God. The details are mysterious. Some people accept Jesus quickly and willingly while others fight, kicking and screaming before they accept him. Others reject Christ until the day they die. Our job is to accept Christ, and then to share Christ. To give God the glory and not take the glory for ourselves.
If scripture speaks of this relationship between God and the believer in different ways, then we should not deny our ability to speak of it in different ways.
We cannot save ourselves by blaming God for our own sin. We cannot save ourselves by our own good works. We must accept Christ, and then acknowledge that it is a free gift, including even the faith to accept.
Ephesians 1 gives God the glory for our salvation, and for granting his spirit. Even blaming God for not saving everyone is a backwards way of praising God for saving some. Suppose he had saved no one? But the mystery and uncertainty of not fully understanding God's mind is not something we will solve on this side of heaven.
When you say I don't like this or that about scripture, you are mistaken. I don't say I like this or don't like that about what scripture says or about what Jesus says or what the epistles say. What it says is what it says and I simply try to understand it, or at least accept it. When it says seemingly contradictory things, I believe these things fit together in a comprehensive whole. I do not claim to have more wisdom than God. I certainly do not have the authority nor even the ability to judge God. So if I did not like something that Jesus said, that would be an indictment against me, not against Jesus, nor against scripture.
So you ask me, "what makes you think that God created all there is, including our world...". My question to you is this: do you think God is the creator? Did he create everything? Did someone else create some of it? Did it create itself? Are you concerned about whether God is the creator, or about how he created?
Posted in: My Banner Article
Thanks for your replies, Edwin. Developmentalism. That is what you believe in... apparently. Hmm. See I believe that God develops things, and we develop things... but I believe not in developmentalism. I believe in God and trust scripture.
Although the renaissance did believe in enlightenment, but that did not have much to do with God's purpose, but rather with a humanistic approach to life.
So you believe in sin... but have difficulty explaining it, if it is simply a natural outworking of evolution which god used to create. How could you say that sin is not just a human construct? Why is sin not just the natural impulses of the evolutionary process? And if it is, why would god want us to change these predatory impulses? The predatory impulses which he created? (I mean lying, stealing, lusting, adultery, cheating, killing....)
The reason why distinguishing evolution and naturalism is significant, is that naturalism implies that God has nothing to do with evolution. On the other hand, if God does have something to do with evolution, then you need to ask what and how. Because evolution certainly defines sin differently than God does.
You say that Jesus now sits at the right hand of the Father. That he is ruling in the world. Where do you think he was sitting when the world was created? When you attribute progress or "more just" to Canada and USA and Europe (presumably) than Egypt and Greece and Rome I would agree that you are possibly right. But the issue is not developmentalism. The issue is God's grace and the witness of Christians. For example, the abolition of slavery in the USA and the destruction of the slave trade in Britain. Mostly motivated by christian men. But keep in mind, the USA was already a country for almost 100 years before that, and settled as colonies 200 years before that. And not by barbarian hordes.
Anyway, it is not in citing examples of this and that, which we can prove progress or not. One nuclear bomb seems to outweigh a lot of progress, especially since it is part of the progress. Scripture is a better guide. And scripture promises times of blessing, and a time when Satan is released, that great beast. It also promises a judgement of those who disobey God. It also promises that there will be a time when no one has to teach his neighbor about God or salvation, because everyone will already know. But this seems to be heaven itself. There is no sense of an evolutionary process leading us to become better. Rather there is a declaration of needing faith and God's spirit, not to evolve, but to become new. To be born again.
Thanks for your reply. At least we are beginning to understand you.
Posted in: My Banner Article
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?
Posted in: My Banner Article
What I mean by faith in evolution, Roger, is that people believe in it whether they understand it or not, and whether they can prove it scientifically or not. Whether evolutionists are atheists or not, they generally examine and assume evolution from the perspective that God does not influence it. Evolution is primarily history, paleo and geological history. Evolutionists will say that God has no direct involvement; this is an atheistic position, even if the evolutionists themselves are deists. It's like saying that everything that happened to King David, or Pharaoh, or Jesus, was just an accident of history. That God had no purpose in it. That God also does not do miracles, nor does his spirit influence anyone. It's that type of atheistic mindset that says that there really was no flood caused by God, and that destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was no act of God.
I am somewhat willing to stretch the length of days before the sun and moon became visible on Day 4, because of the possibility that it does not violate scripture itself. If a day was really long (measured in hours or by an atomic clock) because the earth was not spinning, or for some other reason, it would still be a day by an evening and morning. Think of a space ship beyond earth's horizon, which does not experience a morning and evening. But that is different to me than saying that millions of days or years happened during that period. I am willing to stretch the length of days if the evidence requires it, which it may not do when we fully understand what the physics is telling us. But extending the length or number of days after animals and fish and birds and man were created seems to me to violate the principle of the good creation in scripture and negate the entire point of the genesis story.
Speculating on the first few days of creation in the genesis account, we see that the earth was there, but had no viable form, and was dark. Then light was created, which we could say perhaps was the source of stars of the universe, and a source of day and night for the earth. The earth then became divided into waters above and waters below, the appearance of an atmosphere. Still no land. The third day, dry ground appeared, a very dramatic physical thing. Presumably mountains, valleys, seas, oceans. A major shift of elements and rocks. Before this, just water. After this, land. Was this associated with a difference in the properties of the earth such as its rotation, polar angles, etc.? The same day, we get seeds and plants and trees, presumably at the end of this day. The fourth day, separate lights, the lights that we identify today with day and night, ie. sun and moon and stars. We had light before, but now the lights are separated into distinct bodies such as sun and stars, and reflected on the moon and other planets. This is speculation, and could be totally out, or partially out as far as trying to find a naturalistic explanation. Whether God sent another planet or star to collide and cause the earth to begin its rotation and orbit, or whether He simply touched the earth with his finger to make it spin... well, we don't know.
But we do know that seeds and plants needed to be directly created, because they could not create themselves. Science tells us they cannot create themselves. We know that fish and birds and reptiles and other animals needed to be created, because they could not and cannot create themselves, not even by accident. There is no reasonable naturalistic explanation for how they came about. Once they came about, they seem to be able to change a bit, but not in a grand evolutionary sense. And scripture is pretty clear that God created man from the dust of the earth, not from some animal. God used some of the same principles for creating man, that he used for creating mammals. He used nervous systems, blood, endoskeleton, dna, and bimodal principles. But again, similarity of design does not mean similarity or inheritance of origin.
Jonathan Sarfati wrote a book called, "Refuting Compromise" which you might want to read if you are really interested in pursuing this idea of theistic evolution. It will probably clarify the difficulties.
Posted in: My Banner Article
In my perception, it is ironic, Edwin, that on the one hand, in your world, Adam never existed, yet on the other hand, God still spoke. As your own arbiter of what to accept and what not to accept in scripture, it is difficult to carry on a rational discussion. By your standards it would be as easy for me to deny that God spoke at all. Especially that he spoke creation into existence, which you seem to deny anyway. (or are you now suggesting a punctuated equilibrium? or God of the gaps?).
It sometimes seems that the strongest believers in raw evolution theory are those who do the least examination of the empirical difficulties with it.
Scientists who study origins without considering God' s word, and His role, just might be the same as a mechanic trying to understand an engine without considering the fuel that makes it meaningful Just because they are studying God's world, does not mean they are listening to God, anymore than a teenager riding a God-created horse down a God-created trail to a God-created stream is listening to God. Although scripture does say that even those who have not heard of Christ are still without excuse before God, because they can see God's hand in the world around them, if their hearts are open.
Posted in: My Banner Article
Thanks for your reply. You admit you are not a scientist. I have said many times before, and now again, that it is interesting how strongly those who have the least understanding of science are often the strongest defenders of evolution. My scientific ambition is not to disprove evolution. I will leave that to others. My objective is simply to open minds to the possibility that macro-evolution is a myth. Based on observable scientific evidence. And based on the lack of evidence to demonstrate macro-evolution "microbes to microbiologist". In any case, regardless of length of days, and regardless of age of the earth, evidence is required beyond coincidence and beyond conjecture to support evolution. The number of transition fossils should outnumber the number of defined species, due to the numbers required statistically to get evolution to work. We don't find that. We have also found that just because animals were absent in the fossil record doesn't mean they were absent in real life; so that is a problem for saying both when they appeared and when they disappeared or became extinct. Genetic similarities are just as much an argument for common design, as for common descent, so they don't provide proof of macro evolution.
There are many other reasons for not trusting the theory of evolution which I will not get into. However, you can check creation. com, answers in genesis, and Ian Juby's Genesis Week for more scientific explanations of why evolutionary theory is suspect. They are all available on the web, and present dozens of scientific reasons for distrusting evolutionary theory.
Keep in mind also that one of the great inhibitions for many to accept Christ is his scientific claim of rising miraculously from the dead. Scientific because it was observed by many people, and because he demonstrated that he could eat and drink afterwards. Miraculous because it is against the normal reality of death, which is irrevocable. And that's the wonder isn't it? The God who created the universe is not bound by the normal limitations He has put on it.
All the best to you.
Posted in: My Banner Article
Edwin, it is immaterial to me whether you consider yourself liberal or conservative, and it is useless to me for you to consider me ultra-conservative, or ultra-liberal. Neither terms explains anything in the context. Rather, I take scripture fairly literally, the way it was intended. But I also understand science and understand nature fairly well. I have attended churches of more than 15 denominations, and have found brothers in Christ in all of them. I love to listen and sing to Christian music of almost all genres, and I enjoy all types of instruments in church. I have serious issues with the way the church order is written, and would be considered liberal on that topic. I absolutely detest being put into a box such as liberal or conservative, since it is not the point. I think theological positions are not dated or outdated, but rather they are scriptural or they are not. I find your understanding of theology as a mixture of Jewish and pagan Greek philosophy rather sad. Since I have taken philosophy courses for three years in university, both secular and Christian, I understand a bit of it. Just because there are some similarities in some ideas, doesn't mean that what scripture says, or what theology has said, is in fact a mixture of it. Rather, it could as easily be that what people see through a glass dimly in pagan philosophy, is actually a blurred observation of some of the ways God has revealed himself. Rather than saying that the pagan blind man sees the leg of the elephant, and that therefore the Christian who sees the elephant has adopted pagan vision when he too sees the leg of the elephant....
So if you are truly interested in educating yourself about evolution, why don't you watch the latest issue of Juby's youtube video on the whale and the cow, and vestigal organs, and what evolution has done with them? www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFchbdbQEA4&feature=youtu.be&a
Posted in: My Banner Article
Edwin, yes, I am throwing some science at you, because you said you believed in listening to God's word in nature, yes? How will you listen, if you don't? If ATP, and ribosomes, and the smallest cells, cannot be created thru evolution, then what can evolution do? In your idea of God-directed evolution, you have not explained what it is. I suspect you think that because their is natural selection of a sort, and because there are mutations, and because deep-time is postulated, that evolution must have happened. But none of these things are evolution by themselves. They can all exist outside of evolution. Evolution requires the undirected, random mutations adapting over time, genomes aquiring increase in size and information, and creating progressively more complex species thru time. God-directed evolution is somewhat of a misnomer, because it implies that God interferes in the randomness, and in the rate and type of mutations, to make huge improbable leaps. If that is possible, then essentially you are saying that things were created simply by God creating a new being with a new genome, all things after their kind, which is what scripture says. But that is not evolution.
In order to know whether your insights are valid, wouldn't you subject them to scrutiny? That would make sense, wouldn't it...?
Thanks for your reply on the theological problems.
As for Adam, it seems you insist that there is no lack of credibility of a type, if the type is not real. To me there is a lack of credibility. It would be like saying that you are following the teachings and person of an imaginary person. Yes?
If Adam didn't exist... like saying you are the third Edwin Walhout in this discussion... oops, I will have to quickly pseudonym another character to be the first. And then how would you respond?
How do you know the things in Genesis 3 are symbolic? or symbolic only? What evidence or proof do you have? I agree there is some symbolism attached, but does that make them only symbolic, or can they also be real?
Okay, interesting... you say that we all make the same choice as Adam and Eve (who are symbolic and unreal, according to you, and merely represent mankind). Yes there is a type of analogy there. But how do you know we all make the same choice as Adam and Eve? And if the choice Adam and Eve made was just symbolic and not real, how do we know that our choices are also just symbolic, and not real?
I am glad to hear that you do not have faith in evolution after all. It would definately let you down, since it changes every day.
It seems to me that when you say that God created the world developmentally, who could argue with that? Of course the world is developing, changing. We know climates have changed in the past. We know the flood was a huge developmental event, as was the spreading of people after the tower of Babel. We know nations come and go. We know Jesus was the fullfillment of prophecy; He came, he taught, died, rose again, and ascended to heaven, and will return again. All this could be termed developmental. But it doesn't have much to do with evolution. Again, I am glad to hear that you don't believe in evolution. Sometimes it sounds like you do.
The truth is that the Bible says that Adam and Eve were real, created, talked with God, and were the ancestors of all people. That's the truth. Not my truth, but the Bible's truth. The other bible writers believed it. Jesus believed it. the new testament epistles believed it.
Sorry to give you a hard time on some of these questions. Your article upset some of my kids who saw it, and basically came down to them thinking that the crc is advocating that the bible is made of fables rather than truth.
Sorry, never heard of Edwin Zylstra.
Posted in: My Banner Article
Roger, I appreciate your interest and involvement. It gave me an excuse to gather my thoughts, and additional incentive to read and understand the book I am reading, and now almost completed. I agree it can be wearying, even while challenging to engage on this topic.
I do not put much stock in my own speculations.... I only put it forward to demonstrate what it means to take scripture at face value, while still considering scientific observations. I think it is entirely possible that God created the visibility of light at great distance from the source, at the same time as the source was created. I think the appearance of time when it comes to starlight is also just as legitimate as my previous speculation. But I don't think it impacts who God is the way the theory of evolution impacts the character of God.
Your comment on secondary causation ... is too much being made of it? I don't know, but when people suppose that Jesus didn't do miracles, or that Elijah and Peter did not raise someone from the dead, they do that because they don't believe God has the power to create miracles (going outside natural laws). Evolutionary theory exhibits the same unbelief.
Ironically, it would take a real miracle for evolution to happen.
Like you, I think enough has been said. I may add one comment later when I have read the last chapter of the book, which is on the relationship of human nature to the theory of evolution. But that's it..
Thanks for being considerate and charitable in your comments, Roger. All the best.
Posted in: My Banner Article
Roger, I appreciate your comments, and I think I understand what you are saying. Many/most of your comments in the first two paragraphs I agree with... particularly the questions about how do we decide when the spirit was leading in understanding of scripture. That is a conundrum. I understand your comments about the seeming divergence between Jesus and Paul. I certainly see a difference in emphasis between the two dominant themes as you suggest. However, the two themes are brought together. They are brought together in James, and in the epistles of John. They are also brought together by remembering Jesus saying to the woman who annointed him, "Your faith has saved you" (not her action, not her works). Also Jesus said, that many would say, " 21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’ They prophecied, drove out demons and performed miracles. Are these not good works? Yes, they are somewhat rituals, and yet Jesus disciples did them too, and Jesus did not condemn them. In fact, he several times said to them, oh ye of little faith...
In other words, I think James does not indicate that we are saved by a faith in works. Nor does Jesus indicate this. Rather the faith must be evidenced in works, but the faith is in Jesus, in God, not in the works themselves. An analogy: someone who cooks, may provide food for many people in a restaurant, so that he can get paid. does he do it for love of the people in the restaurant? Yet, he cooks for love of his wife and children, so that he can buy food for them, and perhaps cooks it. Works done to earn salvation, and not done for love will in fact not earn salvation. And works done for love will also not earn salvation, but do prove the love which Jesus seeks. That is what the gospel of Christ says.
Luther was mainly irritated by James because of the context in which he lived. He had been trying to earn his salvation by being good, being a priest, visiting the relics, suffering, doing penance, obeying all the commands. When he realized the magnificence of grace, the reminders of his former life were difficult for him.
As far as the evolution discussion is concerned, for me the issue is not the six day thing. It is the issue of evolution. The six day thing is only pertinent in terms of how it affects evolution. Even though the way scripture talks about days as having a morning and evening, and the sense of the word seems to mean a literal not figurative day, even so, if a day was longer, having millions of hours, or if it somehow consisted of eons of time, that does not really change how God says he made man from the dust of the earth, and woman from man's rib. It does not change the fact of creating each species or kind separately from similar building blocks of carbon and proteins and amino acids and DNA. It does not automatically require that evolution must have happened just because of long periods of time.
In this video, Juby also explains how evolutionary thought has hindered true science in the understanding of vestigial organs. You seem to keep repeating that there is no evidence. But evidence not seen, does not mean that there is no evidence. The eyes need to be open to see it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFchbdbQEA4 Season 4, Episode 2. of Genesis Week.
Enjoying your questions and comments.
Posted in: My Banner Article
You are right it is primary to consider what God is saying to us. But it is debatable that what you are looking at is from God. It is debatable what is "moving ahead" and what is moving backwards, or regressing. The world today often thinks that homosex is a completely natural activity, for example. I would characterize that not as moving ahead, but as regressing to a more primitive state. The world often wants to promote that all religions and values are equal in value; this is not "moving ahead" but moving sideways into an absurdity.
During the rennaissance, many enlightened philosophers were heralded as leaders and "lights" of the day. Many were atheists, agnostics or mere spiritualists. They were thought to be moving ahead, but in fact were often moving backwards to greek philsophy or semblances of it, and side stepping God's authority of creation and redemption of our daily lives. Some of them planted seeds that led to eugenics, and ethnic cleansing, and to racial superiority. Racial superiority is a direct natural consequence of the theory of evolution. Is this what we are moving forward to?
Psychologists consider themselves scientists as well, and have in the past often promoted certain behavioural and psychological theories which have done great harm to individuals as well as to society as a whole.
I'm a scientist too. I have some understanding of what kinds of evidence are required for a theory to stand up against challenges. I have a reasonably good understanding of C14 half lifes, and understand how similar principles apply to K-Ar, and other rock-dating methods, etc. I have seen fossils of pachyrhinosaurus being excavated. I understand genetics enough to understand selection of characteristics through heredity, and I have some cursory understanding of various types of GMO and GEO. I understand technological progress and development in the areas of direct seeding, GPS plant protection and nutrient management, robotic milkers, real-time moisture monitoring, 4-R method of crop nutrient management. I understand that some soils have declined in quality, while other soils have improved in quality in the last fifty years due to improved understanding and management. To suggest that I want to close my ears is ludicrous. Might I ask if you have really checked out and come to grips with the scientific objections to the "grand theory of evolution"? I mean scientific objections, not scriptural objections. Or perhaps it is you who wants to close your ears?
Posted in: My Banner Article
Roger, what is your scientific evidence for God directed evolution?
What is your scriptural evidence for God directed evolution?