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.
Preaching should be about bringing the truth, repentance, salvation, and renewal into daily life. It is not about saying something "nice". Without condemning sin, there is no need for a Saviour. Whether obedience is presented from a positive or negative perspective, the implication of disobedience is the same. And certainly Peter condemned Annanias and Sapphira as deceivers and liars with dire consequences. Paul certainly told the Corinthians (I Cor 5) to cast out the sexually immoral person (and to forgive based on repentance). Revelations makes several judgements about the churches. But, be careful. Every elder, every christian needs to be careful about judging, because everyone can and will be judged. Judge with compassion and forgiveness. But do not think you are more compassionate or forgiving than the apostle Peter or Paul. Or more compassionate than Jesus, who condemned hypocrisy and impure hearts. Who told many parables about bearing fruit, or of using talents or minas given by God, who explained what would happen to the weeds, to the bad fish, and to the seed that fell on hard ground or was swallowed by weeds.
Warnings about sin, or about false teaching, are love gifts to God's people, to keep them close to God.
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?
Yes, as to your main point, God speaks to us thru creation, thru what is seen. It is for that reason that even those who have not heard the gospel, are still without excuse, as scriptures say. In other words, creation itself speaks of the majesty of God through its beauty, order, complexity, and magnificence. It amazes us! That should lead us to its creator and sustainer. So we need to ask why it amazes us. Why is God's goodness evident in it? Why is God's power evident in it?
I have a confusion and disunderstanding of your implication that God spoke things into existence while at the same time these things evolved from a spec of virtual nothingness. Perhaps it is a problem of communication, of using words differently, but it is like saying that mechanic built an engine, while all he did was purchase it and install it. or all he did was put fuel into tank. Your use of the terminology means that you are speaking an entirely different language.
So you can say you accept everything in scripture, but you are speaking a different language when you say that. You accept everything provided you can use a different connotation of the words? For example, you seem to imply that if Adam is identified as typology in Romans 5, that this is an argument against Adam being historical. There is no need for such a conclusion. Historical figures can obviously be typological as well; one does not exclude the other. It is an irrelevant point to the real item of discussion.
One main issue you seem to be stuck on is the false synonyms of science= evolution. They are not synonymous. Just as geo-centrism and science are not synonymous. The issue is not what science teaches, but whether evolution is scientifically proven. In addition, if you are insistent on reconciling this according to the prevailing consensus, simply because it is a prevailing consensus, how then will you reconcile the miracles in scripture, with "science"? How will you reconcile the resurrection which the prevailing science will reject?
Since I work in natural science, I ask you with no disrespect, how informed are you of the scientific objections to evolution theory? Are you familiar with the findings and evidence and interpretations of creation.com, answers in genesis, Walt Brown's book, Ian Juby's explanations of fossils and fossil layers? Are you aware that Darwin never published anything in a peer reviewed journal? Are you aware of the creation science journals? Are you aware of the antithesis imbedded in this whole discussion?
It seems to me that many people are aware that evolution leads naturally to theological revision of a major kind, but that such discussion is completely premature since evolution has so many scientific problems with it. Furthermore, the potential for evolution to co-exist at partial levels with major God-spoken initiatives in the creative process is rarely considered. So without understanding exactly what is proven and what is speculation, then any theological revision itself becomes mere useless speculation, likely (on theory of probability) based on half-truths or on complete falsehoods.
As an aside, it also seems to me that you are being "somewhat disrespectful" to Adam and Eve by suggesting they didn't exist. Also disrespectful to all the geneologies, and other scriptural references to Adam and Eve, including Romans 5. By implication also, if the first Adam didn't exist, then the second Adam also becomes somewhat anomalous or pointless, trying to solve a problem that doesn't really exist. And in that case, you are trying to really listen to physical reality while making scripture a mere sideline. I say this bluntly with candor.
The reality is that scientific endeavor has limitations. Historical science and the interpretation of fossils and age of rocks has even greater limitations. Unchallenged assumptions are a major stumblingblock. Christian scientists would do well to challenge those assumptions. Theologians with a marginal understanding of science should not inhibit these scientists, nor marginalize their efforts, merely on the basis of a naive unfettered belief in science, which in essence is merely the study of nature. Science is not lord over the creator of it.
And I should also have added what does Paul say on the other side of grace? He says, "Shall we sin more, so that grace may abound? By no means. " He often said that murderers, adulterers, sexually immoral, perjurers, thieves and lovers of money and others, would not inherit the kingdom of God. This seems to be works. But again, it needs to be put into context, and it is obvious to me that Paul and James are saying exactly the same thing.
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.
Roger, since according to natural laws, genetic difficulties, and lack of intermediaries, evolution does not seem to be scientifically possible, then for evolution to work, it would have to be intelligently directed, and virtually miraculous. Which you admit. So then if it happened, it did not happen thru the normal means and laws he created. So, how did God do it then?
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: Only Something Nice?
Preaching should be about bringing the truth, repentance, salvation, and renewal into daily life. It is not about saying something "nice". Without condemning sin, there is no need for a Saviour. Whether obedience is presented from a positive or negative perspective, the implication of disobedience is the same. And certainly Peter condemned Annanias and Sapphira as deceivers and liars with dire consequences. Paul certainly told the Corinthians (I Cor 5) to cast out the sexually immoral person (and to forgive based on repentance). Revelations makes several judgements about the churches. But, be careful. Every elder, every christian needs to be careful about judging, because everyone can and will be judged. Judge with compassion and forgiveness. But do not think you are more compassionate or forgiving than the apostle Peter or Paul. Or more compassionate than Jesus, who condemned hypocrisy and impure hearts. Who told many parables about bearing fruit, or of using talents or minas given by God, who explained what would happen to the weeds, to the bad fish, and to the seed that fell on hard ground or was swallowed by weeds.
Warnings about sin, or about false teaching, are love gifts to God's people, to keep them close to God.
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?
Posted in: My Banner Article
Edwin thanks for your response.
Yes, as to your main point, God speaks to us thru creation, thru what is seen. It is for that reason that even those who have not heard the gospel, are still without excuse, as scriptures say. In other words, creation itself speaks of the majesty of God through its beauty, order, complexity, and magnificence. It amazes us! That should lead us to its creator and sustainer. So we need to ask why it amazes us. Why is God's goodness evident in it? Why is God's power evident in it?
I have a confusion and disunderstanding of your implication that God spoke things into existence while at the same time these things evolved from a spec of virtual nothingness. Perhaps it is a problem of communication, of using words differently, but it is like saying that mechanic built an engine, while all he did was purchase it and install it. or all he did was put fuel into tank. Your use of the terminology means that you are speaking an entirely different language.
So you can say you accept everything in scripture, but you are speaking a different language when you say that. You accept everything provided you can use a different connotation of the words? For example, you seem to imply that if Adam is identified as typology in Romans 5, that this is an argument against Adam being historical. There is no need for such a conclusion. Historical figures can obviously be typological as well; one does not exclude the other. It is an irrelevant point to the real item of discussion.
One main issue you seem to be stuck on is the false synonyms of science= evolution. They are not synonymous. Just as geo-centrism and science are not synonymous. The issue is not what science teaches, but whether evolution is scientifically proven. In addition, if you are insistent on reconciling this according to the prevailing consensus, simply because it is a prevailing consensus, how then will you reconcile the miracles in scripture, with "science"? How will you reconcile the resurrection which the prevailing science will reject?
Since I work in natural science, I ask you with no disrespect, how informed are you of the scientific objections to evolution theory? Are you familiar with the findings and evidence and interpretations of creation.com, answers in genesis, Walt Brown's book, Ian Juby's explanations of fossils and fossil layers? Are you aware that Darwin never published anything in a peer reviewed journal? Are you aware of the creation science journals? Are you aware of the antithesis imbedded in this whole discussion?
It seems to me that many people are aware that evolution leads naturally to theological revision of a major kind, but that such discussion is completely premature since evolution has so many scientific problems with it. Furthermore, the potential for evolution to co-exist at partial levels with major God-spoken initiatives in the creative process is rarely considered. So without understanding exactly what is proven and what is speculation, then any theological revision itself becomes mere useless speculation, likely (on theory of probability) based on half-truths or on complete falsehoods.
As an aside, it also seems to me that you are being "somewhat disrespectful" to Adam and Eve by suggesting they didn't exist. Also disrespectful to all the geneologies, and other scriptural references to Adam and Eve, including Romans 5. By implication also, if the first Adam didn't exist, then the second Adam also becomes somewhat anomalous or pointless, trying to solve a problem that doesn't really exist. And in that case, you are trying to really listen to physical reality while making scripture a mere sideline. I say this bluntly with candor.
The reality is that scientific endeavor has limitations. Historical science and the interpretation of fossils and age of rocks has even greater limitations. Unchallenged assumptions are a major stumblingblock. Christian scientists would do well to challenge those assumptions. Theologians with a marginal understanding of science should not inhibit these scientists, nor marginalize their efforts, merely on the basis of a naive unfettered belief in science, which in essence is merely the study of nature. Science is not lord over the creator of it.
Posted in: My Banner Article
And I should also have added what does Paul say on the other side of grace? He says, "Shall we sin more, so that grace may abound? By no means. " He often said that murderers, adulterers, sexually immoral, perjurers, thieves and lovers of money and others, would not inherit the kingdom of God. This seems to be works. But again, it needs to be put into context, and it is obvious to me that Paul and James are saying exactly the same thing.
Posted in: My Banner Article
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.
Posted in: My Banner Article
Roger, since according to natural laws, genetic difficulties, and lack of intermediaries, evolution does not seem to be scientifically possible, then for evolution to work, it would have to be intelligently directed, and virtually miraculous. Which you admit. So then if it happened, it did not happen thru the normal means and laws he created. So, how did God do it then?