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?
Some churches start each service with the doxology. and why not? Give God the praise at the beginning and at the end, and in between! Let the angels rejoice with the one sinner who repents! Let Jesus smile on his holy children! Let the words of our mouth praise his Name!
In my experience, both reformed and baptists have said that God is sovereign. Both give God the credit for salvation in bringing it and providing it. Both give God the credit for connecting it, one says by determination, the other says by grace and gift of faith. It gets very close to semantics after that. It is in limiting God's choices and God's power, that they sometimes differ. One says God cannot be at the whim of man's choosing, so God determines. The other says that God cannot determine or force someone to love him, so man's voluntary choice is necessary. I say that God is all powerful so He can force someone to love him, if He wants. I also say that if God is all powerful, can He not allow people to make choices, if He wants? In any case, we have to live our lives, not God's life. God calls us to trust and obey, not to debate about whether we have a choice or not.
Edwin, thanks for the apology. So you admit lack of expertise in science… which is good, because even though I work in science, I do not claim to be an expert in all of these things. However, knowledge is constantly changing or enlarging and being refined. What you heard from a biologist about chimpanzees being 97% the same genetically as humans is dramatically wrong, for example. In 1975, they said that the dna sequence that could be compared was 99% identical. However, taking insertions and deletions into account, they share 96% of the sequence. In later work, the genomes were found to be 87% similar (Britten). However, what is not mentioned is that 35 million base pairs differ between the shared portions. In addition, the chimp genome actual size is about 8% larger than the human genome. After taking into account genome size, insertions, deletions, the starting point of 25% random similarity (because of only 4 bases), orthologous proteins, and structural differences, the conclusion is that the genomes are only about 70% similar.
As far as progress through history, I have no arguments that a certain progression takes place. The examples you cite in the old testament, are obviously God working with his people. The events are foretold and they come to pass (Jeremiah, Ezra, Nehemiah). God gave the Torah; it was not somehow randomly and accidentally arrived at. God sent Jesus; He was not a result of accidental mutations, selections and adaptations. So there is a big difference when God actively works with his people and his people respond in obedience, compared to some blind, accidental, random, and survivalist evolutionary progression.
There is no doubt, and I totally agree, that the gospel has a magnificent effect on social, governmental and educational activities in society. I just watched “Amish Grace” yesterday for example which demonstrates this clearly. But this is not a biological evolution. This is a spiritual renewal, a being born again, a dedication to God, and a fulfillment of God’s promise. It is wrong to conflate this with evolution in which God plays no visible role, or in which God cannot intervene.
Yes it is indeed God’s world, but the evolutionists from Darwin to Dawkins, would like to change that.
Edwin, I agree God is in control. Always, everywhere. Evolutionary theory does not agree with this, however. It assumes God does not exist. But the real point is whether God used evolutionary processes to create new species or kinds, or not. The point is not whether God is in control, since we agree on that.
If God used evolution to create, then God used death and destruction long before man came about, and therefore man's sin did not lead to death, nor was any curse on earth a result of man's sin, and nor did God punish mankind for its rebellion the way Genesis indicates. Cain's murder of Abel was a natural result of evolutionary processes rather than a sin meriting God's or man's disapproval. Therefore both the reality and the symbolism of this story is entirely lost. You have not dealt with these points.
I don't think I am emphasizing the negative really. Evolution seems to me to emphasize the negative... the accidental nature of progress, the huge amount of death and destruction required for change to happen, the lack of even attributing value to what happens, ie. the life of an ant, blade of grass, or amoeba is as valuable as the life of a man, in the evolutionary theory. That seems negative to me.
The age of the universe... why is this positive? Why are continental shifts, ice ages, etc., positive? Why is the similarity between humans and primates positive? Does it matter?
Why is it wrong to challenge the prevailing thoughts of the time? Why do you think this is negative, rather than positive? Was Darwin being negative in his time, by challenging the creation story as found in Genesis?
Theistic evolution is a theory trying to meld a theory that ignores God, with a faith in God as omnipotent. This is a tough challenge, but even if we can do it theoretically, it really needs to be verified scientifically.
So, for me, regardless of how I might want to interpret Genesis 1-3, the issue becomes one of looking at nature, and seeing whether there is another way to interpret the evidence of fossils, rock layers, genetics, and natural selection. These nine PhD scientists, and many others, are finding that there is another way to interpret them, and that in fact, the evidence does not consistently fit the theory of evolution. In fact, there are so many problems that evolution becomes an unworkable hypothesis. It doesn't even matter if a six day creation fits the evidence, since we can more and more clearly see that the general theory of evolution does not fit the evidence.
Some real questions: (Positive or negative)
Is it realistic to think that the Grand Canyon was created slowly over time, or quickly by drainage of a huge flooded basin?
Were evolutionary biologists like Haeckel mistaken or lying about the similarity of animal and human foetuses?
Were evolutionary paleontologists mistaken or lying about the categorization of human and "subhuman" fossil species?
If K_AR cannot reasonably accurately give the age of modern volcanic rock, can we still assume that they have made the right assumptions regarding measurements of "older" rock?
If dinosaurs are 65 million years old, can they still have stretchable organic tissue found in their bone fossils?
If layers of sediment represent millions of years of age, is it possible to have polystrate fossils imbedded thru several of these layers?
If mammal fossils or fish fossils are not found in certain rock layers, does that mean they did not exist when these layers were laid down?
These are just some starter questions; there are many more.
I promised to add a last post about the last chapter in "Evolution's Achilles Heels", Edited by Robert Carter, PhD, and published by Creation Book Publishers, of Powder Springs, Georgia, USA. The first seven chapters emphasize what they call fatal arrows in the achilles heel of the evolution theory. This last chapter deals with human response in the context of this theory, in terms of ethics and morality. So, some quotes below.
William Provine said, " ... my views on modern evolutionary biology ... tells us loud and clear, there are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. No life after death... no foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning for life, and no free will for humans, either."
Richard Dawkins: "I am a passionate Darwinian when it comes to science, when it comes to explaining the world, but I'm a passionate anti-Darwinian when it comes to morality and politics."
"If evolution is true, reasoning is just an epiphenomenon of the brain and the results of the laws of chemistry and random processes."
CS Lewis: If evolution is true and accidental, "... then all our thought processes are mere accidents - the accidental by product of the movement of atoms. ... why should we believe them to be true?"
Dr. Susan Blackmore: "In the end nothing matters. If you really think about evolution and why we human beings are here, you have to come to the conclusion that we are here for absolutely no reason at all."
Jeffrey Dahmer: "I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime."
Matthew Piercy: "Evolution reduces humans to the level of animals, making it just as acceptable to put down a human as put down a dog."
Darwin: "At some future period...the civilized races will almost certainly exterminate and replace, the savage races through the world."
In both world war 1 and 2, Germans (and others) espoused various types of eugenics. A Nazi propoganda film of 1937: "In the last few decades, mankind has sinned frightfully aganist the law of natural selection. We haven't just maintained life unworthy of life, we have even allowed it to multiply!"
Stalin read Darwin's "Origin of Species" when he was thirteen. This book convinced him that God did not exist.
Mao Zedung's two favorite books were by Darwin and Huxley.
The columbine killers were wearing teashirts with "natural selection" printed on the front.
The Finland killer of seven students and teacher had revealed before his crime that "life is just a coincidence... result of long process of evolution and many several factors... ...It is time to put natural selection and survival of the fittest back on track. ...I have evolved higher."
So are all these quotes just accidental random events that mean nothing? or do they indicate something real and true?
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?
Posted in: What's Happened to the Doxology?
Some churches start each service with the doxology. and why not? Give God the praise at the beginning and at the end, and in between! Let the angels rejoice with the one sinner who repents! Let Jesus smile on his holy children! Let the words of our mouth praise his Name!
Posted in: My Banner Article
In my experience, both reformed and baptists have said that God is sovereign. Both give God the credit for salvation in bringing it and providing it. Both give God the credit for connecting it, one says by determination, the other says by grace and gift of faith. It gets very close to semantics after that. It is in limiting God's choices and God's power, that they sometimes differ. One says God cannot be at the whim of man's choosing, so God determines. The other says that God cannot determine or force someone to love him, so man's voluntary choice is necessary. I say that God is all powerful so He can force someone to love him, if He wants. I also say that if God is all powerful, can He not allow people to make choices, if He wants? In any case, we have to live our lives, not God's life. God calls us to trust and obey, not to debate about whether we have a choice or not.
Posted in: My Banner Article
Edwin, thanks for the apology. So you admit lack of expertise in science… which is good, because even though I work in science, I do not claim to be an expert in all of these things. However, knowledge is constantly changing or enlarging and being refined. What you heard from a biologist about chimpanzees being 97% the same genetically as humans is dramatically wrong, for example. In 1975, they said that the dna sequence that could be compared was 99% identical. However, taking insertions and deletions into account, they share 96% of the sequence. In later work, the genomes were found to be 87% similar (Britten). However, what is not mentioned is that 35 million base pairs differ between the shared portions. In addition, the chimp genome actual size is about 8% larger than the human genome. After taking into account genome size, insertions, deletions, the starting point of 25% random similarity (because of only 4 bases), orthologous proteins, and structural differences, the conclusion is that the genomes are only about 70% similar.
As far as progress through history, I have no arguments that a certain progression takes place. The examples you cite in the old testament, are obviously God working with his people. The events are foretold and they come to pass (Jeremiah, Ezra, Nehemiah). God gave the Torah; it was not somehow randomly and accidentally arrived at. God sent Jesus; He was not a result of accidental mutations, selections and adaptations. So there is a big difference when God actively works with his people and his people respond in obedience, compared to some blind, accidental, random, and survivalist evolutionary progression.
There is no doubt, and I totally agree, that the gospel has a magnificent effect on social, governmental and educational activities in society. I just watched “Amish Grace” yesterday for example which demonstrates this clearly. But this is not a biological evolution. This is a spiritual renewal, a being born again, a dedication to God, and a fulfillment of God’s promise. It is wrong to conflate this with evolution in which God plays no visible role, or in which God cannot intervene.
Yes it is indeed God’s world, but the evolutionists from Darwin to Dawkins, would like to change that.
Posted in: My Banner Article
Edwin, I agree God is in control. Always, everywhere. Evolutionary theory does not agree with this, however. It assumes God does not exist. But the real point is whether God used evolutionary processes to create new species or kinds, or not. The point is not whether God is in control, since we agree on that.
If God used evolution to create, then God used death and destruction long before man came about, and therefore man's sin did not lead to death, nor was any curse on earth a result of man's sin, and nor did God punish mankind for its rebellion the way Genesis indicates. Cain's murder of Abel was a natural result of evolutionary processes rather than a sin meriting God's or man's disapproval. Therefore both the reality and the symbolism of this story is entirely lost. You have not dealt with these points.
I don't think I am emphasizing the negative really. Evolution seems to me to emphasize the negative... the accidental nature of progress, the huge amount of death and destruction required for change to happen, the lack of even attributing value to what happens, ie. the life of an ant, blade of grass, or amoeba is as valuable as the life of a man, in the evolutionary theory. That seems negative to me.
The age of the universe... why is this positive? Why are continental shifts, ice ages, etc., positive? Why is the similarity between humans and primates positive? Does it matter?
Why is it wrong to challenge the prevailing thoughts of the time? Why do you think this is negative, rather than positive? Was Darwin being negative in his time, by challenging the creation story as found in Genesis?
Theistic evolution is a theory trying to meld a theory that ignores God, with a faith in God as omnipotent. This is a tough challenge, but even if we can do it theoretically, it really needs to be verified scientifically.
So, for me, regardless of how I might want to interpret Genesis 1-3, the issue becomes one of looking at nature, and seeing whether there is another way to interpret the evidence of fossils, rock layers, genetics, and natural selection. These nine PhD scientists, and many others, are finding that there is another way to interpret them, and that in fact, the evidence does not consistently fit the theory of evolution. In fact, there are so many problems that evolution becomes an unworkable hypothesis. It doesn't even matter if a six day creation fits the evidence, since we can more and more clearly see that the general theory of evolution does not fit the evidence.
Some real questions: (Positive or negative)
Is it realistic to think that the Grand Canyon was created slowly over time, or quickly by drainage of a huge flooded basin?
Were evolutionary biologists like Haeckel mistaken or lying about the similarity of animal and human foetuses?
Were evolutionary paleontologists mistaken or lying about the categorization of human and "subhuman" fossil species?
If K_AR cannot reasonably accurately give the age of modern volcanic rock, can we still assume that they have made the right assumptions regarding measurements of "older" rock?
If dinosaurs are 65 million years old, can they still have stretchable organic tissue found in their bone fossils?
If layers of sediment represent millions of years of age, is it possible to have polystrate fossils imbedded thru several of these layers?
If mammal fossils or fish fossils are not found in certain rock layers, does that mean they did not exist when these layers were laid down?
These are just some starter questions; there are many more.
Posted in: My Banner Article
I promised to add a last post about the last chapter in "Evolution's Achilles Heels", Edited by Robert Carter, PhD, and published by Creation Book Publishers, of Powder Springs, Georgia, USA. The first seven chapters emphasize what they call fatal arrows in the achilles heel of the evolution theory. This last chapter deals with human response in the context of this theory, in terms of ethics and morality. So, some quotes below.
William Provine said, " ... my views on modern evolutionary biology ... tells us loud and clear, there are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. No life after death... no foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning for life, and no free will for humans, either."
Richard Dawkins: "I am a passionate Darwinian when it comes to science, when it comes to explaining the world, but I'm a passionate anti-Darwinian when it comes to morality and politics."
"If evolution is true, reasoning is just an epiphenomenon of the brain and the results of the laws of chemistry and random processes."
CS Lewis: If evolution is true and accidental, "... then all our thought processes are mere accidents - the accidental by product of the movement of atoms. ... why should we believe them to be true?"
Dr. Susan Blackmore: "In the end nothing matters. If you really think about evolution and why we human beings are here, you have to come to the conclusion that we are here for absolutely no reason at all."
Jeffrey Dahmer: "I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime."
Matthew Piercy: "Evolution reduces humans to the level of animals, making it just as acceptable to put down a human as put down a dog."
Darwin: "At some future period...the civilized races will almost certainly exterminate and replace, the savage races through the world."
In both world war 1 and 2, Germans (and others) espoused various types of eugenics. A Nazi propoganda film of 1937: "In the last few decades, mankind has sinned frightfully aganist the law of natural selection. We haven't just maintained life unworthy of life, we have even allowed it to multiply!"
Stalin read Darwin's "Origin of Species" when he was thirteen. This book convinced him that God did not exist.
Mao Zedung's two favorite books were by Darwin and Huxley.
The columbine killers were wearing teashirts with "natural selection" printed on the front.
The Finland killer of seven students and teacher had revealed before his crime that "life is just a coincidence... result of long process of evolution and many several factors... ...It is time to put natural selection and survival of the fittest back on track. ...I have evolved higher."
So are all these quotes just accidental random events that mean nothing? or do they indicate something real and true?