Comments on Heart for the Lost: So you believe in Evolution?

Andy,I forgot to mention yesterday, regarding the ...

2008-07-17T09:12:00.000-06:00

Andy,
I forgot to mention yesterday, regarding the Brett Favre/Packers thing, my wife grew up in Wisconsin, is a lifelong Packers fan, and sleeps in a Brett Favre t-shirt every night. I kid you not, she sleeps in that thing EVERY night. She has 2 GB/Favre jerseys and she and my daughters (28 and 22 yrs old) went to Dallas last season for the GB vs. Cowgirls game. She brought a football that she got signed by a bunch of Packers.

As a kid, growing up in New Orleans, the Pack was my favorite team, too. It was before we had the 'Aints franchise. GB had a bunch of former LSU, SEC, and LA and MS black college players (Jim Taylor, Willie Wood, Elijah Pitts, Max McGee, Bart Starr) so that was my team. It's still my second favorite NFC team, but loyalty requires me to stick it out w/ the 'Aints first and foremost.

Back to Favre, Kiln and Hattiesberg, MS, are a stone's throw away from New Orleans, so I got to see his college career up close and I've always been a big fan of his, too. If you're a football fan, you can't help but love the guy. Unless you're a Bears or fan, maybe.

I just knew he made a mistake when he retired, knew he was going to regret it. I hope he and GB can resolve this thing. It's getting real ugly.

jeff,My 13 year old daughter looked over these pos...

2008-07-16T22:36:00.000-06:00

jeff,

My 13 year old daughter looked over these posts and after reading your most recent entry we were discussing your comments. One thing she asked was, “Well, what am I supposed to believe then?” That’s the big question.

And it's a good question to ask. If you turn it around and really ask yourself, and not just as a rhetorical retort back to me. I’ve asked that question to myself, and upon examination of things, my beliefs often change.

Andy,I do agree with you on one thing - that I do ...

2008-07-16T14:52:00.000-06:00

Andy,
I do agree with you on one thing - that I do have to look more closely at the Emergent movement. I was invited to register there to post some comments similar to topics we have been discussing,so I did. If a common belief is denying the Virgin birth, diety of Christ, etc, that is something I would not want to be associated with. Thanks for the heads up.

In the two Emergent meetings I've attended we've just kinda shot the breeze, talking about books we're reading, etc. Part of the Emergent thing, as I understand it, is that Christians from different denominations get together and share w/o trying to convince each other on their particular points of doctrine. That's how it's been so far.

The other issues, I feel like we're just going round in circles. I disagree w/ you on pretty much every point. So, I'm pretty much done w/ arguing about evol.

Peace, dude.

William,First off I am a third generation Packer f...

2008-07-15T14:07:00.000-06:00

William,

First off I am a third generation Packer fan as well and so be careful there :) You are right though Farve should have made a clear decision instead of waffling for 6 months.

Your argument is truly false. I believe in DNA evidence as most Orthodox Christians do. Just because the DNA is similar DOESNT make it the SAME. WE are also 98% similar to other creatures that live in the sea. That is the worst argument that can be made. That is like saying clouds consist of more than 95% water and humans are made up of more than 95% water so therefore we must be ancestors. All DNA shows is a common DESIGNER. If the study was accurate which is wasn't there can be a massive difference in even 2%.

If that is what is convicing you of evolution you need to examine that evidence more closely. The study you are referring to only examined 1% of all the DNA and then used a mean to guesstimate what the rest would be like. This is after they put in additions and deletions to make it more like Chimp DNA. This is poor and presuppositional science. This is not how they look for murders with DNA, they look for unique characteristics among the uncommon base DNA to catch a killer. These are unique and guess what, among people we can have a variance of up to 4% between people using the same numbers as that false study, does this mean chimps are more closely related to us than other people?
for further reading go here
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i1/DNA.asp

BTW the study has been proven false more times than once by other Evolution Believing Scientists.

As far as Christian softball, and discernment. Well you run an Emergent Blog which the leaders of this non movement/movement are Heretics like Rob Bell, Brian Maclaren and Doug Pagitt. I can honestly say that I have concern when they start prioritizing the Christian faith with abstract and post modern concepts. Many Emergent books have denied the Deity of Christ, Virgin Birth and original Sin (Velvet Elvis alone does all these). I am not sure they were right in not praying with you as they do not know your heart, however they may know more about you than I do, so maybe their judgment was correct. I am not inclined to pray with a Mormon or pray to Mary with a Catholic there are lines and we do draw them. I do not know what Church you go to and whether or not they ascribe to the core beliefs of Christianity, for I know of LDS people who are now joining the Emergent movement for its lack of clarity on everything. (You can look through my older posts to see when we had an exchange with a Mormon Blog that was promoting Rob Bell and Brian Maclaren.)

I understand there are some that want to live as a liberal Christian, for cultural or other reasons, the problem is there is too much at stake, not to mention what the Word of God says. The day will come and is close when that Bible is going to become illegal, and the Churches that preach truth will be locked. It is not far off, whose side will you stand on then when you are forced to make a decision. That of Christ or the opponents of Christ?

PS I am a Baby Loving, Pro Marriage, Bible Believing, Anti Tax , Pro Religious Choice, Pro Freedom , Born Again Christian and I believe Rapists and Murders should get the death penalty!

Andy and Jeff, I really intended for Friday a.m. t...

2008-07-15T13:12:00.000-06:00

Andy and Jeff,
I really intended for Friday a.m. to be my last post… REALLY! Even though I ran out of time and didn’t get to finish the genetics information, I just couldn’t put any more time into it. But after all, this whole debate isn’t really about genetics or fossils or any of that stuff. Anyway, something interesting happened to me Friday night that I want to share w/ y’all. I think it is pertinent to our discussions last week.
On Friday nights I play in the Christian softball league here in town. I have been playing in this league for as long as I have lived here (13 years). There are 16 teams in this league representing 14 different churches in the valley. It has always been the custom for the two teams to form a circle and pray together after the post-game handshakes. For 13 years I have seen every team adhere to this custom - until this season. We have a church in the league this year w/ 2 teams entered and they refuse to pray after the games. Friday night, after playing 3 games this season against these guys I confronted them about not praying w/ us or any other teams. They told me that they are not sure we are TRULY Christians and they don’t want to engage in worship w/ us, just in case.
Exclusiveness… superiority… arrogance…? True; these are attitudes that all too many Christians somehow extract from the gospel. But it smells more like FEAR to me. Christians should be the most secure people on the planet! Yet these guys seem to be paralyzed with fear of … something!
So, what does this have to do w/ you and me. It goes back to my comment to Jeff last week about my concern for church unity. Christians are all too eager to judge each other by their positions on controversial issues like evolution, stem cell research, abortion, gay rights, capital punishment, political party affiliation, etc. Like the guys from those softball teams, too many Christians jump to negative conclusions about other Christians until they can run through their “Christian standards” checklist to approve of them or not. And, almost always, the standards are based on arguable interpretations of Bible text or distortion in its practical application. There is a disturbing pride that anti-evolutionist Christians seem to derive by being so vocal, even angry, w/ those who disagree. They have erroneously drawn the conclusion, from somewhere other than their Bibles, that anything less than a literal interpretation of Genesis puts one in only a “maybe” relationship w/ God. There are many people w/ a science education who are Believers but will not set foot in a church b/c they want to avoid these types of Christians like the plague. As for myself, my relationship w/ God is its own reality and whatever anyone else thinks about it is irrelevant (in the overall scheme of things). But there are larger implications for the universal church body.
To be sure, there ARE essential doctrines inherent to Christianity, w/out which it would cease to be Christianity. An elder’s duties are to shepherd the flock and uphold the doctrine of the church. Living in SLC, we have to be on guard against the largest counterfeit christian organization in the world. Meanwhile, it must be recognized that there are non-essential doctrines to our faith, also. Even though the majority of people in my congregation adhere to a literalist view of creation, we agree that specifics on origins and specifics on eschatology are non-essentials for salvation.
From our exchanges, my conclusion is: It’s not just WHAT you think about evolution that I disagree with. I know that there will always be Christians who take Genesis literally. I have many friends in this category. That’s fine. My disagreement is more basic than that. It’s HOW you think. You are deeply embedded in an “either/or” rationale. In other words, you put things into a dichotomy: either x is true, OR y is true, and then assume they are mutually exclusive. You don’t consider the possibility that x and y may BOTH be true... or false. Moreover, there may even be a z that is true! Your reasoning:
1) The Bible is God’s word, or The Bible is not God’s word.
2) Literal Bible interpretation is true, or Metaphorical Bible interpretation is true.
3) The Bible gives an account of origins, or Science gives an account of origins.
In philosophical lingo these are examples of a false dichotomy. In other words, you are trying to force your opponent into an extreme position because you offer only two possible choices. Does this sound familiar? Either “You believe the Bible literally,” or “You are calling God a liar.” Metaphysical materialists also use false dichotomy when arguing w/ theistic evolutionists. Richard Dawkins is notorious for this. Examples:
1) “You believe your science textbook,” or “You believe your Bible.”
2) “You are an accomplished scientist,” or “You believe in God.”
These alternatives are much more reasonable, I think, and don’t compromise the faith:
1) The Bible is God’s revealed word to inspired men who wrote things vital to our understanding of who we are, where we came from, where we are supposed to be going, and how we’re supposed to get there. In keeping w/ the freedom our universe has to be itself through natural law AND contingency, these men wrote in their own personal styles and w/ the limitations of their era, culture, and education.
2) Parts of the Bible are historical and to be understood literally. Parts of it are written in the context of metaphor, allegory, etc. It’s not always easy to figure out which is which (and it’s often mixed!).
3) The Bible and science both give an account of origins: one is spiritual, the other naturalistic. Each contributes to our greater understanding of being.
The great thinkers of the church and early shapers of Christian doctrine - Paul, Augustine and Thomas Aquinas – probably roll over in their graves at the lack of critical thinking in the church. I am sure Paul believed the literal 6 days of creation, Adam and Eve story, etc. It is evident in Romans that he did and there is a rationale for it (living in a Jewish culture in a pre-scientific age). But if he were somehow to show up on the scene today and be exposed to the scientific data with which we now have access, he would give us his divinely inspired message in a context of what we know about the world today. And he would be true to his strategy of being all things to all people to the glory of Christ. Yet it WOULD be exactly the same SPIRITUAL message. You appear to be unable to make the distinction between content and method – the message is the same whether it is written in a pre-scientific context or 21st century context. In addition, you seem completely unaware that the doctrine you adhere to today (the Trinity, the divinity and humanity of Christ, baptism, etc) was not all processed into systematic theology in the days of the writing of the NT. It took decades, even centuries, to address different points of theology AS THE NEED AROSE (heresies, persecution, reformation, counter-reformation). Today there IS a need for the church to address evolution. Catholics and mainstream Protestant denominations have long crossed this bridge. The Evangelicals lag embarrassingly behind. They create foolish cartoons instead.
Follow this example of sticking one’s head in the sand: 1) Bible literalists tend to be politically conservative. And many Bible literalists sitting on a jury would not hesitate to send an alleged rapist or murderer to the gas chamber if DNA evidence collected at the crime scene is determined 99% certain to be from the perpetrator. 2) Likewise, many Bible literalists watching the evening news would accept that, of the many guys Anna Nicole Smith “befriended”, DNA testing determined that it is certain that Larry Burkett is the father of her baby. 3) Many Bible literalists would declare w/ certainty that OJ was indeed the murderer of Nicole S. and Ron G. b/c of the DNA evidence collected that tragic night in Brentwood. Here’s my point: Those same Bible literalists, when told that the SAME technology shows that humans are 98% related to chimps, points to a common ancestor, and that we can determine how long ago that divergence took place, they would vehemently proclaim the science cannot be trusted! Send a guy to the gas chamber w/ this technology, but accept the implications for evolution, NEVER!
And this is what I mean by y’all being top-down thinkers: Starting w/ the immutable paradigm, “The Bible must be interpreted literally,” every bit of info that comes through your reasoning process gets filtered by that ultimate belief - the Bible MUST be interpreted literally. Consequently, you see all mainstream geologists, biologists, astrophysicists and cosmologists, geneticists, paleontologists, comparative anatomists, archeologists, and anthropologists as providing us w/ “wrong” information. Finally, even Christian theologians (who know the Bible better than you ever will) are wrong if they accept evolution.
A bottom-up thinker would gather information from all these fields. This may come from formal education on the way to his vocation and/or from continued self study. Then from all this study, the info leads to the forming of generalizations, then broader definitive concepts, and finally an overarching belief of, “This is what I believe to be true.” And a bottom-up thinker never closes his mind to the info coming in from the grassroots level. This leaves him open to changes in every conceptual layer if warranted by the emergence of new data. Science draws people who are bottom-up thinkers.
I really don’t see myself as any smarter than anyone, except maybe Brett Favre. (What was he doing retiring at the end of last season, anyway? It was a no-brainer to return to the Pack for another year!) My conclusions from study in areas of science, theology, and the Bible have led me to the statements of faith I have made over the last week. I won’t repeat myself by restating those. The more information one has, the more likely one MAY discover what God meant by it to begin with, whether the original writer saw it that way or not. Ultimately, I am not afraid of discovering Truth. My security in Christ makes me fearless. Go back to Aquinas: “Truth cannot contradict truth.” If I am barking up the right tree theologically and I am discovering the truth about the natural world, then there will be harmony between my understanding of nature and my understanding of God’s word. It will all fit into a unified paradigm of the material and spiritual realms of life in this universe.
I think it is probably impossible for my respect for the Bible and its authority to be established to your satisfaction in these discussions b/c the focus of my comments has been to establish the value of science in the grand scheme of “What’s really real?” FWI: I would make just as vigorous an argument FOR the legitimacy of Scripture in these types of discussions w/ an atheist.

Now I guess it's my turn to say to you "Really?"By...

2008-07-15T08:02:00.000-06:00

Now I guess it's my turn to say to you "Really?"

By the way, thanks for the honest response about no concrete evidence.

Other than that I'm really dumbfounded by your last post. I know that evolution isn't mentioned in the Bible (might I add because it didn't happen). And I know that "aerodynamics, atomic chemistry, the moons of Saturn, and auto mechanics" aren’t mentioned either. But the Creation Story IS!!!!!!

But here's the real kicker. If God REALLY wanted us to know about (oh, I don't know, let's take your most obscure reference)- Auto Mechanics he would have CLEARLY described how to do it. He wouldn't have said "To change the oil on a '69 Pontiac Firebird, thou must first remove the muffler." :)

So if there is not concrete evidence indicating otherwise, or that there is no other reference indicating that the "MORNING AND EVENING" day is any more than a literal 24 hour period of time I have to accept it as literal.

Whenever a number is attached to the word 'day' in the old testament it always means a literal day (morning and evening) for example:

Genesis 42:17-19
And he put them all in custody for three days.
On the third day, Joseph said to them, "Do this and you will live, for I fear God: If you are honest men, let one of your brothers stay here in prison, while the rest of you go and take grain back for your starving households.

Now to you, does that mean three 24hour days, or a thousand, (a million?). It doesn't take a dispensationalist to figure that out. I know I must be coming across as sarcastic but I'm trying to make a point. When does it become literal?

I'm sure your thinking of some scientific reason why you believe what you believe. But to borrow an idea from you... what if your common sense changes about science? Common sense in all areas of study has changed dramatically, even recently. Once again scripture is the final authority not science.

When Jesus said, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." do I need to take that literal? Obviously, I do.

If God created language and uses language to convey His message to his children, then it must follow that He, being all-wise and all-loving, originated sufficient language to convey all that was in His heart to tell mankind (whether or not it's now, 25 years from now, or 1000 years ago.)

To give a natural comparison, my children have asked about the day they were born. Does it make sense (assuming that I love them and wouldn't want mislead them) that I would do my best to be accurate in describing that very special day?

My 13 year old daughter looked over these posts and after reading your most recent entry we were discussing your comments. One thing she asked was, “Well, what am I supposed to believe then?” That’s the big question.

It's been fun engaging in this conversation with you. I'll let you have the final word. Next time let talk about the book of Revelation. : )

Can you, as a Christian, provide me with Concrete ...

2008-07-14T21:22:00.000-06:00

Can you, as a Christian, provide me with Concrete SCRIPTUAL evidence why you believe what you believe?

There aren’t any “concrete” scriptures that give evidence.

Evolution isn’t mentioned anywhere in the Bible. Since both the writers and original readers had never heard of it (the modern scientific concept being only 150 years old or so) there is no reason to find it there. I don’t see anything wrong with it not being there; aerodynamics, atomic chemistry, the moons of Saturn, and auto mechanics aren’t mentioned either.

As for taking the creation stories in a non-literally way, personally I think literalism as a way of interpreting the Bible is more modern than ancient. But there are no scriptures I know of directly stating not to take things literally. However, I do think there is a lot biblical precedence for not interpreting things literally. For example, some of the best interpreters of the Bible are the bible writers themselves. In Matthew, the gospel writer often interprets OT bible passages in non-literal ways, and Paul does the same in passages such as Galatians 4, with the story of Sarah and Hagar. The OT is often interpreted allegorically in the NT.

The thing about your question above that makes it nearly impossible to answer is that it is asking me to provide a scripture that when interpreted literally gives permission to interpret it non-literally. But it isn’t so much what we are reading, a specific scripture or passage, it’s how we are reading it. Lets take the two scriptures you mention above, of which you ask, “Try as I might I can't make any other sense from those scriptures. Can you?” Yes, actually, I can.

In the first (Genesis 2:4) you highlight the word “history”. History in the modern sense of the word has a scientific notion to it, with facts laid out in such a way as to show people what actually happened. But in ancient times History was… well, read Herodotus, with its mythical tales mixed with both actual and fictional historical events. It’s history with meaning, rather than facts. Think of the movie 300: yes, there really was an actual Battle of Thermopylae, there really was a Leonidas, the movie is actually based on actual historical events, but the movie (which I haven’t seen) and the comic book (which I have read) are not about facts laid out to show what actually happened, they’re transmitting meaning. This verse is similar… History is not about facts as much as it is about meaning.

Your second scripture (Exodus 20:8-11) highlights “six days”. This is about the Sabbath, a ritual, a meaning filled event. Rituals in the Bible are often filled with meaning filled events that are not taken literally. Take baptism, we are not actually participating in Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection (Romans 6), because we aren’t actually hanging with him on a cross, we’re actually just getting wet. Communion, it’s not actually Jesus’ flesh we eat and blood we drink, it’s just bread and wine. But these rituals themselves are filled with meaning. The Sabbath isn’t really about factual historical events, it’s about meaning.

I also discussed how it contradicts with our need for a redeemer. If evolution is true, then death came before sin, so death couldn't be the penalty for sin. This completely undermines the need for a saviour in Christ.

I have a different take on Original Sin, and I don’t think it’s quite that important. I have made enough sin all my own that I have a need for a redeemer. Original sin somehow seems kind of superfluous at this point. So, I don’t see how evolution completely undermines the need for a savior in Christ.

As for Richard Bozarth, I don’t know if you agree with him on the point he is making, but I think he’s wrong.

Boy, I guess I'm in it now. :)Ok... Yes, I 100% a...

2008-07-14T00:12:00.000-06:00

Boy, I guess I'm in it now. :)

Ok... Yes, I 100% agree with you that common sense can change depending on the circumstaces (demographically, chronologically, environmentally, economically, etc...). What might be common sense to me may not be common sense to someone else. That's a given. And what might makes common sense to me now may not be common sense to me in perhaps a crisis situation. Once again, also a given. I've got that.

I won't pretend that I have some divine power to FULLY comprehend what was common sense to the any of the inspired writers of the Bible. I'm not even able to comprehend what common sense is to you.

You (and many others) probably don't interpret scripture the same way I do. And I'm continually learning, and defining how I interpret scripture- daily.

You are not painting an incomplete picture that we are all different, look at things differently, and have different ideas on what is common sense.

Now, to thoroughly beat this dead horse. As Christians, we have to have a final authority. We have to look at this world and it's history through that final authority because of our faith. I have to believe that God loves us. Because he loves us he has preserved his word for us. I have to believe that the Bible is the Word of God, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. I have to believe it has the final authority in all matters of faith and conduct.

I have quoted scripture as to why I believe that the 6 day creation story it true and literal. And I've provided reasons why it conflicts with other IMPORTANT areas dealing with the nature of God and our salvation.

(So you don't have to go back and look for them I'll cut and past them for you):

"This is the HISTORY of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens," Genesis 2:4

"Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. You shall do all of your work in six days. But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. On it, you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male slave, nor your female slave, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. This is because the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them in SIX DAYS, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it." Exodus 20:8-11

I also discussed how it contradicts with our need for a redeemer. If evolution is true, then death came before sin, so death couldn't be the penalty for sin. This completely undermines the need for a saviour in Christ.

Try as I might I can't make any other sense from those scriptures. Can you?

I wouldn't even be discussing this with you, if I didn't feel that this wasn't (at best) shakey ground for a believer to be trampling on. If the topic was whether or not Adam had a belly button , or even whether or not it was Moses who wrote the book of Genesis - I wouldn't have even joined in the conversation (at least to this extent). But there are some major conflicts with the evolution/creation model that could lead someone not as strong in their faith down a wrong path.

We can contend with each other for days on end, about the Science end of this conversation. Both of us could come up with arguments on that playing feild.

In my research on the topic I found this quote from Richard G. Bozarth from "The Meaning of Evolution," American Atheist (on page 30.)

"Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of god. . . . If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing!"

That is why I have some series reservations about marrying up the "science" of evolution with the truth of the story of creation.

Now I've answered your questions to the best of my (limited) ability. And I hope I haven't dodged it in anyway. If I have, it wasn't my intent.

Now it's your turn...
Both you and William have given scientific and cultural (referring to your common sense question) reasons why you adhere to this model. I've provided scripture to the best of my(once again, limited) ability to rationalize why I believe in a literal interpretation.

Can you, as a Christian, provide me with Concrete SCRIPTUAL evidence why you believe what you believe?

If you can, I will do my best, to honestly look into it further.

I think I've played all my cards.

Honest question… what if common sense changes? Wha...

2008-07-13T22:17:00.000-06:00

Honest question… what if common sense changes? What if what is common sense to one society is completely crazy in another society? How would that effect how you read?

What I mean is this, you interpret the world and what you read probably much like many 21st century Americans. Things like democratic capitalist values are better than any other forms of government, individualism (you can interpret the Bible for yourself, you don’t need some “catholic” church telling you what to believe, nor do you think the state should dictate your beliefs to you), consumerism (you may not always like its effects, but when you want something you just go out and buy it, you don’t hand make it or grow it yourself), freedom, rights, etc. Much of these things are just good old American common sense. In the Middle East and Africa things are a bit different. Things like democratic capitalism are a bit weird, it doesn’t always jive well with tribal loyalties, and it’s common sense why tribal loyalty is so important, you’re a part of a community that you work in and with, individualism is a threat that can tear that community apart, and it’s the community that helps you build your house, it’s those personal connections, not just monetary exchanges that matter, individual freedom and personal rights (what are those?). It’s just common sense… for them.

The Jewish society that wrote the Bible was nothing like 21st century American society; neither was their common sense in relation to our own. What was obvious to them, is just plain nuts to us, and vice versa. More specifically, how we write, read and interpret ideas are directly affected by our common sense. So basically, in order to really understand the Bible one has to stand outside ones own common sense and step into the just plain nuts of the Other.

How does this effect your interpretation of the Bible? I’d like to know in what ways you think the picture I’m painting above is incomplete? Does interpreting the Bible stand outside of common sense?

Yes, when I read the book of Genesis a literal int...

2008-07-13T16:57:00.000-06:00

Yes, when I read the book of Genesis a literal interpretation of it makes common sense.

Believe it or not the evolution/creation issue isn...

2008-07-13T11:37:00.000-06:00

Believe it or not the evolution/creation issue isn't my 'hot button' it's the scripture issue.

I’m with you there.

I was only pointing out that you agreed with me regarding the scripture Romans 15:4, 2 Timothy 3:16 then (it's my belief) that you would have to take a literalist view to Exodus 20:8-11 and Genesis 2:4.

Let me try taking a different angle here. You tell me if my thinking is correct about your view, and correct me if I’m wrong. Do you see a literal interpretation of Genesis as common sense? And what I mean by common sense here is basically that when you pick up the Bible, and just do a plain reading of the text, the only thing you’re really ultimately using to guide your interpretation of that text is your common sense. It’s not really Creation Science (or Intelligent Design stuff) that is informing your point of view, but rather you accept something like Creation Science because it fits with your common sense view of the Bible.

Didymus~I truly was not trying to misconstrue what...

2008-07-13T09:17:00.000-06:00

Didymus~
I truly was not trying to misconstrue what you said. I was only pointing out that you agreed with me regarding the scripture Romans 15:4, 2 Timothy 3:16 then (it's my belief) that you would have to take a literalist view to Exodus 20:8-11 and Genesis 2:4.
Believe it or not the evolution/creation issue isn't my 'hot button' it's the scripture issue. My point is that the creation/evolution issue wouldn't BE an issue if the scripture issue were work out.
I do have hope we talk again and I will check out your blog after church.

I do not want to argue, and I’m not trying to “win...

2008-07-12T20:38:00.000-06:00

I do not want to argue, and I’m not trying to “win” anything. But your comment highlights what I was getting at in my comment I posted earlier over on my blog. Why would you want to (at least it appears to me) deliberately misconstrue my point of view? What I mean is this… you know I don’t believe in six literal days, and that I don’t take the Genesis creation stories literally, and yet you ask, “So, if what you are saying is true than the only way you could justify an evolution model into God's story of creation is if you applied it into a 6 day scenerio, so is that is what you are telling me you believe to be true?”

So, your comment proves that I don’t hold to a literalist interpretation of the Genesis creation stories… and you’re right I don’t. I know you think I’m wrong for doing that, but that’s okay with me.

Talk to you later.

Had to delete my last comments as I typed in a rus...

2008-07-12T17:10:00.000-06:00

Had to delete my last comments as I typed in a rush and there were too many grammatical errors. (human) :)

Here we go again...

Didymus~
Glad to hear that you agree with me on the scripture end.

Then am I to understand you believe the evolution of species process took place in 6 (yom)(morning and evening) days?

"Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. You shall do all of your work in six days. But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. On it, you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male slave, nor your female slave, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. This is because the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them in SIX DAYS, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it." Exodus 20:8-11

The author clearly compares OUR 6 days of work to the 6 days of creation.

This is the HISTORY of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, Genesis 2:4

The author clearly states that the way it is written is to be taken literally (not poetically, or mythologically)

The NIV translates it as "This is the account...."

So, if what you are saying is true than the only way you could justify an evolution model into God's story of creation is if you applied it into a 6 day scenerio, so is that is what you are telling me you believe to be true?

I apologize I haven't had a chance to thoroughly look through your blog to see what you believe. But perhaps I will at a future date.
Feel free to educate me on this. But we will probably have to concede that we won't win each other on this topic. Fun trying though. Got to get to work.

God Bless!

jeff,Well, speaking as a “theistic evolutionist”, ...

2008-07-12T15:25:00.000-06:00

jeff,

Well, speaking as a “theistic evolutionist”, I also believe the creation stories to be inspired, I don’t believe God is saying “psych” or “just kidding” as you mention, and my view doesn’t contradict either one of the two scriptures you quote, both of which I agree with.

Didymus~Yes, Really. It may be a misperception on ...

2008-07-11T19:40:00.000-06:00

Didymus~
Yes, Really. It may be a misperception on my (and many others) part. But I don't get why God would inspire the beautiful story of creation then turn around and say "psych" or "just kidding".

Add whatever you want to the story-it doesn't add up.

"For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the scriptures we might have hope." Romans 15:4

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness," 2 Timothy 3:16

William~
Ok, Ok we get it... You're Smart. I say that with half of my tongue in my cheek. :)

You didn't answer my most important question. I don't want to come across as glib, but as a (Arminianistic) Christian, Believer in God and his word as you say - how are you examining God's creation.
Are you looking through the lens of a research paper, a biology book or through God's word?

You said:
"As someone educated in the life sciences, it is the thing that resonates profoundly for me - the evidence...."

What I'm asking of you do is say:
"As a Bible believing Christian the evidence of progessive creationism is found in the Bible in Chapter..."

You said:
- There are about 500 "immortal" genes that run through all of life from bacteria to humans. Helps us reconstruct evolutionary events where fossil data has not yet been found.
- Hox genes in all animals that have a body. Exchange Hox genes in flies and mice embryos and they still grom their arms, legs etc. Immobilize a fly Hox gene in the head and replace it w/ a mouse Hox and activate it and the fly grows a leg (a fly leg) outof its head.

- Take a mouse Pax 6 gene and put it into a fly embryo's antenna and it grows an eye in its antenna.

- activate latent dinosaur genes in a chicken and it grows scales.

Once again I'm probably oversimplying things but I would argue that bacteria, mice, chickens, dinasaurs, and humans all have the same creator so of course there will be similar genes.

The Honda corp. makes both automobiles and snow blowers. They both are manufactured by the same "creator" but I know for a fact that I could take a bolt out of a Honda Accord that will fit into the Honda snow blower. That doesn't mean that if I wait long enough I'll be able to get my snow blower up to 50 mph on Bangerter.

Now I could, and maybe someday will read "The Language of God"
or "Finding Darwin's God". Heck, I may just quit my job go back to school, become a geneticist, do my internship under the guidance of Neil Shubin, get my PhD, and go to work for the National Human Genome Research Institute. < :) >
But, I'm still going to weigh everthing against God's word and I will end up at the same place.

In the end. My savior lives and reigns and will come back (soon) and work this all out.

Are you still there?

OK, I'm back at it.If I were a Calvinist and had a...

2008-07-11T08:00:00.000-06:00

OK, I'm back at it.

If I were a Calvinist and had a suoper-deterministic view of God's sovereignty, I'd be closer in theology to y'all. But I am an Arminian through and through. Free will, man. It's the only way we can be held accountible. And nNOT the Calvinist view of "free will", which is really no free will at all. Part fo the free will world view involves the freedom of the world to run on natural law w/ God's provision deep w/in it. Let's not get into quantum mechanics w/ elaboration on that thought. The universe runs on the natural law that God created for it and the independence of the universe to "explore" the contingincies inherent in it is the "free will" of the universe, to use a metaphore.

Anyway back to questions and comments from Andy and Jeff:
- BTW: I've also been following the Didymus/Andy exchange and agree w/ everything Didymus has said.

- Continuing on your "mistakes in the Bible" statement: I don't believe there are "mistakes" in the Bible per se. The inconsistencies between writers recording the same event, and contradictions w/ current science knowledge, etc., I don't judge that harshly to call them mistakes. The writer was inspired by God to give us an important spirituallesson and the writer wrote about it in his way. For Joshua, it was the message from God of His promise of providence. Joshua himself, who had been slaying Amorites and the others all day (a very long day), saw God's providence as extending the day to accomplish the feat. You (Andy) accuse me of trying to find a natural explanation for this. I say the reverse is true! I think God truly performed a miracle in leading Josh to victory, I just don't know how He did it. His power is deep in the ways of our natural world, beyond the examination of science. For you to say it was a miracle AS LITERALLY STATED IN THE BIBLE, you would have to believe the sun really did orbit the earth in those days for it to be possible that God made it stand still. In reality, the sun is standing still every day (except in the context that ALL the univ. is still expanding outward.)

- "Mathemeticians' rebuttal of evol": A common paper lion. Through DNA it can be determined when the corresponding traits arrived on the scene. Selection co-efficients predict reproduction success and survival; how many generations it takes for a trait to make its way through and become dominant in a species. Example: the MC1R gene (color of skin, hair, feathers in reptiles, mammals and birds) can take over a population in < 2000 years, a flash in the pan in evolutionary terms. Moral: evol. does not take "longer than the earth has been in existence" as CS would have you believe.

- Dating specimens: there are MULTIPLE techniques that can be used on a particular specimen that verify the findings, over and over.

- The Adam and Eve issue: there are several scenarios that can still put a literal Adam and Eve in the garden and would give a Christian or Jew a more literal interp. My fellow elder follows that path. I don't, but there's no way I'm going into all of that - my interp of the 2 genesis stories. Just not enough time. At the end of the day though, we ALL wind up in the same place. We have man separated from God by or own sin, in need of God's grace, a Redeemer to bring us back into the relationship He wanted for us "in the beginning". The right relationship starts here on earth w/ the cross and culminates in eternity w/ our Creator & Redeemer.

- where to deviate from metaphors to literal: No easy answers, guys. Study, study, study. The Bible and input from theologians on theological issue. Acquiring a background in science for the issues regarding the natural world. People think and see things differently. There are bottom-up thinkers and top-down thinkers. Y'all are top-down; I'm bottom-up. Not that one is superior to the other; just different.

_ I'm fighting the clock, guys. I would stress that you look into the genetic arguments for evol. if you really are gathering & processing information. As someone educated in the life sciences, it is the thing that resonates profoundly for me - the evidence for common ancestry. I can't possibly type all that info out and it would be ridiculous to do so when experts in the field have done so much more eloquently and accurately than I could. Just a few tidbits:
- There are about 500 "immortal" genes that run through all of life from bacteria to humans. Helps us reconstruct evolutionary events where fossil data has not yet been found.
- Hox genes in all animals that have a body. Exchange Hox genes in flies and mice embryos and they still grom their arms, legs etc. Immobilize a fly Hox gene in the head and replace it w/ a mouse Hox and activate it and the fly grows a leg (a fly leg) outof its head.

- Take a mouse Pax 6 gene and put it into a fly embryo's antenna and it grows an eye in its antenna.

- activate latent dinosaur genes in a chicken and it grows scales.

I'm out of time. These things show common ancestry. Read the books I have recommended to Jeff and add to that What Evolution Is by Ernst Mayer. Until you do, don't presume to know what evolutionists "believe".

Well, guys. I'm done I did the blogging thing for a week and it's just not me. Ya know? Take care; God bless.

jeff,There is much I’d like to say concerning your...

2008-07-10T23:49:00.000-06:00

jeff,

There is much I’d like to say concerning your last comment (but due to the hour I’ll limit myself to just one comment).

You mention, … in a theistic evolutionary model it APPEARS to most believers that God is just INTEGRATED into the theory of evolution. God is not the omnipotent Lord of all things able to easily speak the world into existence. It APPEARS that God is not consistant or absolute, but He Himself is evolving or actually IS evolution.

My first thought after reading this was, “Really? That is so very far from my point of view”. This I think is a gross misperception. I, as a “theistic evolutionist”, see evolution as merely a part of God’s creation of which He spoke into existence (“Let there be light” - - KA-BOOM Big bang… “and there was light.”) and His creation has been evolving ever sense. But God in his infinite majesty isn’t created, isn’t evolving. He is not lacking consistency nor absoluteness, because his creation is not part of him.

When God creates something, His creation is described as ‘very good’ (Genesis 1:31) and ‘perfect’ (Deuteronomy 32:4). Not incomplete, changing, or evolving.

I think of evolution as part of God’s creation, and can therefore be as well described as “very good” and “perfect”, as you mention above. But God’s creation is finite, man is only at most an image of God, so we the creation, unlike God, have room to grow, change, develop, and evolve.

Andy,

I would like to respond to you comment, but its been a long day, long week actually. I’ll try to get back later.

William said;"Why would it have been important for...

2008-07-10T21:49:00.000-06:00

William said;

"Why would it have been important for God to "tell" the two writers of the two differnt creation stories in Genesis."

At least with this, I know where you are coming from. You have listened to too much of the world. There are NOT two different creation accounts. There are merely two parts to it, explaining it in more depth and pointing out things that needed to be discussed. Furthermore, there is only one author. The world loves to try and twist this and it seems you are in camp with this one.

I see that you are an Elder in your church? Should not someone in leadership be grounded in the Word of God? Should not they have a sound understanding of these little things that will trip people up and be able to give a good defense to those new or weak in the faith?

Very concerning.

Thanks William, I do believe we are understanding...

2008-07-10T19:35:00.000-06:00

Thanks William, I do believe we are understanding each other a little clearer. And I pray that we both would have a clearer understanding of who God is and what he has planned for us. If anything it has caused me to look at this issue more dilegently, and for that- Thanks!

I think my main concern with Theistic evolution is that could potentially lead many astray from God as I believe it misrepresents the very nature of God.

I think it all has to do with how you as a Christian are looking at the world - what is your world view. Are you looking at the world through the goggles of the Divine Word or through scientific documentation.

You will likely disagree with this, but in a theistic evolutionary model it APPEARS to most believers that God is just INTEGRATED into the theory of evolution. God is not the omnipotent Lord of all things able to easily speak the world into existence. It APPEARS that God is not consistant or absolute, but He Himself is evolving or actually IS evolution.

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

When God creates something, His creation is described as ‘very good’ (Genesis 1:31) and ‘perfect’ (Deuteronomy 32:4). Not incomplete, changing, or evolving.

Further, in the theistic evolution model it APPEARS that God's word does not need to be taken seriously. It reduces creation down to mythology.

The Bible is the absolute truth, and the final authority. whether we are dealing with questions of faith, daily living, salvation, or matters of scientific importance. We need to fit our lives and our beliefs with the Word not the reverse. Since there is no support for theistic evolution in the Bible I would have to take it literally. Please show me where in the Bible there is any indications that the creation account should be understood in any other way than as a factual report or historical evidence.

Theistic evolution also tramples on some dangerous ground when it comes to original sin. If Adam wasn't created from dust then he couldn't have been the 1st man. So theistic evolution allows for millions (billions???) of years of death before sin comes into the picture and hence a need for a redeemer. If sin is seen as just part of the evolutionary process, then it APPEARS that we have lost the key to finding God. This is not fixed by simply adding God to the evolutionary model.

As an elder in your church I'm sure you would agree that it is an elder's job to lead, disciple, and care for the church while promoting sound doctrine.

"The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching." 1 Timothy 5:17

"To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, a witness of Christ's sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed: Be shepherds of God's flock that is under your care, serving as overseers—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve;" 1 Peter 5:1-2

"He must hold FIRMLY to the TRUSTWORTHY message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and REFUTE THOSE WHO OPPOSE IT." Titus 1:9 (capitalized by me for emphasis)

By saying this, I am not saying that you are a second-class Christian or not a Christian at all, that is between you and God. But, to be honest, I would have a problem with a church elder who adhered to the progressive creation theory. Friend, Prayer partner, Brother - Yes, just not an elder.

What goggles are you looking through? :)

Maranatha

Andy,I'll try to get in as much response to your p...

2008-07-10T17:07:00.000-06:00

Andy,
I'll try to get in as much response to your points as I can before I have to catch the train home.

1) No evolution mentioned in the Bible. I wouldn't expect it to be there since man didn't figure that out until Erasmus and Charles Darwin in the 19th century. Why would it have been important for God to "tell" the two writers of the two differnt creation stories in Genesis. The simplest thing for man, whether primitive, medieval, or modern man, is to believe the Genesis account. It was the wisdom of God to use a parable to tell man of His creation, providence, judgment, etc. The story is simple. Be sure you understand: I am NOT saying only simple-minded people believe it! I am just saying, the story is much simpler than a scientific explanation, whether Darwin was correct or not.

2) Any "mistakes" as you call them (2%, according to your calculations) means man was allowed to express himself in writing scripture. It was NOT divine dictation. Man's education and culture limitations SCREAM from the pages of the Bible.

3) The BIO 105 comment. That was a sincere recommendation on my part. I don't know how old you are and I thought a refresher in evol. bio might be helpful. It's been 35 years since I was in a college bio class, so I bought Ernst Mayer's book What Evolution Is. It was very helpful to me.

4) Be sure I am not presenting myself as an expert. I told you what my area of expertise is, a very small segment of the body of science - human physiology and pathophysiology, with a bit of knowledge as how man got to where he is in the 21st century. I am not a geologist. Thanks for reminding me. But one of my best friends is a geologist and a Christian and an evolutionist and I've seen him discuss a 6000 year earth/universe, Cambrian fossils, worldwide flood, etc. Hint: plate tectonics.

Got to go. To be continued later.

Added note to Jeff:I forgot about the point you ma...

2008-07-10T16:45:00.000-06:00

Added note to Jeff:
I forgot about the point you made about evolution becoming a "religion" to many people. I agree 100%. That does happen. It's as if the priests of "evolutionism" are the scientists in their white lab coats, worship being conducted in the labs or, better yet, museums. Sad that many would, as I said earlier, place their trust in a mere physical process of this world.

Hi, Jeff. Thanks for your reply. I am enjoying our...

2008-07-10T13:10:00.000-06:00

Hi, Jeff. Thanks for your reply. I am enjoying our dialogue. It's nice that we seem to have gotten past the initial irritation of conversing w/ someone of such differing opinions on such a volatile topic. Evolution and its corresponding religious matters have the potential to bring out the worst in people. As two Christians continue in dialogue, though, the bond of living in Christ eventually has to emerge. If He is the true source for one's life, then everything eventually come back to focus on Him. I came across this quote by Chuck Swindoll today: "We are completely dependent on Him for eternal life, for forgiveness, for character, for security." The reason I see someone like Rchard Dawkins as "pathetic" as I said yesterday, (or Carl Sagan, etc.) is that there is NO security for them beyond what they live out in this world. For most people, even the memory that that person ever existed dies out in just a generation or two. What a depressing thought, considering the alternative - the glorious eternity that God desires each of us to live out in His presence. I have NO security in anything I know about the natural world, for it is not in this world that my true home resides.

I see several points you made yesterday with which I completely agree:
1) Obviously, I am going to agree w/ you that I not calling God a liar by saying His word is authoritative, just b/c I take exception to a particular interpretation that some Christians hold. The conceptual framework of Genesis remains intact for me: God creating from nothing, His relationship w/ His creation, man's struggle w/ dependence on Him and our desire to "know" for ourselves (more aggregiously, to "decide" for ourselves) what's right and wrong, and the resulting state of sin. As the entire OT unfolds we see the prophecies that lead to Jesus and in the NT that His death/sacrifice is the ONLY means of salvation. I don't think I have in any way described God as a liar.

2) You're absolutely right, it IS embarrassing to have the stench produced by the hateful atheist God-haters of the science world stick to me just because I accept the scientific data of evolution. The thing is, most atheist scientists feel the same way I do about Dawkins, Provine, Dennett, Hutchins, etc. Allister McGrath brings this out in his book. I have read many books by physicists/theologians, Christian biologists, etc., who underscore that point: the God-hating scientists have the loudest mouths, but are in the minority. The other atheist scientists simply disbelieve, btu are not out there promoting it or expressing ill will. Their disbelief is tragic in my eyes for the obvious reasons, but there's no need to lump them all together as haters of religious folks.

3) I agree that people can get desensitized to things they experience over and over again. One just has to look at the history of TV, movies, music, etc. to see our society has become more lenient. If you pouind a specific thought into people's heads often enough it makes it more likely they might accept it. The extreme example in brainwashing, right?

4) I have not seen Expelled either. Will wait til it's on DVD. I agree that some in academia certainly must get ostrasized for their religious beliefs. I read an article on the people highlighted in Expelled. I think the cosmologist (at Iowa, I think)truly got the shaft, but I think the others may have gotten what they bargained ofr. If you go against all of the current positions in your field, you can probably COUNT on being reprimanded for it. A scientist HAS to go about his work as if no miracles occurred in his field. It's called methodological naturalism - looking only for natural explanations for things. Otherwise, every hard answer to find gets dismissed as a miracle. This is a far cry from metaphysical naturalisn, where the individual says, "Only natural things CAN occur; there IS no supernatural." If a scientist lets his faith lead him directly against established paradigms or lets it interfere w/ their scientific method/objestivity, you're going to be let go. Every scientist knows that.

5) You mentioned errors in science over the years. Obviously, man knows alot more about the universe the longer we are around to study it. I don't changes in scientific thinking as correcting errors, though. It was the best information they had at the time, whether it was Aristotle (a pretty doggone good biologist) or Kenneth Miller (writing today's biology textbooks, being interviewed on TV productions on nature, expert witness in court cases, etc.). Science IS self-correcting. As more info is gathered, adjustments are made in the paradigm. Evolution has had 150 yrs. of such observation and testing. The molecular/genetic/embryonic research going on for the last few years has only strengthened the earlier positions derived from fossils and observation of life. Current arguments like sexual selection or genetic drift as being the prime mechanism of evol. (versus natural selection) are entertaining, but in no way detract from the fact that all those guys arguing ARE evolutionists. This debate is how science corrects itself. Other "mistakes", such as the Piltdown Man hoax, were discovered by other evolutionary scientists. It's not like the creationists were the ones to figure it out.

I have some things to say to Andy. You may want to look at that as I'll try to give SOME examples of why I accept evol., the genetics, diseases, etc. that you asked about the other day. I gave you the names of some books that I recommend to someone knowing what "proofs" there are for evol.
I don't want to get into writing a book online, (I'm not qualified anyway!), but I need to address some specific things w/ him and you might be interested.

Take care. God bless, Jeff.

Yeah...What he said. Sorry~thought I should inter...

2008-07-10T00:39:00.000-06:00

Yeah...What he said.

Sorry~thought I should interject some humor here.

Didymus,I will do a post at some point on a litera...

2008-07-09T23:48:00.000-06:00

Didymus,

I will do a post at some point on a literal reading of the Bible. Really though the proof is on you to show me where God has used "Mythology" and "Fiction" to convey His point? This is different then using analogies btw.

If Genesis is not literal then you have to ask yourself did Adam really sin? Was there really a snake? Did the fall occur? If not then who is Jesus Christ? Is he a redeemer? Is he the second Adam if the first never existed or was a apelike creature? Would you claim that His death on a cross was fiction to point us somewhere?

If you take the first book of the Bible and start fictionalizing it or taking your naturualistic presuppositions and importing them into the text you come out with a world that has no sin and no need for a savior..... and really that leaves you just like every other person who denies God.

But dont join the party just because it is different.

We need to look at the narrative of Genesis and see if it is in fact poetry or a fictionalized mythology. If it is why the detail on so many things? If it is then why all the allusions to the redemptive work of Christ like the sacrificing of an animal to cover, etc. Really I want to understand your hermeneutic. I do not want to accuse you of arbitrarily making books or verses poetry so help me understand how you come to such a conclusion.

Evolution is not mentioned anywhere in the Bible at all, now I will not make an entire argument based on silence, but it is an issue to be sure. In addition the word for Creator in the Hebrew and the Septuagint are both "out of nothing". Evolution would run contrary to that since it used material that was here.

Finally I think there is good reason that people question a Christian who believes in Evolution, for these reasons that I have stated. It appears on the surface they really do not believe in God's Word, now both Didymus and William have corrected this in their statements here and elsewhere. Listen I know Proverbs is wisdom because it says so, I know Song of Solomon is a poetic song because it says so and I know the Law in the Pentateuch because it is obvious and it says so. I know the 600+ laws in Leviticus where actual laws and not just mythological concepts. It seems rather arbitrary to say that Genesis is fiction because we do not see that in the Bible anywhere else and there is no evidence for it being fiction or books being predisposed to that.

I hope that helps,

God Bless,