Evolution and/or Creation has generated so much of discussion. Whether we like or not the controversy is likely to continue for some more time. Textbooks on Biology are filled with ideas undergirded by the theory of evolution. Christians take on the issue has been diverse. Some see evolution as opposed to the teaching of the Bible underscored in Genesis 1-2. Others see it differently.
Young Earth Creationists interpret the Genesis text ‘literally’, and concluded that God created the heavens and the earth some 6,000 to 10,000 years back. Ministries like Answers in Genesis, Creation Ministries International and Creation Science Research etc are proponents of this view. For them theory of evolution is not true and it “propagates an anti-biblical religion”. ( Refuting Evolution, Jonathan Sarfati).
Others like Phillip Johnson, William Dembski, Michael Behe, Lee Strobel et al have a different take. Intelligent Design movement’s, perhaps, most able proponent Phillip Johnson in his chapter 1 of the book Darwin on Trial asks, “When the National Academy of Sciences tells us that reliance upon naturalistic explanations is the most basic characteristic of science, is it implying that scientists somehow know that a Creator played no part in the creation of the world and its forms of life? He went on to assert that his purpose is to examine the scientific evidences for evolution on its own term.
Before we go further let us define the terms “evolution” and “creation”.
Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.
The Christian doctrine of creation underscores that matter is not eternal (only God is) and that the world is entirely dependent on God for its sustenance.
Christian theologians like Alister McGrath, Ernest Lucas and John Polkinghorne and scientists like Darrel Falk, Kenneth Miller, Francis Collins et al do not see evolutionary biology opposed to the Bible. John Stott writes in his Understanding the Bible that even if man evolved from lower primates he does not see that as opposed to the creation of Adam.
God is the author of both the Word and the world and therefore they will not speak in contradicting terms. However, our interpretation of the Word and the world can go wrong. History is repeated with such errors. But how might we best interpret the Word and the world?
Lot of issues are at stake here: Literary genre of Genesis 1-2, Scientific Methodology, Age of the Earth, The extent of Noah’s Flood (global or local?), Evidences for Evolution or lack there of etc.
Comments
Evolution is a theory that is used to explain the diversity of biological species. Evolution per se does not say whether God is there or not, nor does it say whether human being bears the image and likeness of God or not.
To get to that one needs to move to a different level of explanation. Therefore, I don't see why Christian must oppose theory of evolution.
But I shall oppose if scientists say that biological explanation of reality is exhaustive. Atheist scientist like Richard Dawkins wants to reduce human being to just DNA alone, but reality of human being is much more sophisticated than that. We need explanation of human being at the psychological level, Sociological level, theological level etc. Once this confusion is removed, I think Christians can agree the biological explanation of life.
Shortly put, theory of evolution to explain to diversity of life including common descent I agree, but theory of evolution as a worldview I oppose. As a trained theologian/scientist, I think, individual like Alister McGrath has been doing exactly that. Btw, for those who don't know Alister has doctorates in Molecular Biophysics as well as in Theology, both from Oxford.
Why is it then that we have such a big problem with evolution? One reason is in our understanding of the term. 'Evolution' mean different thing to different people. To some, it simply means human beings originating from monkeys, to others the absence of God in how the universe came into existence, an ideology, a worldview, a dogma, even a religion.The term evolution was popularized during the 19th century by Herbert Spencer to mean cultural evolution; i.e. the increasing complexity of cultures.
Jeremiah has described how Darwin's theory of preexisting life forms developing and progressing into higher forms need not necessarily rule out divine intervention.
Some may think, 'evolution or 7 days creation, it makes no difference to my faith'. But many of our fellow brothers and sisters do have problems with it. Many preachers even while preaching on other topics throws a casual punch at evolution.
For those who have not studied science, it may be difficult to understand the technical parts (Sadly those who oppose evolution are mostly not from science background). Even if we cannot understand evolution, I think it is important that we understand Genesis 1,2. What happens is when we interpret the Biblical creation account literally (which the Bible itself does not allow!!!), the choice is either evolution or creation. Why can't we have both? Creation through evolution.
The first Hydrogen bomb was tested at Eniwetok, an island formed by corals. Before the detonation a hole was drilled through the coralline cap of the island down to bedrock. The drill went through 4,610 feet of coral before it hit the rock.
The fastest coral growth measured was two-fifth of an inch per year, which is about one foot ever thirty years. If the coral colony is 4,610 feet thick, it would have taken at least 138300 years to grow. Eniwetok reef can be older than that cos the condition for the growth of coral is not always perfect, but the reef cannot be younger than that. This shows that the earth is much older than what the YEC tells us.
Michael Behe uses mouse trap and bacterial flagela to argue for 'irreducible complexity'. Since mechanisms here are irreducibly complex, the system must have been designed (by God).
But the problem here is are the mechanisms really irreducibly complex? It's highly debatable. But even otherwise there are other problems. (1)If God intervenes by designing the system at that gap, who is running the system when there is no gap? Is it the Devil? (2) Science progresses, and there is the possibility of the mechanism being explained scientifically in future. And once that is done God will have less space of his intervention. So God is ultimately pushed to the corner. This is to use 'God of the gap' argument. ID movement, to me, is using this argument, which is not quite a good theological position. (3) The argument that God would have designed it is not falsiable, and therefore it falls short of being a scientific enterprise.
I'm afraid the desire to 'proof' God's existence is pushing them to far. I think apologetics methods that try to prove God's existence will not work well for post-modern crowd. It may work well for Christians who are confused though! May be this is one reason why this method is very common among American apologists.
European apologists, to my knowledge, does not see evolutionary biology as opposed to Christian theology and they also adopt a much more modest method.
My feeling is that apologetics in India should weave history, sociology, theology etc together very well cos our crowd is very different from that of the US. Straighforward rationalistic philosophical arguments will not work well. We don't need to 'prove' God's existence specially here in India.
the earth is much younger than than what the OEE(old earth evolutionism) tells us???
Consider ENIWETOK, an island formed by corals where The first Hydrogen bomb was tested.
fact: the Great Barrier Reef, in spite of its huge area, is not the thickest known reef. This distinction probably belongs to Eniwetok Atoll in the Marshall Islands. This is a living reef resting on an extinct volcano cone which comes up about three kilometres (two miles) from the ocean floor. Drilling revealed about 1,400 metres (4,600 feet) of reef material.
concider:Ariel Roth of the Geoscience Research Institute has commented on the fact that estimates of net reef growth rates vary from 0.8 millimetres per year to 80 millimetres per year, whereas actual measurements based on soundings at depth are many times these estimates.
(A.A. Roth, ‘Coral Reef Growth’, Origins 6(2) 88–95, 1979.)
Roth suggests a number of reasons for this difference.
The main one is that measurements made at the surface will show lower rates of growth because of exposure to air at low tides and intense ultraviolet light. Lack of light will of course kill a reef—no live coral growth takes place below about 50 metres under the surface. Hence thick atolls such as Eniwetok require the ocean floor to sink as the coral builds. As the coral is lowered, faster growth is possible than that which we measure at the surface.
For example, in 1972, Cyclone Bebe ‘constructed’ a rampart of coral rubble 3.5 metres high, 37 metres wide and 18 kilometres long in a few hours.
(J.E. Maragos, G.B.K. Baines, and P.J. Beveridge, ‘Tropical Cyclone Bebe Creates a New Land Formation on Funafuti Atoll’, Science 181:1161–1164, 1973.)
Given all the above, it seems reasonable to rely on the actual figures reported from depth-sounding measurements for coral reef growth rates, rather than calculations trying to take all these other factors into account. Such reef growth rates have been reported as high as 414 millimetres per year in the Celebes.(J. Verstelle, ‘The Growth Rate at Various Depths of Coral Reefs in the Dutch East-Indian Archipelago’, Treubia 14:117–126, 1932.)
At such a rate, the entire thickness of the Eniwetok Atoll could have been formed in less than 3,500 years.
now don't be surprised by the numbers (3,500yers or 1,38,000years).
therefore, my humble request:
Don't be carried away by one position. consider other right interpretations too. if not you may misguide the laymen and women and also busy students.
1.consider what text books says.
2.consider what different people/positions says (please give reference)
let us debate on the following before we comment on differnt positions:
1. Definition of evolution and different explanations (what it is and is not)
2.evidences of evolution- strengths and weakneses.
3.mechanism of evolution -how it works.
kindly give references if possible.
i will encorage if you use the text books of the college students.
thank you.
(i would like to know this from a theistic evolutionist. it will be better if any theistic evolutionist can respond to it. let me know about the different openions within the theistic evolutionism)
2.how it different from creationism and atheistic evolutionism.
3.how relevant is this 'debate' to indian (our) context. what is the position of indian intelligentsia on this matter?
please let me know.
The worst example of intellectual dishonesty is equivocation, that is, switching the meaning of a single word part-way through an argument. This deceitful practice is used by many evolutionary propagandists when defining the word ‘evolution’.
COMMENT in the BLOG:
'Evolution is a theory that is used to explain the diversity of biological species ... Therefore, I don't see why Christian must oppose theory of evolution.'
RESPONSE:
wikipedia says "In biology, evolution is the process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next."
here lies the problem of EQUIVOCATION.
The theory of evolution really means the development of all living things from a single cell, which itself came from non-living chemicals. This directly contradicts the Bible and has no scientific support. But many propagandists define evolution as ‘change in gene frequency with time’ or ‘descent with modification’ and use Darwin’s finches and industrial melanism in the peppered moths as clinching proof of ‘evolution’ and disproof of creationism! An example is the atheist Eugenie Scott, Executive Director of the pretentiously named National Center for Science Education, the leading US organisation devoted entirely to evolution-pushing. She approvingly cited a teacher whose pupils said after her ‘definition’: ‘Of course species change with time! You mean that’s evolution?!’
(http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/6261_creation_or_evolution__1_9_2001.asp)
Of course no creationist disputes that changes occur through time, but creationists disagree that the type of change required for molecules-to-man evolution occurs, i.e. changes that increase information content.
It is impossible to have a logical discussion with people if there is no agreement on meanings of words, or with those who are dishonest with their terminology. let me close with the staement of Socrates, in Plato’s Phaedo: he stated succinctly, ‘To use words wrongly and indefinitely is not merely an error in itself, it also creates evil in the soul.’
Sao says, "Even if we cannot understand evolution, I think it is important that we understand Genesis 1,2. What happens is when we interpret the Biblical creation account literally (which the Bible itself does not allow!!!), the choice is either evolution or creation. Why can't we have both? Creation through evolution"
Jeremiah says, "My view is that the days in the Genesis 1 cannot be interpreted in a straightforward literal manner. I think it is more accurate to take the framework view, the interpretative principle given in the NIV Study Bible."
RESPONSE:
we need to remember that 'the frame work view of NIV study bible should not be consisdered as the word of god, it's just a view.(ofcource scholorship is there..)
Don't be carried away by brand name "NIV"...
the first 4 major propositions of Framework view are:
1.the figurative nature of the creation account
2.the creation account controlled by ordinary providence
3.the unending nature of the seventh day
4.the two-register cosmology.
these are
now consider the words of old testament scholor,Dr. Robert V. McCabe:
(1.Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal, vol. 10 (2005): 19–67.
2.http://www.dbts.edu/journals/2000/McCabe.pdf)
1.a figurative interpretation arguing for a topical arrangement of the “days” of the creation “week” is incongruous with the exegetical details of Genesis 1:1–2:3 and undermines the literary nature of the creation account as a genuine historical narrative serving as a prologue for remainder of the Genesis narrative. In supporting our counter thesis, I have used three arguments. First, the fifty-five uses of waw consecutive in Genesis 1:1–2:3 identify this passage as an unequivocal narrative account.
2.the use of sequentially numbered days in Scripture is regularly used to reference literal and distinct days. The Scriptural use of numeric qualifiers with the singular “day,” יוֹם, unequivocally testifies to the literal nature of each day in the creation narrative. In addition, the uses of “day” with numeric qualifiers that are sequentially arranged appear in two other Old Testament contexts. In both contexts, the days are sequentially arranged, allowing for no interruption between the numbered days. Not only do these contexts support a literal understanding of “day,” but they also demonstrate that each day is set apart from the other days in the numbered sequence. This also suggests that the days of Genesis 1:1–2:3 are sequentially arranged literal days and that each day of the creation week is distinct from the other days of the creation week. As such, Days 1 and 4 cannot be equated, and, furthermore, Day 4 of necessity must follow Day 1, with Days 2 and 3 separating both days. To buttress this distinction between Days 1 and 4, the textual differences between Days 1 and 4 indicated that the two days were distinct and that Day 4 presupposed Day 1.
3.the stylized nature of Genesis 1:1–2:3 is congruent with a chronological understanding of a literal creation week. The stylized narrative of the creation account uses a literal week with six days of divine creative activity followed by the seventh day reflecting God’s delight in his work of creation along with his divine blessing on this literal day that concluded the first week in temporal history. As the author of Genesis shaped his historical material, two items controlled his shaping of the material: the actual events of the creation week and his God-given understanding of these events. With the arrangement of the material, the author used repetition, such as a fivefold structure that summarized each day of creative activity. Furthermore, with this structural scheme highlighting key activities for each day, the waw consecutive was used to sequentially advance the events of each day, and, after a closing appositional phrase with a sequentially enumerated day, it advanced to the next day by commencing it with another waw consecutive, “God said.” Therefore, when sequentially numbered, literal days are integrated with numerous sequential uses of waw consecutive that serve as the main-line sequence in a historical narrative, this provides reasonable evidence that Genesis 1:1–2:3 is a literal week.
response to other propositions of framework view follows...
(continution to the previous lines)
(Framework review: Don't be carried away by brand name "NIV"...)
consider the words of old testament scholor,Dr. Robert V. McCabe:
(1.Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal, vol. 10 (2005): 19–67.
2.http://www.dbts.edu/journals/2000/McCabe.pdf)
4.Concerning the wider context of Scripture, we considered the framework’s dismissal of extraordinary providence in the creation narrative. With this examination, I demonstrated that the framework’s dismissal of extraordinary providence is in conflict with 1:1–2:3, with the overall tenor of Scripture as it relates to miracles, and with a proper understanding of the analogy of Scripture. Initially, a closer look at divine providence in the creation week revealed that this period was characterized by extraordinary providence and that during this period God established the conditions so that at the end of this week the earth could fully function according to ordinary providence. Additionally, the “unargued presupposition” of v. 5 that demands that God worked exclusively through ordinary providence in the creation account was found to be unconvincing since God has not limited himself to work exclusively through ordinary providence in biblical history. Finally, the appeal to the analogy of Scripture with Genesis 2:5 was found questionable. Rather than using a recent questionable interpretation of a difficult text like 2:5 to reinterpret 1:1–2:3 as a nonliteral text, Scripture’s overall message about creation, including 1:1–2:3, should have the major interpretative force in understanding a difficult text like 2:5.
The evaluation of the third thesis demonstrated that neither the omission of the evening and morning conclusion nor the use of Genesis 2:2 in Hebrews 4 furnished unequivocal support for the seventh day being an unending, figurative day. In contrast, the omission of the evening and morning conclusion, along with explicit reference to God’s cessation of creative activity and his specific blessing on Day 7, shows that this day was a specific, literal day that concluded the first literal week in the realm of the creation.
5.the framework’s argument is that as there is a spatial/dimensional upper and lower register so there is also a temporal upper, heavenly, and lower, earthly register. It was argued that the analogous relationship between heavenly and earthly time was faulty because the basis of the comparison is unconvincing. The framework’s five points of contact in Genesis 1:1–2:3 between the spatial/dimensional upper and lower registers cannot be contextually supported in this text. The spatial/dimensional upper and lower register was a grid read into the creation narrative and not an actual part of the textual substance of this narrative. As such, the comparison was fundamentally flawed. Furthermore, the bifurcation between heavenly and earthly time was questionable since Scripture never hints that there is twofold scheme to time; and when God works in the created realm, he operates according to the earth’s temporal scheme.
Conclusion:
Rather than the exegetical evidence of Genesis 1–2, as well as the rest of Scripture, supporting the framework view, the evidence is consistent with the historic literal day interpretation of the creation account. The impetus for the framework view is an attempt to merge the biblical creation account to the modern scientific view of cosmogony. In this attempt, it stretches the creation account beyond where it fits as a straightforward exegesis of Genesis 1:1–2:3. Such exegesis demands that we accept the narrative account of Genesis 1:1–2:3 as it describes God’s supernatural work in creating the universe in six, sequential, 24-hour days, followed by a 24-hour day of cessation from creative activity. Finally, rather than demonstrating a distinction between heavenly and earthly time, the creation account shows a distinction between the creature and the Creator who is not circumscribed the limits assigned to him by framework advocates.
my humble request:
based on above points, Even if we cannot understand evolution, I think it is important that we understand Genesis 1,2. What happens is when we misinterpret the Biblical creation account (which the Bible itself does not allow!!!), the choice is either evolution or creation. it can't be both?"
please consider the arguments all positions. don't be carried away by brand names (OXFORD, NIV,...) and the majority (untill and unless they are right).
Q1. One can be an atheist, a Buddhist, a Hindu, and a Taoist and at the same time be a top rate scientist. Why so?
Q2. Why is young earth creationism (YEC) a unique feature of a distinctively Christian subset of the fundamentalist variety, initially @ USA?
Q3. If Science is accessible to people of all beliefs or unbelief, has any scientist, agnostic, atheist or simply non Christian ever come to the conclusion that the Universe/Earth is young from his study of nature/scientific studies apart from any extra scientific considerations? If no, why?
Q4. Is a "science" that is not universal but practiced only within a closed group of a "few section" of Christian
fundamentalists really a science?
Q5. Why do the YEC scientists do peer review journals among themselves only, and which decent research institute subscribe to these journals?
Q6. How far can we accept something as science which is nothing more than a reactive effort? What has YEC contributed to the growth of science?
Q7. Why is evolution a theory and not a hypothesis?
Q8. What do Augustine, Origen, Calvin, Barth, Billy Graham, John Stott have to say about evolution/Genesis 1, 2? How many Biblical scholars would vouch for a YEC style interpretation of Genesis or the Bible as a whole? Why did the International Conference on "Biblical inerrancy" refused to endorse the YEC position on Genesis?
Q9. What was the historical/sociological background of the rise of the YEC phenomenon? Wasn’t it a reaction to seeing evolution as a threat to the fixed social order, and that the creationists who were premillenialists thought that literal interpretation of Genesis was required for Jesus’ second coming etc. etc.?
It is for these busy students that we study even areas where we are not interested. Our intention is to help them where they have doubt/problem e.g Evolution.
how relevant is this 'debate' to Indian (our) context. what is the position of indian intelligentsia on this matter?
It should have been a non-issue, but the YECs flood our Christian book stores with their ideology. When a lie is being spread, truth cannot be silent. And YEC harms real science.
Don't be carried away by brand name "NIV"... Don't be carried away by brand name "NIV".. don't be carried away by brand names (OXFORD, NIV,...) and the majority (untill and unless they are right).
What is the alternative? I’d rather trust brands like NIV and Oxford than products of YEC cottage industry.
Don't be carried away by one position. consider other right interpretations too
I used to make fun of evolution until I saw the evidences and understood Genesis 1, 2.
Some responses left. Jeremiah can, or I’ll at a later date
(From The TimesOctober 7, 2008.
Leading geneticist Steve Jones says human evolution is over)
the main points of his lecture:
1. there were three components to evolution – natural selection, mutation and random change.
2. one of the most important mutation triggers is advanced age in men. This is because cell divisions in males increase with age. “Every time there is a cell division, there is a chance of a mistake, a mutation, an error,”.Fathers over the age of 35 are more likely to pass on mutations.
now the average age of child bearing comes around 25-35.
3. Another factor is the weakening of natural selection. “In ancient times half our children would have died by the age of 20. Now, in the Western world, 98 per cent of them are surviving to 21.”
4. Decreasing randomness is another contributing factor.
5. “Small populations which are isolated can evolve at random as genes are accidentally lost. World-wide, all populations are becoming connected and the opportunity for random change is dwindling. History is made in bed, but nowadays the beds are getting closer together. We are mixing into a glo-bal mass, and the future is brown.”
(UCL lecture by Professor Steve Jones, of University College London.)
source:(http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/
news/uk/science/article4894696.ece)
MY COMMENTS:
The great geneticist supposes that more mutations equal more genetic information in the DNA. Yet this is never observed to be the case. In fact, the mutations caused always involve a rearrangement or loss of information. Thus, the supposed upward pressure of evolution is, in fact, a downward pressure.
It might be fair to summarise it thus:
1.Actual scientific evidence suggests that humans are not evolving today.
2.We don't have any evidence that they were evolving in the past either.
3.But we think that they were!!!
(humans never evolved—we are all descended from the man and woman that God made on the Sixth Day of Creation.)
we are not on the opposite sides here. i am showing you some of the arguments which are quit appealing. it’s good to interact and discuss even our differences.
the questions you posted here are for a person belongs to SUBSET OF CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALISTS (as you are saying). first let me know the categories of christians. then i try to identify myself with one of them.
kindly mention which of my comments or notes posted here are not sound. let us argue on those things.
regarding YEC you can find information in their websites.
for the list of websites-
http://www.cis.org.uk/resources/
links/yecs-links
I will try to answer the questions (which you are already posted) that are not related to YEC.
you have asked the question:
"Why is evolution a theory and not a hypothesis?
The problem with using the word “theory” in this case is that scientists use it to mean a well-substantiated explanation of data. This includes well-known theories such as Einstein’s Theory of Relativity and Newton’s Theory of Gravity, as well as lesser-known ones such as the Debye–Hückel Theory of electrolyte solutions. It would be better to say that particles-to-people evolution is an unsubstantiated hypothesis or conjecture. “ig picture of Evolution (non-life to life and etc) is not proven fact, so it should not be promoted dogmatically.”
i would agree with natural selection, variation, mutation,... to certain extent. there is no proof that these can account the big picture of evolution.
definitions:
1. A hypothesis (from Greek ὑπόθεσις) consists either of a suggested explanation for a phenomenon (an event that is observable) or of a reasoned proposal suggesting a possible correlation between multiple phenomena (wikipedia)
2. In science a theory is a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation. For the scientist, "theory" is not in any way an antonym of "fact". For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behavior are Newton's theory of universal gravitation, and the general theory of relativity.
In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, a speculation, or a hypothesis. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them.
According to the United States National Academy of Sciences,
Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them.(i think evolution dosen't fall in this category). The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature that is supported by many facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena, wikipedia. () are mine
How do we really know what we know? And in that sense, it begins to overlap even with historical epistemology...
even with biblical interpretation...
Serious biblical scholars will tell you that there is no such thing as a view from nowhere... so even good biblical scholarship admits to its own limitation on the possiblity of future re-interpretation (excluding those re-interpretations of its core beliefs because its only under those that such theolgy can be done in the first place - so that two christians can debate about evolution but not about new creation)..
For some, doctrine of creation or evolution becomes so dear and close to them... and both sides of the debate becomes agressively passionate for a good reason - that we hold the Bible as revelatory... and the best explanation of reality..
------------------------
sorry for the abrupt comment :)
find their primary identity in being anti- someting or pro - something .... bye bye to having a primary identity in Christ...
and its because of such thing that there could be such an awful thing as 'creationist church' ...
from the comments of Sao:
"the creationists who were premillenialists thought that literal interpretation of Genesis was required for Jesus’ second coming etc. etc.?" (Q.No:09)
1. Is the above comment points to a the real differences between Amillenialists and premillenialists also a reson for the two groups (Theistic evolutionists and YEC respectively)?
2. Is Interpretation of the books like Genesis and Revelation are the main reason for the different positions in creation/&Evolution debate?
Q1. One can be an atheist, a Buddhist, a Hindu, and a Taoist and at the same time be a top rate scientist. Why so?
* A top rate engineer of FORD company can be a top rate engineer with or without believing the truth that Ford is the founder of the Ford company.
* the same way the present day scientists can work/study to become top rate scientist because established scientific field, with or without taking their belives in to consideration. Desintegration of all the fields in philosophy makes this much easier for scientists. rationality of human can serve any purpose faithfully.
"Rodney Stark (in For the Glory of God) have concluded, belief in the Creator God is a requisite foundation for belief for in a logical, orderly, understandable universe. Without that basis, why should atheists think the universe can be scientifically understood?"
most of the of the faiths (including above mentioned) can happily go forward with contrdictory beliefs.
(Don't you think so?)
* once if some scientists comes with a openion or hypothesis which suppotes their religious belief then problem will come.
Ex: two indian scientists argued that the eternal past of the university based on their work is better explanation for begining of universe than bigbang. if such case arrises, then we will know the real nature of top rated scientists. consider the below statement.
"Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic."
—Dr. Scott Todd, Kansas State University, Nature 401(6752):423, Sept. 30, 1999
* we can find similar type of statements with religious people too. the problem is no one want listen and understand the arguments of others. once position is fixed in particular issue, then they think "nothing good can come out of other positions, then you can apply the "survival of the fittest" principle on them based on their past history thinking that 'in future they can not make any contribution'.
in the course of time, at some point, you should Evolute yourself and also others. because people will change, their thinking will change. indeed all positions are evolving in their arguments. because as someone said,
"nothing constant in the world except the change itself."
If God is who God claims to be, and who I believe he is, then he is not explainable in natural terms. He is outside the natural world; outside of space and time.... Once one accepts that idea that there could be something outside the natural, then miracles also become possible. Lewis writes about this extremely well in his little book called Miracles.
...It seems to me reading the Bible there were times when miracles were occurring at greater frequency, such as in the time of Moses or Elijah or the time of Christ. I have not personally witnessed a spiritual miracle. And I reject the comments that people make sometimes like the fact that a flower is blooming is a miracle. I don't think so. That's a matter that science can actually explain. How did you go from that seed to that blooming flower? I can answer that. Now, why did the seed exist in the first place? That, perhaps, is a miracle. We don't really know how the universe got here.
- Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D., is the director of the Human Genome Project.
(source:http://www.pbs.org/wgbh
/questionofgod/voices/collins.html)
MY comments:
evolution cannot explain God and it cannot accept the miracles untill it accepts its limitations.
Scientists (who takes evolution as their faith) believes in:
1. life from non-life.
2. universe(matter+energy+space+time) from nothing.
"God gave us an opportunity through science to understand the natural world, but there will never be a scientific proof of God's existence." -collins.
LIMITATIONS OF SCIENCE:
I had to admit that the science I loved so much was powerless to answer questions such as "What is the meaning of life?" "Why am I here?" "Why does mathematics work, anyway?" "If the universe had a beginning, who created it?" "Why are the physical constants in the universe so finely tuned to allow the possibility of complex life forms?" "Why do humans have a moral sense?" "What happens after we die?" -Collins.
1. theistic evolution =
evolution(whole theory) + God in the gaps.
2. creationism =
creation(non-figurative) + evolution(some principles) in gaps.
explanation:
1. theistic evolution acepts the theory of evolution (molecules to man) needs god to explain non-physical and non-biological things. because of limitations in science.
It was made clear in the lines of jeremiah: Evolution is a theory that is used to explain the diversity of biological species. To get to that (picture of God) one needs to move to a different level of explanation.
2. Creationism on other hand accepts that 'God created different kinds living beings including the human beings. The history between then to the present world can be explained by the principles of Evolution (natural selection, gene mutation, isolation, adaption and so on)
that is the reason some creationists agree with microevolution not macro evolution.
1. position of THEISTIC EVOLUTIONISM:
A. the theistic evolutionists agree with the Estimates of timescales in human evolution, that are (from Goodman, 1999, Am J Hum Genet 64, 31):
Common Ancestor with:
(years in Million )
chimps 5
great apes 14
apes 18
Old World primates 25
New World primates 40
primates 63
B. they also say: Genome comparisons have shown that there are 2,000 human-specific and 2,000 chimp-specific LINE-1 sequences. These inserted after the human and chimp lineages diverged. The other half million LINEs we possess are shared with the chimps – a staggering weight of evidence of common ancestry.(similarity = common ancestry???).
C. Genetics are unable to describe fully what make us human.(so include god here if possible???)
D. Science seeks understanding of natural history (such as primate evolution); Christian theology seeks understanding of God’s actions in concrete human history. The basis of each intellectual discipline is the empirical world.
Our genes are absolutely necessary but completely insufficient to define our humanity. Our status as human beings arises from personal knowledge.
E. As human beings we transcend our genes because they could never make us human.(ape genes can make an ape as ape. but here author argues that human genes can not make a human a human???) It is the love of humans who have made us human. In being known and loved we know and love.(what about adam and eve who made in the image of god at the biginning???).
*comments in () are mine.
**source:http://www.st-edmunds.cam.
ac.uk/faraday/CIS/Finlay/
lecture.htm#Sect_1
2. Position of (YE)CREATIONISM:
A. similarity does not provide evidence of a common ancestor—it only provides evidence that the two organisms are similar. Common ancestry is assumed. (like that common designer:God, can also be assumed???)
B. The use of a percentage(98% similarity,...) also obscures the fact that it is at least roughly 125 million DNA base pairs that are different between the two species.
c. Here are some other interesting differences between the human and chimp genomes which are often not reported:(they argue for differences...that is what they want???)
i) The amount of chimp DNA is 12% larger than what it is in humans.
ii) Several hundred million bases (individual components of the DNA) of the chimp genome are still unanalyzed.
iii) In many areas of the DNA sequence, major “rearrangements” seem apparent. These account for perhaps 4–10% dissimilarity between chimps and humans.
iv) Chimps have 23 chromosomes and humans have only 22 (excluding sex chromosomes for both species).
D. Creationists believe that God made Adam directly from the dust of the earth just as the Bible says. Therefore, man and the apes have never had an ancestor in common.
Some scientists are surprised at the anatomical, physical and behavioral differences between man and chimpanzee when they see so much apparent genetic similarity. With a philosophy that excludes a Creator God, they are forced to accept similarity as evidence of common ancestry. However, similarity can also be the result of a common Designer.(this is their main point.)
It is the differences that make the difference. The most important difference is that man is created in the image of God. (I think, this is the only point that two positions will agree. what you think?)
* comments in () are mine.
**http://answersingenesis.org/
docs2005/0905chimp.asp
***http://answersingenesis.org/
docs2006/1002time.asp
This view, termed theistic evolution, is held by many people, especially professors at Christian colleges who conclude that it is the solution to the creation-evolution controversy.
A Nature editorial concludes that the effort to demonstrate that "God's hand shap[ed] the course of evolution" (i.e., theistic evolution) "is bad news for researchers. . . . it also poses a threat to the very core of scientific reason" and must be actively opposed (Nature, 2005, p. 1053).
1. Creationist says:
Theistic evolution is clearly not the solution to quieting the creation-evolution controversy for many reasons. One is because leading educators, scientists, and major science organizations are all hotly opposed to any and all worldviews that involve God, and this view now actually faces much more opposition than does creationism. The solution to the controversy is not to adopt a position that does justice to neither the science nor the Scriptures, but to advocate a position supported by the scientific data, and not science speculation based on naturalism.
2. Theistic evolutionism:
Theistic evolution is the general opinion that classical religious teachings about God and creation are compatible with some or all of the modern scientific understanding about biological evolution. Theistic evolution is not a theory in the scientific sense, but a particular view about how the science of evolution relates to some religious interpretations. In this way, theistic evolution supporters can be seen as one of the groups who deny the conflict thesis regarding the relationship between religion and science; that is, they hold that religious teachings about creation and scientific theories of evolution need not be contradictory. In describing early proponents of this viewpoint, it is sometimes described as Christian Darwinism.[1] A very similar view, that is hardly distinguishable from a scientific viewpoint, is Evolutionary Creationism.[2]
(from wikipedia)
Q.Who Was Adam?
“Who was Adam?” is the question theistic evolutionists cannot adequately answer. Theistic evolutionists have many ideas regarding Adam's identity and the nature of the Fall. Perhaps the most accepted evolutionary interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis goes something like this: Adam and his wife Eve were people who had evolved from ape-like ancestors; God drew near to them and breathed His Spirit into them, making them “spiritual beings” with a so-called “God knowledge”; and the Fall is supposed to have occurred when this human pair disobeyed God's revelation to them about being obedient to Him. (What happened to the other people at the time and who had a similar evolutionary ancestry is not mentioned.)
*http://www.answersingenesis.org/
articles/am/v1/n1/future-of-humans.
Adam was not born of a woman. He was the first human. In l Corinthians 15:45 we read, ‘And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul’. Adam was the first man. - Ken Ham.
theistic evolutionist says:
i) It seems pretty clear from the Bible that Adam and Eve were the first truly morally conscious hominids but that there were other males and females around (eg Gen 4:14) - John Polkinghorne.
ii) Much of the Evil is directly or indirectly the result of human sin - ie falling short of the Glory of God. In addition to the obvious ways in which this is true (Murder etc..) biological death was apparently in the world long before Adam and Eve, but death can only be Evil if there are morally conscious beings. And perhaps to someone in perfect loving union with God would not feel the pain of separation nearly as much as we do. This is not to deny the terrible reality of death, but to affirm that it is not final.
- John Polkinghorne.
iii) The emergence of the first moral freewill being or beings (=df Adam and Eve - obviously they were not the only members of their biological species as Genesis implicitly makes clear) and b. The first time they actually made a sinful choice.
- John Polkinghorne.
*http://www.starcourse.org/jcp/
qanda.html
**http://www.starcourse.org/jcp/
orig_sin.htm
MY comments:
for me this 'adam eve, original sin, image and likeness seems to be the major problem.
What the NIV says is that the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground...It is does not add the word "directly' which the 'Creationists' would like to add.
I would also say that 'creationists' is not a good term to exclusively associate with those who believe that the earth is some 6,000-10,000 years old. All Christians are creationists. Therefore, Young Earth Creationists (YEC) is a better term. So I would use YEC rather.
The point, however, is whether the entire mechanism took place in a split of a second, so to speak, or the mechanism took long long time. But both the positions will agree that it is through dust (a non-living thing) that man (a living thing) is formed.
Atheist will see the mechanism of forming living things from non-living things as being undirected and unguided. Christians will see the mechanism as being directed and guided by God. But for me I see it as guided because I've already committed myself to the Christian worldview.
But can YEC give a knock down argument that the text meant it to be interpreted as split-of-a-second kind of formation? Can't it mean a long long time? If one is committed to interpreting the 'day' as 24 hr duration then split-in-a-second kind of formation is the only way out. But if the 'day' can mean a long long time, then evolutionary process is a possibility.
I said NIV Study Bible does not take 24 hr duration. Dictionary of Old Testament Pentateuch (IVP) which I think is a very good book on the subject matter also does not take 24 hr duration. In fact, most commentators of OT does not take 'day' as 24 hr duration.
It is extremely extremely rare to find evangelical OT scholar from reputed evangelical seminary to go for 24 hr duration kind of interpretation. There are, but an extremely extremely tiny section. Why is it so?
Even through Science itself there are extremely extremely tiny section of people who arrive at the conclusion that the earth is only some 6000-10000 years old. Whether it is Christians or Hindus or Buddhists or Muslims or Sikhs or Jains or Shintoist or Confucius or atheists most scientists, through their research, arrive at a conclusion for a much much older earth. If the earth is really young should not all these people also come to know about it even by doing Science? Why only some Christians, and that too most of them cut off from the mainstream scientific community?
Of course majority does not always get things right. But the issue here is that we are talking about global community. And it is in the context of global community that we do both theology and Science. And YECs have not quite come out of the cocoon and engage with the global community. It does not quite make sense to complain that the global community is persecuting the YECs.
I don’t know if you understand how science works or follow the logic of your own arguments. You answer your own questions and quote sources to your own destruction (copy paste without knowing the stand of the source, nahi chalega). You are many times arguing in favor of my case. You are helping me
Let’s see some of your sources:
Ariel Roth of the Geoscience Research Institute
The Institute ‘serves the Seventh-day Adventist church’ (http://www.grisda.org/about.htm). It gives an academic language/color to the already preconceived beliefs. What a way to do science based on an ‘extra-biblical’ experience of a lady, Mary Ellen White.
Rodney Stark
Let’s hear him: “I don’t know what I believe.. I have trouble with faith. I’m not proud of this. I don’t think it makes me an intellectual. I would believe if I could, and I may be able to before it’s over. I would welcome that." He described himself as an “independent Christian”. His words you quoted are fine, but we’ve to be careful.
Steve Jones
You used him to state that evolution is not happening anymore. Do you know in response to what debate he said this? You also inferred from him that humans never evolved—we are all descended from the man and woman that God made on the Sixth Day of Creation. Well, He himself agrees to evolution in the past! How can you conclude that man was created on the sixth day from a genetics text? Confusing genetics with Genesis.
US National Academy of Science
You rightly differentiated theory from a hypothesis and went on to quote US NAS to consolidate your case. It was like pressing ‘self-destruct’ bottom: the same Academy which sees evolution as a theory and ignored YEC as ‘pseudo-science’. It says "creation science is in fact not science and should not be presented as such…the claims of creation science lack empirical support and cannot be meaningfully tested. There goes your J.E. Maragos, G.B.K. Baines, and P.J. Beveridge, Answers in Genesis
Francis Collins
Thank you very much. Let’s hear him, “Particularly at risk are those who, having being taught young earth creationism by well intentioned families and churches, ultimately become exposed to overwhelming scientific data supporting evolution and an old earth. Faced with unreasonable demands on their logic by sincere teachers of their faith, is it any wonder that many sadly conclude that they cannot believe in a God who would ask them to deny the truth?”
Ok, as you requested, let me give some evidences for evolution.
First go back to what you quoted http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/CIS/Finlay/lecture.htm#Sect_1
which you misunderstood and inserted weird questions in brackets. E.g.
C. Genetics are unable to describe fully what make us human.(so include god here if possible???)
You couldn’t identify the answer to your question which just followed:
D. Science seeks understanding of natural history
If Genetics were the only evidence of evolution… Thank God we have many more, working independently yet coming together so well. We have fossil records and Carbon-14 dating. If you think it’s reading is faulty, there are Uranium-235 to Lead-207, Potassium-40 to Argon-40, Rubidium 87 to Strontium-87, independent confirmations. Minor consistencies 5-10% does not invalidate them because to us, it’s a question of whether the universe is 6000 years or 4.6 billion years. Not 4 billion or 4.6 billion years? YECs question if decay rates have changed. But structure of an atom at 2500 or -253 centigrade does not alter decay rate. If nucleus is size of a soccer ball, whole atom would have diameter larger than the height of Mt. Everest. Tree rings of 6000 yrs were found (YEC evidence). But in its vicinity were dead trees of 11,800 yrs. By Doppler Effect, speed of the galaxies moving away (since big bang) from us could be estimated. Transitional fossils are being continuously found. Missing link between fish and tetrapods has been found in 1998. One of the most remarkable findings-predecessors of hippopotamus to whales was found in Pakistan recently. The famous Archeopteryx 1861, 6 others have been found. Why there is so less fossils is because fossilization is an exceedingly unlikely event: Microbial decomposition, scavenging or chemical destruction; burial has to be rapid accumulation of sediment; occurs in tiny populations (leave the technical parts). Despite unlikelihood, we have tremendous number of fossils. You can have an incomplete list at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils.
U asked me to categorise Christians. I think we can do here without that ( unless u insist)
Ammilenialists are not all theistic evolutionists, all premillenialists are not YEC. But I was stating the background of the belief of some premillenialists which contributed to the rise of YEC. But I think the classification should be correct to a considerable extend. Open to debate…Yes the literalist style of interpretation of YEC on Genesis becomes uncomfortable with the monsters in Revelation :-)
Have to be a bit schizophrenic !!
You have not answered my Q1. You only extended my question to engineering. And if a non-Christian can be a good engineer/scientist (read Mat. 5:45), why can’t he/she find that the earth is 6000 years old?
As Christians we are all agreed that God created the universe and let the debate not take away the awe and wonder of what God has lovingly and beautifully created.
i hope you missed the difference between the two positions in regards to the creation of adam.(i think!)
Your comments goes like this:
"But both the positions will agree that it is through dust (a non-living thing) that man (a living thing) is formed."
the text, Gen 2:7
the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
! adam(literal?) is the first human(?) whom god gave life. (science have to deal 'how' part?).
please see post on "who is adam?
note the comments of pokinghorne.
"It seems pretty clear from the Bible that Adam (literal?) and Eve were the first (literally?) truly morally conscious hominids but that there were other males and females around (eg Gen 4:14)" - John Polkinghorne.
* consider the doubts expressed in the ().
i am going through the overwhelming evidence of evolution...
mean while let me show you something about bigbang (the starting point?)which you have mentioned in your recent response.
kindly read the open letter to the scientific community:
http://www.cosmologystatement.org/
Published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004.
(...neither from YEC group nor from Thistic evolution group?).
hope you will come up with some comments. (i am seriously studying this open letter).
The Bible is silent whether God gave 'image and likeness' only to Adam and Eve or even to other homonids. John Polkinghorne meant to say that Adam and Eve could be the first 'homo divinus' ( bearing the image and likeness of God), but there could also be other ape-like ancestors who were given 'image and likeness' of God by God himself. It seems ok to arrive at such conclusion because when Cain got married, there were already others bearing the 'image and likeness' of God, by which I mean to say there were already other human beings.
Another interpretation is to say Cain married his sister. But both interpretations are ok.I don't, therefore, see how it is theologically problematic.
John Polkinghorne said that with tongue in a cheek cos the Genesis text 1-3 did not clearly say whether 'adam' was a literal human being or not.'adam' means 'man'. That's the Hebrew use of the word. So if we have to be honest to the text we have to say that there is some obscurity whether 'adam' is a literal human being or not.
Genesis 4:1, New Testament text and genetics all seem to suggest that 'adam' was a literal human figure. But to argue for strict literal human figure from Genesis 1-3, to me, is not fair to the text.
To be honest I don't see why Ken Ham should have problem with John Polkinghorne's way of seeing things.
You mentioned that 'image and likeness' also seems to be a major problem. I can't see how.
I am not Sao, but let me say little bit on Big Bang cosmological model. No doubt Big Bang model has problems. But other models also have their own problems. Instead of having no model at all that would guide research programmes Science would prefer to use the best available model. And that's why Big Bang model is being used because as of now that's the best model. The point, however, is that whether we used Big Bang or Steady State or Oscillating or plasma cosmological model all would require the universe to old, much older than 6,000-10,000 years old. Once you try to explain microwave background radiation or how the red shift of far-away universe increases with distance, you require an old old universe.
I'm not quite interested whether Big Bang is a better model or something else. Let astrophysicst discuss that. POint is how old is the 'heaven and earth'? 6,000-10,000 years old as YECs say or much much older? Once we can give a convincing answer to the age of the universe, then we can tell our YECs brothers and sisters to change their position.