Starman

Just want to say how much I appreciate this discussion. I think all sides on the issue are making good points (though I’m not a fan of cessationism). Using the elephant analogy, I think we all see through a glass darkly, so are like the blind men and the elephant. All are accurately describing a piece of the elephant. And, rather than going ad hominem, we can graciously affirm that each view is valid and provides an opportunity to learn. Having said that, I think there is another piece of the puzzle to be considered: the idea of spirit, soul and body. A balanced, mature believer is one whose spirit has come alive to God and is living in a continual connection and communication with the Holy Spirit. This communication will include prayer in the Spirit, which for many, involves praying in tongues as described in 1 Cor 14. The key to being a spiritual man, according to Paul in 1 Cor 2:10-15, is the ascendency of the human spirit over the soul (mind and emotions) and body, resulting in the Spirits dominion over the person, which is tantamount to the Lordship of Jesus Christ. This dominion not only ensures that the believer not fulfill the lust of the flesh, but also that the thoughts and fruit of the Spirit dominate the soul life, rather than subjective human thinking and emotion. The dominance of spirit over soul involves a process of maturation, in which the believer is crucifying the flesh with its affections and lusts, and appropriating the nature of Christ. The spirit man increases while the natural man decreases, progressively asserting less control over the whole person. With these ideas in view I think we come to a more accurate assessment of the variety of Christian expressions which is, to a large extent, a matter of spiritual maturity as defined above. Some of the extreme emotional expressions of Pentecostalism are not necessarily wrong, but may be an unbalanced mixture of soul and spirit. This is a problem in the sense that it may create a distorted view of the Lord (since He is Spirit, not soul), but certainly does not threaten a believers salvation. Thus the cessationist accusations that these expressions are demonic and participants are unsaved are misplaced, and in fact rooted in prideful self-righteous deception. The cessationist is typically also spiritually unbalanced since they have allowed their intellect and human reasoning to dominate and suppress their human spirit, causing them to reject the voice and moving of the Holy Spirit. Both these categories of believer are inherently soulish and natural, rather than truly spiritual. Which, if we are honest, describes all of us to varying degrees. We all live somewhere on the continuum between the natural and spiritual man, so much humility in these discussions is appropriate.

I don't want to discuss the issue further since the debate has become tedious with no new information is being shared. However, I do want to set the record straight. Your assertion that the Gould quote is a fraud was incorrect - I found the article and the quote here: http://www.somosbacteriasyvirus.com/gould.pdf The quote is on page 127, top left. In fact, the whole paragraph is worth reading.

I can’t keep up. You win! Let’s move on. PLEASE!

I infer that you felt the need to jump in because I mischaracterized your position. However, in the prior post you seem to agree with my use of the “mystery.” I apologize if I read more than I should not the exchange.

Here is an article by Stephen Meyer that helps explain my perspective. I’d be interested to hear your critique https://intelligentdesign.org/philosophy-of-science/not-a-chance/

Unfortunately, you haven’t addressed my issue. The Gould quote does not nullify the voice of many other scientists (all references to the quotes are available but providing gets too tedious) And the question is not whether evolutionists believe there are transitional forms, but whether they can posit the necessary molecular pathways and a reasonable likelihood of occurrence. Your reference to heme in a Trex fossil is interesting but doesn’t come close to addressing the difficult issue I’m concerned about (and in no way points to a Darwinian process). I understand that you find the evidence convincing, but I don’t. It is interesting and provides a window into a creative process which we have yet to really understand. one.opinion, who strongly believes in a Darwinian explanation, also freely admits that we’re dealing with a mystery here. As I said, supply the math and physics and I’ll listen. Molecular biology is hard which is why I became an engineer.

I can cite many renowned biologist who state that the fossil record provides at best a poor demonstration of Darwin. Are you disagreeing with them? Regarding transitional forms, it’s not enough to show an organism with intermediate morphology and claim it is intermediate in a Darwinian sense. I think we need to show why the transition is plausible at the molecular level, that is to propose a step-wise genetic process that can plausibly result in the observed morphological changes. That includes a discussion of the available probabilistic resources, and the origin of the vast amounts of new biological information required. The assumption of a generalized Darwinian process involves too much hand waving to call it a solid scientific conclusion. At a minimum it involves a lack of intellectual curiosity. So let’s talk about any transitional form you like as long you supply the math and physics.

From what I’ve been reading you are greatly underestimating the problem with both the fossil record and the Cambrian explosion. Of course, I need to support this claim but need time to extract the best information. The highly acclaimed book “Darwin’s Doubt” provides a very thorough presentation of the problems with Cambrian explosion. I’m reading it slowly since my time is limited. I don’t know much about Curt Wise but notice that The Barbarian likes to quote him, since his status as a creationist seems to give more credence to Darwin.

If you want to put this off until later, that's no problem, but we should probably look at the evidence issue by issue, to not dilute the depth of discussion too much. When you are ready, could you explain the evidence that supports your perception of the problem with the fossil record and what alternative the existing fossil record supports better? There are endless quotes from well known evolutionists regarding problems with the fossil record. I’ve provided a small sampling below. As you know Gould and Eldredge saw these gaps, not mainly as a result of an incomplete fossil record but as a more or less complete record of evolution, resulting in their theory of punctuated equilibrium (which I don’t pretend to fully understand). I think if one believes that punctuated equilibrium adequately answers the dilemma then it is necessary to explain the mechanism for rapid changes at the molecular level. Simply declaring that they occur is insufficient. Also, the Cambrian explosion as recorded in the Burgess Shale and in China should also be included in the discussion since the data seems to go against neo-Darwinian processes. As you know the Cambrian explosion is a big topic in and of itself, requiring much detail to be intelligible (I’ll try to address this in a future post). In the mean time here are a few quotes. Chicago Field Museum, Prof. of Geology, Univ. of Chicago, “A large number of well-trained scientists outside of evolutionary biology and paleontology have unfortunately gotten the idea that the fossil record is far more Darwinian than it is. This probably comes from the oversimplification inevitable in secondary sources: low-level textbooks, semi-popular articles, and so on. Also, there is probably some wishful thinking involved. In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these have not been found yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks…One of the ironies of the creation evolution debate is that the creationists have accepted the mistaken notion that the fossil record shows a detailed and orderly progression and they have gone to great lengths to accommodate this ‘fact’ in their Flood (Raup, David, “ Geology” New Scientist, Vol. 90, p.832, 1981.) A persistent problem in evolutionary biology has been the absence of intermediate forms in the fossil record. Long term gradual transformations of single lineages are rare and generally involve simple size increase or trivial phenotypic effects. Typically, the record consists of successive ancestor-descendant lineages, morphologically invariant through time and unconnected by intermediates.” (Williamson, P.G., Palaeontological Documentation of Speciation in Cenozoic Molluscs from Turkana Basin, 1982, p. 163.) What one actually found was nothing but discontinuities: All species are separated from each other by bridgeless gaps; intermediates between species are not observed . . . The problem was even more serious at the level of the higher categories.” (Mayr, E., Animal Species and Evolution, 1982, p. 524.) The known fossil record is not, and never has been, in accord with gradualism. What is remarkable is that, through a variety of historical circumstances, even the history of opposition has been obscured . . . ‘The majority of paleontologists felt their evidence simply contradicted Darwin’s stress on minute, slow, and cumulative changes leading to species transformation.’ . . . their story has been suppressed.” (Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable, 1981, p. 71.) The record jumps, and all the evidence shows that the record is real: the gaps we see reflect real events in life’s history – not the artifact of a poor fossil record.” (Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 59.) “The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.” (Gould, Stephen J., “ Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?,” 1982, p. 140.)

One.Opinion I'm not sure if you saw my post yesterday. If not, it is down at the bottom of page 5 I had seen it. I think right now I've veered off into the theological realm, posing some questions to The Barbarian. Since most of us here are not theologians my expectations are low. I'm looking to cohesively integrate the science into a defensible theology. The discussion so far has been interesting but no cohesion yet. I appreciate your honesty to simply say, "I don't know," which is clearly the only correct answer. At the same time I see fatal flaws in evolutionary theory, including: the significant discontinuities in the fossil record which directly contradict Darwinian expectations (few candidate transitions forms with the expectation of many, many closely graded forms); the relative impotence of natural probabilistic forces to drive large scale phenotypic changes (or even modest ones); the inability to present the step-wise molecular changes needed to explain intermediate forms (should be able to model this and create convincing computer simulations); the low probability of beneficial mutations as demonstrated in bacterial studies (and observed adaptation is often the result of loss of function rather than addition of new functionality). Any of these issues seem sufficient to falsify the theory (prior answers to my questions were incomplete and unconvincing). This may be fodder for additional discussion.

Some follow up questions. 1. Given your neo-Darwinian explanation for biological life on earth in what sense is God the creator? 2. Are you a proponent of theistic evolution, one version being that God front-loaded the evolutionary process to provide the information and capability to ultimately reach a predetermined result, I.e. humans in His image? 3. If yes, is it not true that the “natural processes” are in fact supernatural processes since they lead to a divine result, which is a very different result than might occur through strictly blind natural processes? 4. Or do you believe that evolutionary processes are completely blind and the various forms of life on earth, including man, are only the result of biological necessity? If so, what does God mean when He says, “Let us create man in our image”? I’m also still hoping that you will answer my previous questions.

I don’t think you’ve answered my questions. The Genesis account shows God creating the heavens and the earth over a six day period, with the creation of man on day six. In what sense is this true? This is a question, not a trap. Regarding, Genesis as parable I shouldn’t have used the word “fictitious” since that was not the point. Using, whatever definition you like, how is the account a parable? What principles or truths is the parable teaching? Its OK to say, “I don’t know.” I’m just trying to learn from you.

Some questions come to mind: 1. Please explain what you mean when you say, "the Genesis account is factual." Where are the facts in the account and in what sense is the account true? 2. A parable is generally defined as a fictitious story used to demonstrate a religious truth or idea. How does the Genesis account fit that definition (or perhaps yo define parable differently)?

What I think isn’t the point here.

Actually, the doctrine is stricter than that. Here is a typical wording that is affirmed by most evangelicals: ”Biblical inerrancy is the belief that the Bible"is without error or fault in all its teaching";or, at least, that "Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact". Some equate inerrancy with biblical infallibility; others do not.The belief is of particular significance within parts of evangelicalism” That means that even implying that the Genesis account is anything other than fact is considered a “liberal” form of Christianity and violates the beliefs of many. So basically when you make statements which seem to contradict Scripture you are likely offending a significant portion of people on this site. You would get less backlash by insulting someone’s mother. This makes it difficult for some to listen to your ideas on evolution since you are seen as The Barbarian who seeks to overthrow the sacred. Just sayin.