Intelligent Design, Science & Religion

[one.opinion]

1 hour ago, Abdicate said:

Men invented evilution (my spelling) and you're defending them by invoking God? Wow! No real Adam or real Eve, no original sin, no original sin, not need for a savior, yea, that's defending God alright. Evilution nullifies everything God did in the eyes of men. To defend it is to be on the side of the devil who created the lie.

It was a few pages ago, but I posted explicitly that I believe the genealogy from Jesus to Adam in Luke's Gospel is a very good reason to believe in a literal Adam and Eve. Your objection in this post does not address what I believe or what I said. Use your indignation against something I said, not something I didn't say.

[one.opinion]

1 hour ago, Justin Adams said:

We discuss stuff we really have nothing but opinions about.

I am using evidence that is available through the study of what God has made. You are arguing with nothing but opinion.

1 hour ago, Justin Adams said:

God did it all.

Yes, I believe He did.

1 hour ago, Justin Adams said:

He did not use millions of years of experimental creatures leaving a trail of half alive corpses and billions of half-made things until He got it correct. Nonsense.

I don't believe the living history of the planet was a grand experiment in trial and error, either. I believe God unfolded His creation over a very long period of time to bring about the organism He would finally choose to imbue with His image.

1 hour ago, Justin Adams said:

And to play the 'inerrant' card is harking back to the dark ages when the priestly class subjugated us peasants by jail, death and dismemberment, just to prove they were in charge of 'love'.

More nonsense.

God is Himself in no need of us. He desires to include us and has made us His imagers. In His likeness. Do some historical study. When has the 'ruling class' ever been doing what they do in God's Image?
Yeshua/Jesus GAVE us Salvation, yet we will try to sell subscriptions to heaven in spite of this.
We proclaim that He only kick-started our journey, and to get the 'real' itinerary, we have to make our checks payable to...

I really don't understand what the medieval church has to do with creation, intelligent design, or evolution.

 

[bcbsr]

10 hours ago, one.opinion said:

You can disagree, but you have exactly zero standing suggesting I do not believe what I do.

I understand it is difficult to consider that a literal interpretation of the Scriptures is not the only possible interpretation. For much of my life, to my shame, I tended to look down on individuals that did not accept a 144-hour creation period. You may possibly remember that back in history, astronomers began to teach that the sun did not revolve around the earth and were persecuted by the church that stood firmly on a particular literal interpretation.

My brother, not only do I CLAIM to believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, I DO believe it. I suggest not lowering yourself to the point of doubling-down on your accusation of falsehood, since the Bible teaches very strongly about that. I believe that the Bible is 100% accurate in what it affirms. The Genesis account affirms God as sole Creator of the entire universe and everything in it.

Just as most Christians do not hold to a literal interpretation of passages suggesting a solid "dome" (raqia), or the earth and sky supported by physical pillars, or the sun revolving around the earth, I do not hold to a literal interpretation of a 144-hour creation period roughly 6000 years ago. Viewing the Bible with a different interpretation does not mean that I believe the Bible is in error.

And besides that, there's more the one "literal" interpretation of Genesis 1. 

In the case of the 7 days of creation. I take the "days" to be literally 24 hour days. But I take them as being "Revelatory" (or "prophetic"). Genesis 1 is a vision. And so it must be, as there was no human around to actually see what was happening. Furthermore, God is being spoken of as in the third person (he) as opposed to the first person (I), as if someone were viewing the events happening and recording them, as opposed to God Himself directly telling us what was happening.

For example, Moses spent many days on Mount Sinai when God gave him the Law. What if God took a week during that time and revealed to him this vision. On the first day (Sunday), God shows Moses Gen 1:1-5. Then Moses goes to sleep and wakes up the next day (Monday) and God shows him Gen 1:6-8. Etc. If this is the case, that the creation days were a vision, then what the vision meant is subject to interpretation. Not to say that it could mean anything, for there is only one correct interpretation. But getting at it may not be all that obvious.

For myself, I think the categorical interpretation best fits what I think God was trying to say.

Categorical Interpretation:

Have you ever noticed the pattern of the 7 days 
 

The 7 Days of Creation  The earth was:
Without Form	and Void
Environment	Inhabitants
1. Light	4. Sun, moon & stars
2. Sky & Ocean	5. Birds & Fish
3. Land	6. land Animals & Man
7. Rest

It seems to me that the main point is that God is the creator of all things in particular. This, as opposed to the many polytheistic religions at the time where each one of these categories would be created by a separate god. And the 7th day shows that God isn't bound to creating things. He isn't simply a creation machine, but can sit back and enjoy His creation, which attributes to Him, human characteristics - He isn't impersonal.

For more see Genesis Interpretation

---

 

[one.opinion]

3 minutes ago, bcbsr said:

For example, Moses spent many days on Mount Sinai when God gave him the Law. What if God took a week during that time and revealed to him this vision. On the first day (Sunday), God shows Moses Gen 1:1-5. Then Moses goes to sleep and wakes up the next day (Monday) and God shows him Gen 1:6-8. Etc. If this is the case, that the creation days were a vision, then what the vision meant is subject to interpretation. Not to say that it could mean anything, for there is only one correct interpretation. But getting at it may not be all that obvious.

Yes, I recall reading this hypothesis before, but had forgotten it until you mentioned it again. Very interesting.

4 minutes ago, bcbsr said:

It seems to me that the main point is that God is the creator of all things in particular. This, as opposed to the many polytheistic religions at the time where each one of these categories would be created by a separate god. And the 7th day shows that God isn't bound to creating things. He isn't simply a creation machine, but can sit back and enjoy His creation, which attributes to Him, human characteristics - He isn't impersonal.

I agree. If we think back to the original audience - a people that were just led out of 400 years immersed in a heavily polytheistic environment, it makes a great deal of sense that the first thing established is that there is one true Creator God.

[ChessPlayer]

On 8/24/2019 at 7:19 PM, dhchristian said:

Biochemistry has shown irreducible complexity in the construction of cells. This is the Subject of the Post by Michael Behe. Here is a Quote from Him.

Ok so let's deal with this irreducible complexity argument first. It is pretty much an all or nothing argument. The argument goes that certain things in biology are so complex they simply cannot evolve. This argument is not a new one. Darwin even discusses it in his writings. One of Behe's more common criticisms regards the flagellum which consists of around 40 proteins in many species. If one is gone, the rest of the flagellum will not function. Behe argues that because of this, the flagellum is irreducibly complex as no one protein could have been naturally selected until every single other one was in place. The problem with such an argument is that it ignores the inherent "blindness" in evolution. Evolution does not set cells towards one goal (a flagellum in this case). Rather, selection are made towards mutations that provide uses. If the combination of these mutations lead to some ancillary use, that is selected for as well. In the case of the flagellum, the proteins selected for have other uses throughout the cell. In fact numerous pathways have been proposed as to how flagellum form and the benefits each protein provides to the cell. In other words, researchers have reasonable explanations as to how this "irreducibly complex" part of biology could form. This already disproves the idea that there is no possible way for these biological characteristics to evolve. Ultimately, Behe's argument is a logical fallacy - the argument from ignorance. He is arguing that because he cannot see how it would evolve, it could not evolve.  

On 8/24/2019 at 7:19 PM, dhchristian said:

You wanted to have a discussion of the viability of theistic evolution, and you say this is the crux of my argument, which it is not. You ignore the crux of my argument in this comment. It is not that evolution and theism can live in harmony, but that God is revealing the Truth of His creation using science to do so, and soon the ones promoting the religion of Evolution will not be able to nullify the Empirical science that is questioning its viability. I Mentioned to you the several examples of how the God is using evidence from the earth to coming out to prove the truthfulness of His Word. That the Word of God is an inspired Book, and inerrant. Yes, this is a fundamentalist doctrine, and the one that the church needs to learn from instead of seeking compromise, and then be caught in a compromising position.

I am confused. Here you seem to agree with me that theism and evolution can live in harmony and that the only problem with evolution is the scientific "issues" with it presented above which would make it contrary to God's revelation to us through the natural world. But elsewhere you seem to indicate that Christianity and evolution are theologically opposed. Which position are you supporting here? Do you think evolution and Christianity are theologically opposed or not?

On 8/24/2019 at 7:19 PM, dhchristian said:

My Point is simple in all of this, No need to analyze it like a chess player. I do not agree with theistic evolution because it Robs God of his Glory, And elevates science as an equal authority with scripture. In So doing, The Word of God is approached with a disrespectful attitude without the awe and fear of the LORD, as its inerrancy is questioned. This is indicative of the Laodicean church age we are living in, and those partaking in this sort of work are engaging in undermining the credibility of the Word of God. The Fruit of this are showing in the Post modern church which is anything but the salt of the earth.    

Analyzing things is in my nature unfortunately. And here is where I get confused with your previous statement and why I asked you the question above regarding theological opposition. I am unsure of how you get the idea that science has been raised above Scripture via theistic evolution. Nor do I see how this is part of the "modern Laodicean church" as you put it. As I mentioned before, numerous Jewish and Christian scholars from around the time of Christ or shortly after did not view Genesis in the literalistic manner you seem to understand it. This less literalistic approach is not a "modern" idea. It is an orthodox idea found within the writings of the ancient Church and contemporary Jewish thinkers.  

[dhchristian]

Just now, ChessPlayer said:

I am confused. Here you seem to agree with me that theism and evolution can live in harmony and that the only problem with evolution is the scientific "issues" with it presented above which would make it contrary to God's revelation to us through the natural world. But elsewhere you seem to indicate that Christianity and evolution are theologically opposed. Which position are you supporting here? Do you think evolution and Christianity are theologically opposed or not?

Let me word it better and let you respond. My point is not whether evolution and Christianity CAN live in harmony, But rather that God is revealing the Truth of the Word of God thru science, and the historical record revealed in the earth. Thus, God is revealing His act of creation empirically, which empirical science over rules historical theoretical science.

 

Just now, ChessPlayer said:

As I mentioned before, numerous Jewish and Christian scholars from around the time of Christ or shortly after did not view Genesis in the literalistic manner you seem to understand it. This less literalistic approach is not a "modern" idea. It is an orthodox idea found within the writings of the ancient Church and contemporary Jewish thinkers. 

Disagree with you there I do (As Yoda would say it)… Do you think the apostles viewed creation literally, or "less literally" as you do? Simple Question... Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. (Romans 1:25) 

All the marks of the post modern Liberal generation are right there in that passage in Romans 1:18-end of chapter, You would do well to read and understand it, because this is the fruit of this compromise, and it eventually leads to the worship of the creation over the creator. You yourself are very close to that point in the words you have spoken here, IMO. Literalism is not a "modern idea", It has been around from the days of Moses, What has brought the allegorical in is the corruption of Judaism in the form of the Babylonian Talmud which you refer to, and the Gnostic teachings of some early church heresies. Do Me a favor, Go look up the gnostic creation account, and compare and contrast that to theistic evolution. You may learn something. The following should give you some direction as to where to go...

Gnostic Interpretations of the Genesis Creation Accounts

Early Christian Gnostics, most of whom were Jewish, incorporated aspects of Judaism and the Old Testament Law, or Torah, into their beliefs. In 1 Timothy we are told that the Law was being misused by some in Ephesus (1 Tim. 1:6-11).[11]

The teachings Irenaeus attributes to the Gnostics includes “retellings of the Genesis stories of the creation, Adam and Eve, and the fall.”[12] The ancient Gnostic texts found in Nag Hammadi in Egypt in 1945 confirms Irenaeus’s observations. These texts show that the creation stories were interpreted freely and allegorically. For example, “Gnostics often depicted Eve—or the feminine spiritual power she represented—as the source of spiritual awakening.”[13] Eve as “spirit” was frequently seen as bringing life when united with Adam’s “soul”.

There are several surviving Gnostic creation accounts that give Eve primacy over Adam.[14] Moreover, Eve was a heroine to the Gnostics because she desired knowledge (gnōsis) (Gen. 3:6).

Paul closes his first letter to Timothy with one final exhortation concerning this serious issue of a Gnostic-like heresy:

“O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, avoiding profane chatter and the opposing arguments of what is falsely called “knowledge (gnōsis)” which some have professed and thus gone astray from the faith. Grace be with you.” 1 Timothy 6:20-21 (NASB, underline added.)

https://margmowczko.com/1-timothy-212-in-context-3/

[one.opinion]

1 hour ago, ChessPlayer said:

The problem with such an argument is that it ignores the inherent "blindness" in evolution. Evolution does not set cells towards one goal (a flagellum in this case). Rather, selection are made towards mutations that provide uses. If the combination of these mutations lead to some ancillary use, that is selected for as well.

This is true, but an overlooked aspect of biochemical machines in the cell is what is termed "constructive neutral evolution" or CNE. The idea is that frequently, molecular machines (like the bacterial flagellum) become more complex than necessary over time due to seemingly random additions to existing structures through exaptation. Very interesting stuff!

https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2015/09/constructive-neutral-evolution-cne.html

[Justin Adams]

...and the Gnostics love the Nachash. To them he is the good god and is directly opposed to Yahweh.

 

[ChessPlayer]

2 hours ago, dhchristian said:

Let me word it better and let you respond. My point is not whether evolution and Christianity CAN live in harmony, But rather that God is revealing the Truth of the Word of God thru science, and the historical record revealed in the earth. Thus, God is revealing His act of creation empirically, which empirical science over rules historical theoretical science.

Thank you for clarifying. I would simply disagree with you regarding the nature of the science it seems. While you argue that evolutionary biology is inadequate as a method for explaining speciation, I (and more importantly most SMEs) would disagree with such an assertion. I also don't understand what you mean by empirical science over "historical theoretical science." Are you saying that evolutionary biologists don't study empirical evidence? 

2 hours ago, dhchristian said:

Disagree with you there I do (As Yoda would say it)… Do you think the apostles viewed creation literally, or "less literally" as you do? Simple Question... Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. (Romans 1:25) 

All the marks of the post modern Liberal generation are right there in that passage in Romans 1:18-end of chapter, You would do well to read and understand it, because this is the fruit of this compromise, and it eventually leads to the worship of the creation over the creator. You yourself are very close to that point in the words you have spoken here, IMO. Literalism is not a "modern idea", It has been around from the days of Moses, What has brought the allegorical in is the corruption of Judaism in the form of the Babylonian Talmud which you refer to, and the Gnostic teachings of some early church heresies. Do Me a favor, Go look up the gnostic creation account, and compare and contrast that to theistic evolution. You may learn something. The following should give you some direction as to where to go...

Gnostic Interpretations of the Genesis Creation Accounts

Early Christian Gnostics, most of whom were Jewish, incorporated aspects of Judaism and the Old Testament Law, or Torah, into their beliefs. In 1 Timothy we are told that the Law was being misused by some in Ephesus (1 Tim. 1:6-11).[11]

The teachings Irenaeus attributes to the Gnostics includes “retellings of the Genesis stories of the creation, Adam and Eve, and the fall.”[12] The ancient Gnostic texts found in Nag Hammadi in Egypt in 1945 confirms Irenaeus’s observations. These texts show that the creation stories were interpreted freely and allegorically. For example, “Gnostics often depicted Eve—or the feminine spiritual power she represented—as the source of spiritual awakening.”[13] Eve as “spirit” was frequently seen as bringing life when united with Adam’s “soul”.

There are several surviving Gnostic creation accounts that give Eve primacy over Adam.[14] Moreover, Eve was a heroine to the Gnostics because she desired knowledge (gnōsis) (Gen. 3:6).

Paul closes his first letter to Timothy with one final exhortation concerning this serious issue of a Gnostic-like heresy:

“O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, avoiding profane chatter and the opposing arguments of what is falsely called “knowledge (gnōsis)” which some have professed and thus gone astray from the faith. Grace be with you.” 1 Timothy 6:20-21 (NASB, underline added.)

https://margmowczko.com/1-timothy-212-in-context-3/

 I can always appreciate a good Star Wars reference :). And with regards to the Gnostics, I think we are in agreement as to their heretical views. Gnostics argued (among other things) that a lesser entity (not God) created the material world, that the physical world is evil in it's entirety, that God is unknowable in any personal sense, that sin does not exist in the traditional sense and that only knowledge is needed in order to achieve salvation.  Theistic evolutionists do not follow any of these ideas nor do we seek to glorify creation over the Creator. I would argue that I am probably even more in awe of God's creative work after shifting away from YEC to TE. Nor does theistic evolution reduce Eve and Adam to simply feminine and masculine spiritual powers. Funnily enough, Irenaeus of Lyons, whom you quoted, seemed to view Genesis in a more allegorical and less literalistic way in his work Against Heresies. This is the same text where he discussed the Gnostics. He obviously disagreed with the Gnostics regarding their theological positions but that does not mean he supported such the hyper-literalistic interpretation of Genesis to which you hold. I am not saying that the ancient Church was of one mind on the issue. Certainly St. Basil championed the literalistic interpretation in the 4th century. So in that sense, it is not a modern idea. However, he is one of the few I could find who wrote openly on the subject and Biblical scholars point to Philo, Irenaeus, Origen and Augustine who all provided various less hyper-literal interpretation of the creation account. I would simply contend that the rise of hyper-literal interpretations of Genesis are correlated with the Great Awakening and the subsequent rise in fundamentalism it birthed. 

[dhchristian]

45 minutes ago, ChessPlayer said:

I also don't understand what you mean by empirical science over "historical theoretical science." Are you saying that evolutionary biologists don't study empirical evidence? 

I Am saying the Empirical evidence is beginning to outweigh the theoretical evidence that makes up evolution. Evolution is mostly theoretical evidence. Please, also do not use micro evolution as proof of Macro evolution as others have done. We (most Christians) Believe that Micro evolution occurs, and species adapt to various environments, But a bird does not become a Hippo, Nor a monkey a man. Macro evolution is Purely theoretical with no empirical evidence to back it up. It is nothing more than imagination, as there are no missing links in the fossil record. 

 

1 hour ago, ChessPlayer said:

I can always appreciate a good Star Wars reference :). And with regards to the Gnostics, I think we are in agreement as to their heretical views. Gnostics argued (among other things) that a lesser entity (not God) created the material world, that the physical world is evil in it's entirety, that God is unknowable in any personal sense, that sin does not exist in the traditional sense and that only knowledge is needed in order to achieve salvation.  Theistic evolutionists do not follow any of these ideas nor do we seek to glorify creation over the Creator. I would argue that I am probably even more in awe of God's creative work after shifting away from YEC to TE. Nor does theistic evolution reduce Eve and Adam to simply feminine and masculine spiritual powers. Funnily enough, Irenaeus of Lyons, whom you quoted, seemed to view Genesis in a more allegorical and less literalistic way in his work Against Heresies. This is the same text where he discussed the Gnostics. He obviously disagreed with the Gnostics regarding their theological positions but that does not mean he supported such the hyper-literalistic interpretation of Genesis to which you hold. I am not saying that the ancient Church was of one mind on the issue. Certainly St. Basil championed the literalistic interpretation in the 4th century. So in that sense, it is not a modern idea. However, he is one of the few I could find who wrote openly on the subject and Biblical scholars point to Philo, Irenaeus, Origen and Augustine who all provided various less hyper-literal interpretation of the creation account. I would simply contend that the rise of hyper-literal interpretations of Genesis are correlated with the Great Awakening and the subsequent rise in fundamentalism it birthed.

This is a direct Quote from About Heresies By Ireneus:

Those who obey him always learn that he is so great a God and that he is the very one who by himself created and made and adorned and contains all things. Now [included] among all things are both us and our world. We too, then, together with these things which are contained [by him], were made by him. And this is the one about whom Scripture said, “And God formed man, taking dust of the earth, and breathed into his face the breath of life” (Gen 2:7). Therefore, angels did not make us, nor did they form us, nor, indeed, could angels make an image of God, nor [could] any other besides the true God, nor [could] a Power far removed from the Father of all things. For God did not need these [beings] to make what he had himself beforehand determined to make, as if he himself did not have his Hands. For always present with him are the Word and Wisdom, the Son and Spirit, by whom and in whom he made all things freely and of his own will, to whom he also speaks, when he says, “Let us make man after our image and likeness” (Gen 1:26)—he himself taking from himself the substance of those things which have been created and the pattern of those things which have been made and the figure of those things in the world which have been adorned AH 4.20.1

Does this sound like theistic evolution to you, it does not to me, sounds more fundamentalist....

I Was the other way I around, I am more in Awe of God's Workmanship now that I do not need evolution to explain creation. Or for that matter time. I Work with my hands, I Know what it is like to design and build things, I Know the time it takes, the sweat and effort, and that is just a little old wooden structure. I Then see the complexity of the creation as is being revealed to us through advances in Microscopes, and DNA studies, and I am blown away that this can come about in a day. I Used to see this and doubt, and say now way could this come about in a day, But now I do not doubt Him and his ability create all of this in a day. Which view takes more faith to believe in, and which view Doubts God's Omnipotence?