John MacArthur on the &#034;Lie of Evolution&#034;

Or, if you insist on taking the Bible literally? Even though it often warns us about that, itself? (Jesus “never talked to them without a parable,” etc.).

Then try this: one modern theory of time, suggests that in the Big Bang, things moved very, very quickly at first; and that in effect, time speeded up. Time moved faster. So that a “day” in the time of the creation of the universe, could equal billions of our present-day years.

Therefore, there is no necessary incompatibility between Genesis telling us that the universe was created in a “day” or two or six, and the Evolutionary account, which suggests billions of years.

Michael T

Renton, I’m just not sure how what you are saying has any bearing on the debate here, other than to say you can take the Bible however you want to which isn’t helpful (nor I believe accurate). I mean heck, maybe Jesus and the disciples are just made up figures who never really lived and are just symbolic for something else…..

Renton

Well, to be sure, I don’t want to overstate the case for allegoricalization of the Bible. But since many zealous folks often get extremely literal (about the Resurrection and so forth), I wanted open up with a statement that breaks that up, and allows SOME flexibility. The fact is, the Bible itself was never quite as literal as our Fundamentalists are.

With that qualification in mind, though, I’m willing to play somewhat in your court, for purposes of discussion, for a while; and go with a SOMEWHAT literal or inerrantist understanding. I’m willing to suppose say, that the Bible said “day,” it meant “day.” It meant what today would be 24 hours.

But then I suggest that after all, oddly enough, this can be squared with the best science we have. The fact is, 24 hours of present-day time, could easily be billions of years, in ancient times.

So that there is even here, even taking the Bible and honoring every word, we can square it with science.

This might seem complicated. But it is good news. First of all, we find here, that there is no contradiction, in the matter of Time Frames; no impossible incompatibility between science and the Bible. Or Genesis and Evolution. If you just know enough science.

Thus making “ET” – or “TE”; Theistic Evolution – plausible. At least with regard to, first of all, the critical issue of Time.

Michael .,

I will be glad to continue this discussion with you, or any other TE here for that matter, despite the disparaging claims made from some here against traditional Christians, as long as we can keep it on a civil level. I am not ashamed of being ‘traditional’, nor will I apologize to anyone for it. Nor do I expect any other Christian who isn’t traditional to do so. By the same token, I will not be intimidated into believing something which is such a radical departure, simply because someone else is convinced I should. I see the questions that traditional Christians such as myself raise on these issues, (while they may seem stupid or repetitive to some), as simply doing what God has charged ALL Christians to do, when He says to “Test all things.” and to “Judge for yourselves what is right”. Obviously, TE’s have come to their belief by doing the same thing.

With that said, from a strictly theolgical standpoint, there is no mention that I can find in scripture that suggests man and animals were not always separate. Nor have I seen any empirical evidence that they could be the same, in all my time in some of the wildest and most remote areas of this country and Canada, where one might naturally expect to find some of these transitional creatures if they existed in any form. Consider the on going story of Big Foot, for instance, the bipedal giant, who was/is thought by some to be a human-animal combination missing link, and who it is still said by some to live in the forests near me. Yet every known sighting of him/her/it so far, along with the physical evidence, (aka nothing but fake footprints and fake home movies), has proved to be a hoax, (and I might add, through science itself). Even though some might have been fooled briefly, those of us who live in this xouand have explored this country thoroughly, knew long before that Big Foot definitely wasn’t here. A creature that large would have, at least some point, had to have left some provable empirical evidence of its existence, even scat, since it is claimed to exist in modern times in living form.

There are plenty of other stories of human-animal combinations, most of which we all consider mythical, which are said to exist both here and in other parts of the world, such as unicorns. However, except for the rare deer with one horn in the center of its forehead, which has been observed, there is no evidence to suggest that these are anything but deformities, which occur in all species. Again, science itself has proved that those which have been found so far are just that.

And, one would certainly think that if God had used an evolutionary process to develop man through apes, then past laboratory experiments to reproduce a combination would have resulted in some kind a living transitional being, if that were possible. Yet thus far, even though experiments have been going on since the early part of the last century, they have not produced such a…

continuing my comment #554:

model. And, while these experiments are presently illegal in the United States, they are still being done in other countries without success, and have been going on somewhere since the early 1900’s.

My point to those who are of the ANE or TE belief that the Genesis account is erroneous, based upon the modern scientific knowledge, is that science often can, and indeed does, disprove its own older theories by its modern advances as well. Not to mention even with all that is known about genomes, DNA, gene splicing and so on, scientists still cannot create a transitional model between humans and primates. So, in my mind, as a traditional Christian at least, the jury is still out, and the traditional exegesis of creation in Genesis still stands.

John 1453 and EricW,

That’s a great idea, and I look forward to seeing what comes of it! Please let us know what CMP says about it.

mbaker,

Genesis is erroneous to us because we don’t understand it like the ancient Israelites did. When we understand it like they did, its not erroneous at all.

If CMP does do a post on Walton’s recent book and perspective, as John1453 and EricW want him to, I think it would help clear a lot of misunderstanding on this subject up for a lot of people.

I’m not sure what you’re asking for though. A living, transitional “missing link” between humans and apes? I don’t understand how that fits into the discussion. Its like saying you won’t believe in dinosaurs unless you see a living one.

I would recommend asking for things that the theory of evolution predicts will be seen. Dennis Venema discussed some of those things earlier in some of his posts, and he also gave a link to Youtube with a talk he gave on the genetic evidence for a common ancestor between humans and primates. If you really are serious about investigating the truthfulness of evolution, I’d recommend you at listen to his presentation.

Also, I gave a link in post 523 that includes Venema’s original talk along with dozens of others. Christian experts from almost all perspectives talk about the very issues we have been here. I’ve already listened to Venema’s, but I can’t wait to dive into all the others!

Greg,

While I agree that Dennis Venema is probably the most credible person here, as far as interpreting science goes, and probably the only one really qualified a as yet on this blog, as far as an expert on evolutionary biology goes, I still don’t agree with the conclusions he has drawn from the evidence. But I do respect him.

As far as dinosaurs go, I have seen the skeletons in person on display at the Smithsonian, and other natural history venues. so there is visible proof of their existence. Yet there there has been no such reconstruction of a specific transitional form, which all scientists would agree is a verifiable example of evolution as yet. They are still arguing over what Ardi, Ida and Lucy mean.

So, the jury is still out for me, as a traditional Christian, and obviously for some of them too.

Mbaker,

Have you poured over the links I gave for transitional fossils a few weeks back? They contain as much evidence as fossils of dinosaurs do. There are even fossils of dinosaurs with feathers, fyi.

Just because scientists may argue what a given fossil means in relation to our origins, it certainly does not follow that it isn’t a transitional fossil. There are many fossils that are conclusively accepted as transitional. They are in the links if you’re interested. Since you obviously are, can you tell me what you thought about them when you looked at the sites?

Aside from disagreeing with Dennis, have you listened to his talk?

What did you think of it?

Greg,

On this part you and I can agree:

“Just because scientists may argue what a given fossil means in relation to our origins, it certainly does not follow that it isn’t a transitional fossil.”

While I agree in principle with that, it doesnt mean that a dead fossil from thousands, or even millions of years ago, necessarily proves that the same thing occurred between apes and man, regarding the transition to a higher form of thought and reaction to the world around us. We are still talking about evidence based upon transitional creatures driven by instinct, not the highly developed rational, reasoning brain that man has. What I am interested in, when I speak of transitional creatures is exactly when and how that occurred, according to science itself.

I think that is the defining question for many traditional Christians such as myself, not whether it could have possibly occurred based upon the present available evidence.

But I will listen again to Dennis Venema’s talk to see if I have missed anything significant.

mbaker,

So in theory you could accept the evolution of lesser animals?

I think I understand what you are talking about: When and how did ancient humans begin to exhibit behavior that clearly separated them from primates?

Is that correct?

Things seemed to have changed around 50,000 years ago. Homo sapiens began to exhibit behavior that previous Homo species hadn’t shown, such as ceremonially burying their dead, making clothing, developing sophisticated hunting techniques, and creating art.

Does that help with the “when” question?

As to “how”, it’s still being debated. Two popular hypotheses seem to dominate the discussion though.

The first one, called the Great Leap Forward Hypothesis, suggests that an event 50,000 years ago, like a major genetic mutation or a biological reorganization of the brain, led to the development of language that further jump-started the developments mentioned above.

The second one, known as the Continuity Hypothesis, suggests advances in our behavior were more gradual, occurring over a period of time and building off of previous advances. Then, through the exchange of culture, different groups of Homo sapiens began to exhibit more uniform behavior culminating in a significant differentiation from other Homo species around 50,000 years ago.

So the former hypothesis sees a significant event, probably genetic, that leads to these changes, while the latter hypothesis sees it as a more gradual build-up over time.

Since the issue is still being discussed, your question isn’t definitively answered, but you’ve got a decent idea of the current thinking in that area now.

Hope that helps.

Greg,

Yes, it does help. This is a much more productive and informative discussion. To answer your question, in theory I could see where it might be that lesser animals could have evolved into more sophisticated forms in order to adapt. However, I would need much more conclusive proof to be convinced that the highly reasoning brain of man, which could be aware of God, tend His entire creation and even talk with Him, then consciously rebel against Him, could have happened in such a manner.

But, if I could accept such a theory, I would probably lean more toward the Continuity Hypothesis, based upon my own observations of the adaptive processes necessary for all creatures, including man, to survive. We can see that process at work pretty readily even in modern times, even though it may seem more like a lifestyle choice to us modern humans. However, just like animals, successful adaptation to our surroundings necessitates learning a method of communicating our needs, and making ourselves understood, along with developing a set of skills with which to insure our daily physical survival. That we progress today, both individually and as a culture, in relation to our acquired skills and the skills of others, I don’t think many traditional Christians doubt.

Yet, on the other hand, as a traditional Christian, I would contend that the original Great leap Forward Hypothesis was strictly due to God and not genetic mutation, because it would tend to leave Him out of the picture until such time man developed enough on his own and could recognize God as being higher than himself.

To reduce it to such happenstance would, in my mind, leave the question of the origin of the highest and most complex form of creation with either a God of the gaps, who left His animal creation on its own to accidentally create a man, (which makes no sense at all to me), or God as a scientist who was simply into very long drawn out cosmic genetic experiments.

Either way, for us traditional Christians, that brings His sovereignty into question, and if He is not a higher force in creation than the very genetics He created in the first place, then we traditional Christians would have much reason to doubt Him.

Tom

“And, one would certainly think that if God had used an evolutionary process to develop man through apes, then past laboratory experiments to reproduce a combination would have resulted in some kind a living transitional being, if that were possible. Yet thus far, even though experiments have been going on since the early part of the last century, they have not produced such a model. And, while these experiments are presently illegal in the United States, they are still being done in other countries without success, and have been going on somewhere since the early 1900’s.”

“scientists still cannot create a transitional model between humans and primates”

What??? I don’t mean to be rude but seriously, what are you talking about? Asking for a “transitional model” between primates and humans is the same as asking for one between mammals and humans. Humans have been categorized taxonomically as primates since the 18th century when Linneus figured out what a ‘primate’ was. The same now goes for our modern understanding of the term ‘ape’, if it has any meaning at all then humans have to be included – we are more closely related to chimps than they are to gorillas.
The record of human evolution is really quite good. Genetic studies place our divergence from our common ancestor with chimps at around 5-7 million years ago, and from around 4.5 million years on (now with Ardi) the fossil record shows the gradual progression of more human-like traits; flatter face, increased cranial capacity, bipedalism etc.
It’s somewhat ironic that in contrast the fossil record on the chimp side of the lineage since our split consists of very little indeed. The same goes for gorillas, from whom whose lineage we diverged maybe a million years before our last common ancestor with chimps. If somebody wanted to argue for the lack of transitional fossil in their lineages there would be a much stronger case.