John MacArthur on the “lie” of Evolution:
“The evolutionary lie is so pointedly antithetical to Christian truth that it would seem unthinkable for evangelical Christians to compromise with evolutionary science in any degree. But during the past century and a half of evolutionary propaganda, evolutionists have had remarkable success in getting evangelicals to meet them halfway. Remarkably, many modern evangelicals . . . have already been convinced that the Genesis account of creation is not a true historical record. Thus they have not only capitulated to evolutionary doctrine at its starting point, but they have also embraced a view that undermines the authority of Scripture at its starting point.” (from “The Battle for the Beginning“).
There was a time, ten or twenty years ago, when I would have taken the bait and swallowed this hook, line, and sinker. Today I won’t. Not because I am now convinced about a God-guided theory of evolution, but because I just don’t know. I am not confused or disturbed about the issue, nor does it put any of my faith in jeopardy in any way. I just don’t know whether or not God used evolution as a means to create humanity. Neither do I know how long it took to create the earth. I don’t know if Genesis 1 is meant to be taken literally, metaphorically, symbolically, ideologically, mythologically, or accommodatingly. I simply believe that when it is interpreted rightly, it is true.
But I don’t think that it is here we find the central battle for our faith. I believe that there are more important issues. Much more important issues.
What I do find is that if Christians get sidetracked on these type of things, believing that if this city goes undefended then the Christian empire crumbles, we are in trouble. The “Battle for the Beginning” is not the battle, at least in my book.
But John MacArthur is a man I respect very much. While he is not a scientist, he does seem to be a very wise leader in many respects and he knows the Bible well. This is why I have to pause at what would otherwise seem to me to be an over-the-top statement. He is right that the last two decades have seen many (if not most) evangelical leaders concede to the real possibility of a God-guided use of evolution. It would seem that there is quite a bit of pressure out there to do so. Evolution is quickly becoming the if-you-don’t-accept-it-then-you-are-committing-the-same-mistake-that-the-church-did-in-the-Galileo-incident type of issue. You remember: back when we insisted that the Bible said the earth was the center of the universe and then ended up with egg on our face.
I don’t really see evolution in the same light. There is quite a bit of observable data that shows us the earth is not the center; it is not quite as cut-and-dry with evolution (I think).
Either way, the gauntlet is going to continue to fall and Christians who believe in evolution are going to continually be accused of compromise. Maybe they have compromised; I don’t know. But to me, it only makes a difference when people push for it to make a difference.
What do you think? Has Christianity been compromised?
668 replies to "John MacArthur on the "Lie of Evolution""
Saint and Sinner:
“You are confounding a theory’s teleological value (i.e. usefulness) with its alethic value (i.e. truthfulness). A theory can be useful without being true.
For example, many civilizations in the ancient world were able to predict the position of stars and planets to an extraordinary degree.
What you may not have known is that these predictions were based on ***Geocentric*** models of the solar-system.”
Me (Moara):
No, I’m not confusing evolution’s truthfulness with it’s usefulness. I’m saying its truthfulness is less important to me than it’s usefulness.
Just about every scientific theory held throughout history has been discounted or seriously revised in the present. For we scientists to beleive that our current theories are 100% accurate would be hubris. But, we know that what we have now, is our best approximation of reality, and with that, we move forward, constantly revising when new information is presented.
==================
Cliff said:
“But science is limited it what it can say about those possibilities. And science has not alternative but to search for natural causes until they have exhausted all possibilities. It is in this regard that the naturalistic approach of science serves us so well.”
Saint and Sinner:
“Why? Why do you eliminate a design inference from the list of possibilities from the outset?
Should we disregard the supernatural claims of the Resurrection on the basis that we have not exhausted the list of naturalistic possibilities?”
Me (Moara):
I actually ran across this concept in geography, not with evolution, but it still applies (especially since that it where most of the evidence for an old earth comes from, not from evolution).
The aproach we take to explaining historical natural events is to assume that the way things happen now is the way things have always happened. It assumes that if we can understand the current natural laws, we can backcast onto evidence from the past, and try to come up with an explanation. If you don’t take this approach, then there is no end to the number of theories that are possible.
This does not say that the supernatural does not exist, only that it it is outside the domain of science to explain.
John, my comment was that you don’t understand evolutionary biology. Even Cliff (Hi Cliff!) who also, if I have his identity correct, is not a biologist by training, understands where you have interpreted things incorrectly. I wasn’t trying to be rude, and online fora are not a good place to convey tone.
You mentioned a few times that you think the genomics evidence is compatible with other views of creation – care to share which ones you have in mind?
Dennis
There is a veritable smorgasbord of failed predictions – http://www.darwinspredictions.com/ , erroneous conjecturing, just so stories, and outright fraud (you mentioned Haeckel, might I add Piltdown man, Nebraska man, archaeoraptor, and the recent Ida find which we are now learning is not what it was claimed to be – what a surprise!!!) that pervades the history of darwinism.
Yes, there is some section of data that can be construed in such a way as to fit with some vague idea that some species are somehow related, but there is ultimately no mechanism or any real idea of how we get from A to B, never mind from A to Z, from a planet devoid of life to one replete with it in all conceivable shapes and forms.
There is just as much data, if not more, that makes no sense in an evolutionist’s world and which would certainly not exist if darwinism or something like it were an accurate description of reality. We find it leads us down various blind alleys, and dead ends, offering little explanatory power.
Chimps and humans share similarities, what a surprise? Darwinism must be true.
There are no pre-Cambrian rabbits. Darwinism must be true.
We see bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics. Darwinism must be true.
Life we are led to believe only ‘looks’ designed, but Dawkins assures us that it is only an ‘illusion of design’. Ah… now I understand, I have seen the light.
There’s an old saying, about something that “walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck” but I’m sure it is only the illusion of a duck.
“If you’re going to eliminate the possibility of the special creation of life on the basis of methodological naturalism …”
I do not.
“Why do you eliminate a design inference from the list of possibilities from the outset?”
I do not. Actually, I am interested by the work of Mike Gene, and the work Conway-Morris is doing in the area of convergent evolution. I’m not sure that either of these theories can be verified scientifically. In science we are limited to testable, verifiable, and falsifiable hypotheses. These we explore using methodological naturalism. I do not presuppose philosophical naturalism. And hence, I believe that methodological naturalism will inevitably hit up against walls it cannot penetrate, (abiogenesis being a possible candidate!). But I do not see any other way to progress scientifically except to turn every stone looking for every natural explanation which may exist.
“Should we disregard the supernatural claims of the Resurrection on the basis that we have not exhausted the list of naturalistic possibilities?”
Absolutely not! Neither should be disregard the possibility of supernatural assembly of the original chain of DNA. But that ought not stop science from pursuing a natural mechanism for abiogenesis.
My point about Geocentricity is that it did not provide a framework for predicting planetary movement. Planetary movement created difficulties for Geocentricity which were resolved through various convoluted add-on theories. Alone, it did not predict planetary movement.
Geocentricity’s “framework” for predicting planetary movements is hardly analogous to the way evolution informs biology and medicine, and creates a meaningful framework for paleontology.
The original post is about the supposed lie of evolution, and whether Christians who believe in evolution compromise their faith. My initial post was that it isn’t and they don’t. The thread seems to have veered off that path and into a discussion of whether evolution is true. MacArthur rolls up all possible Christian understandings of evolution into the simple conclusion of “it’s provably false”. In his 1999 article he writes, “Now if you accept an evolutionary view, you then go against your reason, which is a faculty that God has given you. It’s part of personhood. And more importantly, you violate revelation, because God has clearly indicated that He Himself created the world.”
regards,
#John
#John1453
Thank you for the link to the Guardian article about the tree of life. The article never even hints at the possibility that a confused tree of life would mitigate against evolution. Clearly, the “tree concept” may require adjustments, perhaps significant adjustments. And once we understand and make those adjustments, look for the predictive power of evolution to be even more accurate.
As Moara has pointed out, the history of science is all about falsifying theories, adjusting theories, and replacing theories. We are in the midst of a continuing search for deeper understanding of the history of life. The tree of life problems amount to nothing more than a speed bump along the way. One that is fascinating for evolutionary scientists, I’m sure. But hardly one that moves them outside of the basic framework of evolution.
Here’s a follow-up question.
Has MacArthur compromised his faith because the believes that the earth goes around the sun? What’s with his reinterpreting of the Bible to be consistent with science? And following Copernicus of all people! Doesn’t MacArthur know that Copernicus was a papist?! (The fact that RC was the only game in town is no excuse). Tut Tut John, you really are the pot calling the kettle black. If God doesn’t actually make everything revolve around the earth, then the story of the sun standing still in Joshua is false, the entire Bible is thus false, Jesus never existed and I’m a monkey’s uncle (and a monkey, too, of course).
The question becomes, I suppose, how certain do we have to be about science, or any other area of knowledge, before we let it inform our interpretation of the Bible. Even more basic is the question of why we should hold so firmly to certain interpretations of the Bible in the first place, since those interpretations are only based on fallible knowledge.
As to understanding evolutionary biology (I think it’s pretty clear what I was referring to), the fact that I am skeptical, or that I come to different conclusions when looking at the same evidence, does not entail that I don’t understand evolutionary biology (note the word “entail”). Moreover, the failed predictions are, and remain, failed predictions in and of themselves and so reveal nothing about the level of my understanding of evolutionary biology.
Regards,
#John
#John,
I agree! I have skepticism about Darwinism (which may not be apparent here) also. Maybe yours run deeper. But I appreciate your perspective on the troubling questions about how and when science should adjust our understanding of the Bible. And yes, the jury is out on Darwinism, and may stay out indefinitely in some respects.
Correcting misconceptions in #84…
“Yeah, like predictions that there would be vestigial and useless organs like the appendix. Except that it isn’t and there aren’t.”
* Vestigial doesn’t mean useless. The function can be reduced, eliminated, or even changed – as in the case of the penguin’s ‘wings’. Other examples include embedded hind limb bones in whales and some snakes, eyes of blind cave fish, the left lung in most snakes, human goose bumps, etc.
“Or that there would be lots of junk DNA, except that there isn’t.”
* Protein coding regions make up ~5% of our DNA. Their exist other functions in the other ~95% (like regulation, positioning identifiers) but much of that 95% is thought to have no function, 10% or so of our DNA is retrotransposons from viruses.
“Or that its RNA that’s junk, except now it isn’t.
* No, since its discovery, RNA has always been seen as vital to protein expression.
“Or that there would be lots of gradual transitional fossils, except there aren’t any.”
* No, we don’t have a continuous record of evolutionary change in the fossil record (nor should we expect it statistically), but, there are numerous examples of fossil species that show transitional features – some of the best examples are in the human lineage.
“Or that ontogeny would recapitulate philogeny, except it doesn’t.”
* This is a long discredited theory. Current evolutionary understanding doesn’t follow this idea at all. Science is self correcting and discards ideas that don’t fit the evidence.
“Or that bacteria is an evolutionary step, except that they aren’t and bacteria don’t evolve.”
* Richard Lenski’s microbiology lab recently reported on clear evolution in metabolic capabilities of e.coli over 20 years.
“Or that we could construct a tree of life representing common descent, except that now it’s admitted that we can’t.”
* Scientist have shown that Lateral Gene Transfer can be an important method of speciation in single cellular life. There is no true trunk to the tree (rather like an interweaving vine), but, none of these scientist disbelieve evolution or are discounting the role of natural selection in single or multicellular life.
“Or that we descended from apes, except now it’s thought that apes descended from us.
* Neither did humans descended from ‘apes’, nor apes descend from humans. Humans and ‘apes’ descended from a common ancestor.
“etc., etc. The theory of evolution is a pretty useless predictor, but it’s a great source of post hoc “just so” stories and fables. The world has a greater chance of ending according to the Mayan calendar than evolution does of being true.”
*One ex. of a succesful predicition is the descovery of Tiktallik – a transitional species between fish and amphibian. Shubin used geology and biology to predict where to look for a fish-amphibian transitional fossil and after several summer expeditions in northern Canada is team…
Dennis: Your little “Theistic Evolution” talk is an epic fail, because you completely fail to tell us why the information given is better explained by evolution than by creation.
Let me give you an analogy. As a computer programmer, I release a number of programs with quite different functionality. However they all share 90% of common code, because I have an affinity for various libraries and patterns and common code. When I make a new program, it shares much with old programs, and it tends to share more with recent programs I designed than with older programs. Furthermore, they all contain the equivalent of junk DNA. They all contain code that once did something in an earlier program, but now doesn’t in a later program. They share the same code that is non functional in later programs, because I share codes between programs as a designer who uses his work in multiple places. In fact programs contain the common code of earlier programs that have nothing to do with their function, because I bound them into a library that I share between a number of programs. In fact all my later programs tend to inherit a lot of functionality that is “junk” in some programs that my earlier ones didn’t have because the core of my common design expands in later iterations. If I’ve designed an “egg” library, I’ll use it in all my programs, whether or not a particular program needs the “yolk” subsystem.
What you describe is PRECISELY what I would expect to see if life was designed by a designer. So why do you choose to believe the naturalistic explanation? It sounds like you are only willing to consider what is probable IF we assume naturalistic explanations. But this assumption destroys not only creationism, but theistic evolution as well. If the explanation of why things are how they are is evolutionary probability only, then God is completely out of the picture, and functionally there is no God. You failed in your attempt to meld religion and evolution.
John,
I understand how a computer programmer might just decide its easier to leave in old non-functional code. It might require more effort than its worth to extract such code. The result is a somewhat haphazard, albeit functional code. But are you suggesting that a Creator would use the same approach? Too much trouble to extract the needless DNA, so He would just let it ride.
Maybe this is the result you would expect from an almighty, omniscient Creator. Seems a little sloppy to me.
On the other hand, if the Creator allowed evolutionary processes to run their random course, if mutations were allowed to compound randomly, then the DNA we observe is exactly what I would expect.
Cliff, I could write the “perfect” egg library, and nobody would accuse me of sloppiness for using it in a program that doesn’t require the yolk.
Now look at Genesis. Was God being lazy in making woman from Adam’s rib? Why not start from scratch? The whole rib extraction thing seems superfluous for an infinite God, right?
If I wanted to make it look like life was designed, why not make it like a human designer would do it, since he wants to make man in his image? The mark of design is what a human would do, not what we think some imaginary being ought to do.
These complaints are no different to many others. Why isn’t such and such a thing in the world not “perfect”, according to some arbitrary and fabricated notion of perfection that we foist upon God?
And I might add Cliff, that if God “let it ride” in theistic evolution, isn’t God’s theistic evolutionary plans and methods rather imperfect? This argument cuts against ALL theistic views.
One of the most important questions that no one is discussing concerns their interpretation of Genesis.
Face it, the only REAL reason anyone here actually cares about a field of science like evolutionary biology is because of the supposed conflict between what it proposes and what Genesis is assumed to say.
All Christians in their opposition start out with Genesis. That is the springboard of all Christian skepticism regarding evolutionary biology. It is the foundation of their disbelief. Christians try to dismantle evolution so they don’t have to consider it because they think it contradicts scripture in some way. Seriously, unless you are a scientist elbow-deep in this stuff, you have absolutely no stake in the matter at all. Is there any other scientific field you aren’t involved in that you passionately argue against on the internet for hours on end?
Any Christian that opposes evolutionary or geological science does so because of some perceived theological problem the conclusions cast on scripture. My question to everyone here would be, What if your interpretation is wrong? What if your entire justification for opposing this science is based on a casual misreading?
What if the creation account really is written to a nation of ancient Israelites and not modern Americans? What if it really uses the ancient science they believed, but which we now consider false? What if it used certain literary conventions that were common to that time period and culture, but which we’ve since forgotten? What if the seven day structure in Genesis 1 is a guide for ceremonial purposes and actually says nothing about how long it took to create the universe? What if, when we think of what it means for God to create, we think of something different from what an Israelite would? What if God created time on Day 1, and not light?
And I could go on and on. Even if only one of these questions is true, it drastically changes how Genesis 1 is interpreted and understood.
I want to challenge everyone’s motivations here and ask you to question your assumptions about the chapter. Don’t look at it through modern eyes, but through ancient eyes. Ask ancient questions about what it means, not modern ones. If you don’t know those questions, do some homework and figure them out. The meaning isn’t found in modern science, nor does modern science have anything to gain from Genesis 1.
To Be Continued…
Continued…
Finally, I have no issue with evolutionary biology for two reasons: The first being since I do not think Genesis has any stake in the origins debate, none of my theology depends on it. I don’t have to prove science right or wrong or misinterpreted or too theistic or too atheistic. Science could support evolution with fantastic and convincing evidence, or the theory could be replaced by something better next month and I wouldn’t bat an eye. The second being since I have no stake in the matter, I’m very comfortable relying on the field’s experts to figure it all out and relay that information to me. You know, the same reason why you don’t question the meteorologist, neonatologist, or astronomist when they make this or that scientific pronouncement. You have no theological doctrine intricately invested in these three fields, even though the Bible makes the same sort of pronouncements over these that it does over origins.
I challenge you to separate the intent of Genesis 1 from that of the modern origins debate. Not because they populate two distinct fields that shouldn’t overlap. In some areas they do, but in the areas where overlap occurs, its across 30 centuries of science and theology.
Trying to reconcile the two is an exercise in futility.
John1453,
I don’t know if he’d be up for it, but I’d really like to see you and Dennis get into the nitty-gritty details of evolutionary biology. Maybe, other than simply dismissing his lectures or making broad assertions, you can interact with what he’s saying. I think we’d all benefit from a discussion like that from two qualified individuals.
One of the reasons that I have a perpetual aversion to commitment in this area (or relative trust in what people think) is the ever changing nature of science and propositions. I just saw this: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/biology_evolution/article6884359.ece
As one person put it, “the history of science is the history of bad ideas.” I am just too postmodern. 🙂
Love theories. Fascinated by new ideas. Think we need to keep them coming. But loosen up on our commitments when the conclusions have to do with subjects that are beyond the ability of the evidence to concede and when there is so much baggage tied to it.
Yep, Michael, I am firmly in agreement with you there. We can go back and forth ad infinitum, but no one can know for sure what it all looked like back in the beginning. I do know one thing for sure: God started it all, and he is still in charge of the show. That’s good enough for this simple mind.
“Face it, the only REAL reason anyone here actually cares about a field of science like evolutionary biology is because of the supposed conflict between what it proposes and what Genesis is assumed to say.”
It’s not just Genesis and ancient Hebrew, its the New Testament too, but it also goes to theism in general. The Muslims are no happier about evolution than we are.
Sorry everyone. I had chores to get done today.
One final comment:
If you want to see what happens when you take methodological naturalism and apply it to history in the same way as biology, then read James F. McGrath’s book on the Resurrection.
Here’s the blurb on the back:
“In The Burial of Jesus: History and Faith, Dr. James F. McGrath seeks to introduce a general audience to the methods historians apply to the study of the life of Jesus. Topics addressed include: how historical study work (and why historians regularly explore possibilities that religious believers find shocking); why Jesus’ disciples would have wanted to steal his body from the tomb; why later Gospel authors changed elements in Mark’s earlier version; and why Christian faith in the resurrection cannot be about what happened to a body almost 2,000 years ago.”
The methodological naturalism in the science of biology that is used to attack ID is the same methodological naturalism in the science of history that is used to attack the Resurrection.
As you can see McGrath does just that and thus eliminates the Resurrection entirely.
Choose this day whom you shall serve.
So far people do not seem to have confused me with other Johns, but I’m just providing a reminder. It’s why I’ve added the symbols & numbers to my name.
regards,
#John
re post 109
There are responses to each of your points, but since CMP’s initial comment is not about evolution per se, but about whether believing in evolution is a compromise, it would be a hijack of this thread for me to reply and go off in that direction.
A question relevant to CMP’s thread, which I raised, is: when should we defer to science in our interpretation of the Bible? and How compromised is MacArthur for accepting a heliocentric view of the universe?
regards,
#John
Out of those who have voted ,76 votes so far, 14 voted evolution w/o a litereal Adam & Eve.
I think many here have educated themselves to point of entertaining foolishness. I have no averstion, no hesitation in saying “We were created in the image of God” “Evolution is a lie” I’m sorry and sad that there is no soundness anywhere, anymore..everything is tainted with foolishness.
“I think many here have educated themselves to point of entertaining foolishness.”
Now there’s an interesting thought. I will readily admit to accepting evolution because I finally caved in, deciding to read and educate myself. After 30 years of avid (and highly informed!) belief in Young Earth Creationism, I boldly ventured out and discovered how overwhelming is the evidence that God indeed created us through an evolutionary process. Cadis suggests I ought to have remained ignorant.
Do Christians like Cadis actually believe that we should not learn, expand our understandings? Is there really a premium on ignorance? Should we shelter our minds from scientific discovery? Do Christians like Cadis fear what they might learn if they did educate themselves? Has Cadis read the evidence favoring evolution? or just rejected it out of hand because of his a priori chosen theological opinions?
I do not mean to ridicule. I am asking an honest question. Are there others who believe that I erred when I ventured outside of my YEC literature to become better versed in the arguments favoring evolution?
I really fail to see how anyone can honestly look at the human and chimp genomes and conclude that they are not ultimately derived from the same ancestral genome (in a common ancestor). Dennis’s video is particularly good at driving the basic points home. For me the redundancy issue alone refutes common design as any sort of viable alternative.
I think Christians need to face reality. After all, all truth is God’s truth. Saying that rejection of evolution, and the rest of modern science, is a prerequisite for belief in Christ is not a good approach.
I would ask one question of all those who doubt common ancestry between humans and chimps and who say Dennis’s video was unimpressive: if we are to consider the genomic evidence that we are both descended from a common ancestor, what is it that you would expect to see in our genomes that you don’t see?
Cliff,
I’m sorry if I offended you, but the question of this post is do I think it is compromise to believe in theistic evolution. I do. I guess I should have stuck with that answer and left the poll alone. I made my comments too personal. I am not about to rewrite all of Genesis and then quite a bit more of the rest of the scripture for the sake of not looking ridiculous.. I’m sorry you feel most of the YE people are “low brows“, I personally don’t. I think MacArthur is being hung up like a dart board here. I think that stinks too. I’m neither young earth or a MacArthur groupie , but I think it is awful that both are criticized and made to look silly to make room for a position (evolution) which is theory and theory that is contrary to Genesis and the widest held interpretation of Genesis. If I think it a compromise to allow evolution that is without a literal Adam and Eve then yes I am also going to be insulted that those who hold a somewhat questionable but biblical position are going to be treated lowly for the likes of one that I feel compromises the Genesis account. So…I was answering the question and I’m sorry I did not do it more generally and I’m sorry I addressed this period. It’s unfathomable that I should have to, at least to me and at the very least John MacArthur.
Cadis,
I understand there are differences of opinion about evolution. But how can it be compromise when sincere believers find the evidence for evolution irrefutable, and adjust their interpretation of the Scripture according to what they view as empirically backed reality?
Evolution is troubling for many believers. I get that. It was for me too. But I cannot deny what I have seen and read, pretend its not true so I can cling to my cherished interpretations of Genesis.
These are difficult days for the church. Surely you are aware of the similar gut-wrenching struggle the church went through in the days of Galileo. His revelations shook the church! He was called a compromiser, and worse. If he was correct, it meant that the church had to back off of the (at that time) clear and plain teachings of the Bible of a fixed earth at the center of the universe with a solid sky in which moved sun, stars and planets. (at least 64 verse support these ideas … more of the Bible was upset by Galileo than by Darwin!) Surely you know that the church took literally hundreds of years to make its peace with Copernicus. Were the early Christian followers of Galileo compromisers? Were they?
More and more leading evangelical leaders are taking another look at evolution and discovering it to be true. A recent survey conducted by Bruce Waltke indicated up to 46% of professors in leading evangelical institutions now accept evolution. Their number is growing rapidly. Are they all compromisers? Are they?
Maybe they are on to something. Believe me, Cadis, it is not easy to abandon a view one has held for decades. It was not easy for me. I did not do it “for the sake of not looking ridiculous”. I did it because, having viewed the clear evidence, I found I had no choice. Are you willing to look at the evidence? Is Dr. MacArthur?
I agree; it is sad the MacArthur is being hung out like a dart-board. But he was the one who chose to declare that thousands of sincere evangelical believers are nothing more than duped, capitulating compromisers. It is MacArthur who has chosen to be divisive.
Cadis,
You really need to gain a better grasp on what science means when they use the word “theory”. I hear (quite frankly) ignorant people repeat the line “its just a theory” time after time. When science uses the word “theory” they don’t use it in the sense a normal person might use it. In science a theory is a explanation for natural phenomenon which is supported by significant empirical data. Much of what is accepted as fact is actually labeled as theory in science (i.e. the “Theory” of Relativity). Simply put don’t say “it’s just a theory” in front of even mildly educated people unless you want to get laughed at. Instead refute the theory by offering empirical evidence which contradicts the theory.
Also to echo what Cliff said the last time the Church decided to hold to a particular interpretation of Scripture over empirically validated science we ended up with SERIOUS egg on our face. As Cliff indicated when properly understood evolution shakes up our understanding of Scripture less then believing in a sun centered solar system did for those who a few hundred years ago were absolutely certain that the sun and the whole universe for that matter revolved around the Earth.
Bottom line: If YEC advocates like yourself and MacArthur want to claim that adjusting our interpretation of Genesis to match the scientific data is “compromising” then to be consistent you should all be arguing that the Sun revolves around the Earth since believing the opposite is just as much of a “compromise”.
John from #119,
“It’s not just Genesis and ancient Hebrew, its the New Testament too, but it also goes to theism in general. The Muslims are no happier about evolution than we are.”
When it gets to the issue of theism, it becomes a philosophical discussion, not scientific. All science, even evolutionary biology, can make no pronouncements on God.
And I think there are ways to reconcile the NEw Testament with an ANE influenced reading of Genesis (and the Old Testament). After all, while they aren’t exactly the same, they are similar enough where the New Testament writers drew from or already believed various bits of ancient science from the Old Testament and included it in the New. Second Peter 3:5 is a good example. He’s clearly drawing from Genesis 1 in that statement, which itself was based on the Ancient Near Eastern belief that the universe started out as a vast cosmic ocean.
#John1453 from Post #122,
“There are responses to each of your points, but since CMP’s initial comment is not about evolution per se, but about whether believing in evolution is a compromise, it would be a hijack of this thread for me to reply and go off in that direction.”
How about ya’ll take the discussion to the other thread that we spent the better part of the summer discussing this issue? I’d still enjoy seeing you and Dennis talk this over too.
Here’s the link: http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2009/05/six-views-on-the-creationevolution-debate/
“A question relevant to CMP’s thread, which I raised, is: when should we defer to science in our interpretation of the Bible? and How compromised is MacArthur for accepting a heliocentric view of the universe?”
For the first one, I’d say when the pressure from science is too great to withstand. Too often we think our interpretation is just as inspired as the Bible itself. That or we prefer tradition over change.
Of course, I would also want to limit these deferments to competent individuals. Ones who have a firm understanding of both subjects.
For the second one, MacArthur is very compromised. He feels free to accept science when interpreting astronomy-related verses, but digs his heels in when it comes to origins science. Any Christian that picks and chooses what science they allow to influence their interpretation simply aren’t being consistent. And they delve into the realm of hypocrisy when they accuse people like me of being a compromiser or one who uses science to determine scripture’s meaning. They do the same thing.
I spoke more on this in the other thread here http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2009/05/six-views-on-the-creationevolution-debate/#comment-26649 and here http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2009/05/six-views-on-the-creationevolution-debate/#comment-27805
Michael,
Talk your theories over with God and then let me know his definition. Genesis ? Genesis is a theory? not.
Tom: “I really fail to see how anyone can honestly look at the human and chimp genomes and conclude that they are not ultimately derived from the same ancestral genome (in a common ancestor).”
Eh, why is a common ancestor a better explanation than a common designer again? These discussions go round and round because the evolutionist party can’t see the obvious that a common designer provides an equally viable explanation for commonality.
” For me the redundancy issue alone refutes common design as any sort of viable alternative.”
If this was a great argument, then all computer programs in existence “evolved”.
And again: if there is no design… not even design via theistic evolution… then there is no God. So you just refuted the existence of God.
“Saying that rejection of evolution, and the rest of modern science, is a prerequisite for belief in Christ is not a good approach.”
So, do you object to teaching the bible, as-is? It’s one thing if you want to harbour private thoughts. It’s another if you can’t stand to hear the bible taught as written.
“I would ask one question of all those who doubt common ancestry between humans and chimps and who say Dennis’s video was unimpressive: if we are to consider the genomic evidence that we are both descended from a common ancestor, what is it that you would expect to see in our genomes that you don’t see?”
What is the point of the question? Let me ask you this: If we are to consider the genetic evidence that we are designed by a hyper intelligent race of space aliens, what is it you would expect to see in our genomes that you don’t see?
“Are there others who believe that I erred when I ventured outside of my YEC literature to become better versed in the arguments favoring evolution?”
Your eternal destiny doesn’t hang on whether the earth is old or young. But I think it does hang on the underlying assumption of darwinist evolution: namely that humans are the way we are because of random mutation and natural selection according to survival of the fittest. I think we’ve seen in this very thread the inability of christians to defend evolution without that Darwinist structure and assumptions that underlie it. And yes, that teaching is un-Christian.
John, Re #131
namely that humans are the way we are because of random mutation and natural selection according to survival of the fittest. I think we’ve seen in this very thread the inability of christians to defend evolution without that Darwinist structure and assumptions that underlie it. And yes, that teaching is un-Christian.
Proverbs 16:33
I believe God did it. How is that un-Christian?
Cadis,
Genesis is NOT a theory, however your proposed interpretation of Genesis IS at best a theory (conjecture would be a better word), and your interpretation is far from the only one. Seeing as there are plausible interpretations that line up with the best available empirical evidence, and don’t have a drastic effect on core doctrines such as original sin, I’m going to go with those. Also if I were you I would study Near Eastern conceptions of the universe, because the whole account of Genesis assumes a conception of the universe we know to not be true. For instance Genesis assumes that the world is flat. Phrases like the “firmament”, “the deep” and others are based on a Ancient Near Eastern conception of the universe which categorically wrong.
Honestly Cadis your perspective on this issue is no different then the one the Catholic church took when Galileo inconveniently informed them that the Earth revolved around the sun. The Catholic church was convinced that they could infallibly interpret Scripture, and they had interpreted Scripture to mean that the Universe revolved around the Earth. Thus when Galileo empirically proved otherwise his teachings were taken as a threat to not just established doctrine, but the authority of the Church, and the Christian religion itself. Of course we all know how this turned out for the Church. Every atheist and skeptic on the face of the planet will, to this day, bring up this incident.
Genesis is the infallible, inerrant word of God, but our interpretations as to the purposes and meaning of Genesis are VERY fallible. Should it be understood historically, literally, figuratively, allegorically??? Was the primary purposes of the author theological, historical?? When there is good evidence that our interpretation is wrong and another interpretation is right we should we just ignore it and dogmatically hold to our interpretations??? If we did we’d still be believing that the sun revolves around the Earth, the Earth is flat, and the sky rests on pillars as pointed out many times i this discussion. Then again maybe we should have just stayed in the dark ages believing that the world was flat, the universe revolved around the Earth and using blood-letting as our primary treatment for illness.
John,
“Eh, why is a common ancestor a better explanation than a common designer again? These discussions go round and round because the evolutionist party can’t see the obvious that a common designer provides an equally viable explanation for commonality.”
If our similarities to other species were simply in our functional DNA and the manner in which our bodies operate this argument would make sense. However, as has been pointed out before a large chunk of our DNA serves no purpose any longer. Now if God had just created us by divine fiat without a evolutionary process why would he maintain the same junk DNA found in other creatures??? Wouldn’t he just create us with what we needed??? Why do we have a chromosome that is a exact merger of two chromosomes in the great apes?? God is all powerful, not some lazy computer programmer who leaves in old code to make things easier. Simply saying “common creator” doesn’t answer these questions, because it isn’t logical for a all powerful creator to create beings who have DNA which serves no useful purpose but points us to common ancestry.
This in the end goes back to a question no one wants to take up. Is God deceiving us??? I can accept that God “COULD” create us in such a way that it appears we share common ancestors with other creatures on the planet when we actually don’t. I can accept that God “COULD” create a planet with the appearance of great age when it was actually really young. But why the deception???
Cadis,
This is the best picture I could find of it, but the link below will lead to a diagram showing how peoples in the Ancient Near East viewed the universe.
http://www.aarweb.org/syllabus/syllabi/g/gier/306/OTcosmos.jpg
The creation accounts in Genesis assume this cosmology. In addition numerous passages elsewhere in the Bible (especially the Psalms) assume this cosmology. Of course we all now know that the Earth isn’t flat, and the sky doesn’t rest on pillars, and there aren’t actual floodgates in the sky etc. etc. etc., but if we read Genesis 100% literally as you suggest we would have to believe this. You see this is my problem with YEC, you all want it both ways. You want to accept science in places and not in others. You want to interpret things figuratively or symbolically in places and then literally in others. YOU CAN’T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS!!!!! Either we must interpret Genesis literally 100% and believe in the conception of the universe depicted in the link above (which every astronaut, Christian or otherwise, will tell you is false because they’ve seen the Earth from space) or we must admit that Genesis should be interpreted in some other manner opening the door for what we know scientifically to be true (whether that be that the world is round, the earth revolves around the sun, theistic evolution, etc.). It’s one or the other.
“I believe God did it. How is that un-Christian?”
Because in defending evolution you have to appeal to evidence saying “our genes are explained by natural causes, they are not explained by design”. If God did it, even by evolution, that would be design. But you believe evolution, because of an argument that our genes are best explained by lack of design. QED, you have no god.
John Re #131,
“Eh, why is a common ancestor a better explanation than a common designer again? These discussions go round and round because the evolutionist party can’t see the obvious that a common designer provides an equally viable explanation for commonality.”
I would recommend watching the last two videos on this page: http://www.blog.beyondthefirmament.com/video-presentations/science-and-christian-education/science-and-christian-education-page-3/
Biological Systematics 1 and 2 go into the reasons why common descent is much more likely than common design as an explanation for similarities between organisms.
I think it would be really helpful if you watched those videos. If you had the time, try to watch all 16. The author, Gordon Glover, is very good at explaining evolution from a Christian perspective.
“However, as has been pointed out before a large chunk of our DNA serves no purpose any longer. Now if God had just created us by divine fiat without a evolutionary process why would he maintain the same junk DNA found in other creatures??”
This was all discussed above. If this argument is convincing, then every computer program evolved without design.
“Now if God had just created us by divine fiat without a evolutionary process why would he maintain the same junk DNA found in other creatures?”
Why did he create woman with a rib from Adam according to Genesis? Maybe he took genes from his previous work and resused it. How do I know?
Yet again, as I have stated several times, you have to appeal to arguments that cut against ALL theism, not just creationism. You don’t think God would re-use genes with junk in them in special creation because it goes against what an infinite God ought to do? Why wouldn’t an infinite God using evolution as his sovereign mechanism let all that junk fall out during the evolutionary process leaving his master design pristine? I guess because you don’t REALLY believe there is a God behind it. All the junk is evidence of an UNGUIDED mechanism in your world. And that is an unchristian world.
“Why do we have a chromosome that is a exact merger of two chromosomes in the great apes?”
John1453 has already explained twice why that is irrelevant. And it was obvious to me also before I read what he had to say.
“God is all powerful, not some lazy computer programmer who leaves in old code to make things easier.”
Again, why does the “all powerful God” of theistic evolution leave junk DNA in there? Huh? Apparently the God of theistic evolution IS a lazy computer programmer.
And BTW, programs having unused code is NOT the sign of lazy computer programmers. There are extremely good reasons for programs to have unused code in them, which I also explained above, and which also ignored in this discussion.
” it isn’t logical for a all powerful creator to create beings who have DNA which serves no useful purpose but points us to common ancestry.”
You claim it points to common ancestry. I claim it points to a common designer. And it is perfectly logical, since logical computer programmers do it all the time, ON PURPOSE and FOR GOOD REASONS.
“The creation accounts in Genesis assume this cosmology.”
(a) Prove it. I’ve never read anything in Genesis saying the earth is flat.
(b) Why is it I should care less what the Bible says in your world view? The bible assumes there is a God out there who created us, loves us and sends his Son to die for us. If he didn’t create us, all the rest is called into question, for obvious reasons.
John Re. #137,
“Because in defending evolution you have to appeal to evidence saying “our genes are explained by natural causes, they are not explained by design”. If God did it, even by evolution, that would be design. But you believe evolution, because of an argument that our genes are best explained by lack of design. QED, you have no god.”
Please be careful in declaring that I have no god. Your emotions are getting ahead of your reason. I have never stated, either in my comments here or elsewhere, what you claim I have.
Did you have a chance to look at the Proverb I posted?
Proverbs 16:33 – The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord.
Do you understand what this is saying? A seemingly random event from our perspective is fully known (or caused) by God.
If I were to state I believe in evolution by common descent through random mutation brought on by natural causes, I would in no way be compromising or contradicting my beliefs.
First, I believe that God is our savior (through Jesus Christ), sustainer, and creator. He created a universe with certain laws that he upholds moment to moment. These laws govern how physical matter acts in the universe. These laws are the “natural causes” I referred to above. Simply a common term used to refer to common occurrences in nature.
A random mutation is whatever change that occurs to an organism’s genetics in which we, the observers, are unaware of the specific cause.
When I refer to something as random, I do so from my perspective. I don’t know why something happened or what caused it, only that it happened. This is also how evolutionary scientists use the term. Random does not imply causeless, nor does it imply godlessness. Random also does not imply that God is unaware of it, or did not have a hand in the matter. Nothing of the scientific theory of evolution requires this kind of thinking.
In the broadest of terms I believe in an intelligent designer. But my understanding of this designer is one who, knowing the outcome, designed the universe in a manner that would produce his desired result: a creature such as ourselves that could bear his divine image.
Evolution is a good description and theory on how this occurred. Some aspects of it may appear random to our limited perspective, but in no way is it the same for our all-knowing and all-powerful creator God.
And lest you think of me as some sort of glorified Deist, I am also of the opinion that it is entirely possible, and probably likely, that God is intimately involved in the running of his universe from moment to moment.
The movement of every quantum-sized particle of matter is known by God and, if he so wills, even caused by him, producing a cascade of physical events that build up like a snowball to bring about effects in the world in which we can observe and react to.
I believe God’s involvement in the world is one of immense beauty and impossible to fully fathom. In no way should it or could it be limited by simple scientific jargon or descriptions.
And John, please refrain from calling other posters godless or atheistic because they disagree with you over an issue of science. Those kinds of accusations do not belong here.
John Re #139,
“(a) Prove it. I’ve never read anything in Genesis saying the earth is flat.
I’m not sure Michael specifically said Genesis says anything about the earth being flat. Other parts of scripture refer to that, but nothing specific in Genesis that I recall. He is right on the cosmology presented there though. It fits very well into an Ancient Near Eastern context, and not our modern one.
Let me show you with this little Bible study. If you can refute it and show me where my reasoning is wrong, by all means do so.
Genesis 1:6-7
And God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse. And it was so.
Genesis 1:14-17
And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth.” And it was so. And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars. And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth
1. The Bible says the expanse was made to separate the water below it from the water above it.
2. The Bible says the sun, moon, and stars were placed in the expanse.
3. Thus, there is water above the sun, moon, and stars.
Further scripture supports this:
Psalm 148:3-4
Praise him, sun and moon,
praise him, all you shining stars!
Praise him, you highest heavens,
and you waters above the heavens!
John, can you identify these waters Moses and David are talking about? Using modern science you can’t, because they don’t exist. But with ancient science you can. The Israelites lived in the Ancient Near East. And just as you today are a product of your culture and time, so were they. It should not be difficult to imagine them adhering to the scientific beliefs of their time, as you also do.
Just as God, by Jesus, used our flesh and form to reach out to us in a way we could understand, so did he use their ancient science and beliefs to explain to them that he is their creator.
God has accommodated himself to our limitations in more ways than you have realized.
“(b) Why is it I should care less what the Bible says in your world view? The bible assumes there is a God out there who created us, loves us and sends his Son to die for us. If he didn’t create us, all the rest is called into question, for obvious reasons.”
Is your last name MacArthur?
Greg: “Biological Systematics 1 and 2 go into the reasons why common descent is much more likely than common design as an explanation for similarities between organisms.”
Remind me where God fits into a system that is devoid of design. No design = no God. I don’t hear anyone here arguing for God designing by common ancestry. No, the alternative presented is LACK OF DESIGN. Do you hear yourself?
As for specific arguments:
I take it you’ve done a survey of gods to find out what deities are likely to do?
I see the same pattern all the time in designed objects. Computers with 2.5″ hard drives seem to always have screens. Not all computers with built-in screens have 2.5″ hard drives. Computers with batteries always have screens. Not all computers with screens have batteries. Computers with Power-PC chips run OS-X, but not Windows. Not all computers with OS-X have Power-PC chips. Computers running OS-X can be manufactured from solid chunks of aluminium. No Windows machines are like this. We could use these facts to form a darwinian tree. I guess I’ve just proven that computers evolved through natural selection.
“Proverbs 16:33 – The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord.
Do you understand what this is saying? A seemingly random event from our perspective is fully known (or caused) by God.”
In that case, God would have DESIGNED the outcome, and therefore arguments presented here about what a DESIGNER would or wouldn’t do are null and void, and your argument collapses. You cannot argue for evolution without making arguments about what designers wouldn’t do, and so your position is inherently conflicted.
“2. The Bible says the sun, moon, and stars were placed in the expanse.
3. Thus, there is water above the sun, moon, and stars.”
The sun, moon and stars are in the expanse from our point of view. It’s like saying “the sun is in the middle of the sky”. It doesn’t mean I am labouring under the delusion that the world is flat, and right now the sun is in the middle of it. Rather it means it is in the middle relative to my current viewing position. So the sun, moon and stars are in the expanse, relative to my viewpoint. Another example is the photo “earth rise”, taken by the astronauts on the moon. It doesn’t mean they are laboring under a notion that the earth rises, except in relation to their viewpoint.
“You cannot argue for evolution without making arguments about what designers wouldn’t do, and so your position is inherently conflicted.”
That is why Dennis in his video didn’t say what a designer would or wouldn’t do. He simply explained what we can predict common descent should look like, and that is exactly what we observe when we examine genomes; everything from homology, redundacy, synteny, and pseudogeny. That’s all a scientist can say; everything that we would expect from common descent is what we see.
One particularly compelling example, described by Francis Collins, are Ancient Repetitive Elements (AREs), these insert themselves in random places in the genome. Now not only are many of these in the same places in the genomes of humans and mice but there are many instances where they don’t insert properly and become broken, and we and mice have exactly the same broken ones in the same places in our genomes, broken in exactly the same way.
How does common design explain that? Or the existence of a defective vitellogenin gene in placental mammals that is clearly functional in other egg-laying mammals and birds? Precisely as we would expect if mammals are ultimately descended from egg-laying ancestors.
The questions might sound rhetorical but I am genuinely asking.
If people still want maintain belief in a common designer who went to such great lengths to manufacture an illusion of descent then there is really nothing more that can be debated.
Chris,
About your post #20, I think you make an excellent point. If we agree with the evolutionary model, where changes took place gradually over millions and millions of years, some occurring somewhat more quickly due to random mutation, then the first man’s parents would have to have been essentially human. But that would mean that the first man wasn’t really the “first man”, right? You either have to suggest that an ape gave birth to a man (that would be the granddaddy of all mutations), or that the parents of the first man were 99.99….[with nines on into infinity] percent “human” but not *really* human.
I remember seeing a debate between two evolutionists and two creationists. One of the creationists asked, “Where are the transitional forms?” The evolutionist replied, “We are all transitional forms”, and the crowd, comprised largely of evolutionists, exploded with applause.
According to the Bible, God’s Son died for sinful mankind, not for the animals. But there must be a beginning point where that sacrifice is to be applied. If an ape gave birth to a human via the most unlikely mutation in evolutionary history then God has an easy choice, I suppose. However, if “we are all transitional forms”, as the highly praised evolutionist declared, then God will either have to save some who were part ape and part human, just to be safe, or he’s going to have to tell thousands, perhaps millions of individuals who are so much like us that we wouldn’t be able to discern a difference that they didn’t make it. “After all”, God will tell them, “I had to draw the line somewhere”.
~Kaz
P.S. I’m sorry if I’ve repeated something similar to what someone else may have said, but I didn’t have time to finish reading all the posts in this thread.
Kaz,
The idea of where transitional forms between man and ape are has always bothered me too, since evolution by its own definition doesn’t stop. The answer by a group of evolutionists that quote, ‘we are all transitional forms’ is just as ridiculous as some of the crazy one line statements some Christians make, like the kind CMP has been doing a series about.
Clearly, no ‘missing link’ has thus far been found, so until such time evolution remains an unproven theory. It has been answered by some atheists, and even theistic evolutionists that so is Christianity, and Christ’s resurrection from the dead cannot be proven either.
So here’s a questions for the Calvinist theistic evolutionists, if there are any out there: If a completely sovereign God elected only a certain group of folks to be saved before the foundations of the world, why would he have gone to all the trouble and experimentation with forms of animal life to get to a man? That part simply doesn’t compute.
And, while we might have DNA in common with apes, they are driven by instinct and not capable of intelligent decisions regarding their choice of lifestyles, nor are they even capable of a spiritual belief in God. I would think the burning question should be is when the quantum leap occurred between rational decision making and spiritual awareness, as opposed to merely instinct driven behavior. Simply arguing a case based solely upon the physical manifestations of DNA evidence as proof isn’t sufficient to close that gap.
“Clearly, no ‘missing link’ has thus far been found”
Um… by whom? If you mean by you, where have you been looking?
http://www.theistic-evolution.com/pages5455.jpg
http://www.readingevolution.com/images/hominid_brain_cavity_size.jpg
http://www.iupui.edu/~mstd/a103/Human%20Origins%20Chart_files/iskull.gif
http://www.addingup.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/brain_evo.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils
Michael,
Your assuming a lot of things about me and are speaking for me things that I have not even implied let alone have said. Your seeing communists behind every tree. I’m not YEC. And YEC and OEC was not any part of my objection to evolution. Although I do interpret Genesis literally I was not even objecting to other interpretations. I’m objecting to the evolution of man being forced onto the Genesis text. Even if Genesis was interpreted as an ANE myth, the myth is still conveying the truth that man is created in God’s image, you will have to also include apes being created in God’s image etc. on down the line. Evolution of man will not fit with any interpretation of Genesis There is no way to interpret Genesis to include evolution without causing major damage to the whole of scripture. And at this point in time the “theory” of evolution (unlike the theory of electricity) is under enough question that it does not need to be forced onto Genesis. And I don’t think it ever will be a proven theory. And paralleling the whole flat earth thing with what is going on now with evolution is ridiculous there is little comparison and no one is calling for the halt to scientific studies, not even the YECists So give it up. It is equally ridiculous an accusation that a literal interpretation of scripture cannot accommodate custom or poetry or metaphor etc. Your using intimidation tactics , those tactics are effective but they work contrary to getting to the truth. And with that I’m done here, because I can see where this is headed. I’ll only sit in the passengers seat until I can see ahead and notice we’re headed to some God forsaken place, the smart thing to do at that point is to say..I think I want out of the car. That and this is getting silly.