Top 10 so called myths about evolution part 2

forgive me for being a little slow on this series, my next posts on this series will hopefully be more frequent.

Anyway this one is about homologous structures; the "evolutionist" myth is apparently that it proves evolution. Their counter-argument is that physical or genetic similarities does not prove two organisms are related anymore then the fact that two phones are alike means they are related. One person actually denied that the similar characteristics can also prove common design. I don't think the argument is invalid; it also logically follows that organisms without the the same structures would have greater genetic differences then organisms that do have the same structures and vice verca. The problem with this argument is deciding which similarities are due to common design and which are due to common descent. Mainstream creationists (AiG, ICR, and CMI mainly) think that all species come from larger more diverse kinds, so obviously you would have some organisms which are similar also due to common descent, so two different breeds of dogs being genetically similar due to common descent is not a problem for creationists. But what about say, chimpanzees and humans who are about as similar as two breeds of dogs? A theologically consistent special creationist would have to say that humans were of a different kind then chimpanzees, even though his scientific definition of a kind says otherwise. The question is how far can you go back in animals before you the kind level? If

If this aspect of creationist genetics were correct then should be large gaps in genetic similarity between two species from different kinds. For example; chimpanzees should be more like 90% or even 80% similar, not 98% similar.

My point here is while the common design argument is valid as far as logic goes, but it fails in the fact that the genetic similarities are more consistent with a non-creationist interpretation of the data. As far back as we go back largely unrelated organisms (such as dogs and bears) become more and more genetically similar to the point where they would classify as being in the same creationist kind. Following a creationist interpretation we have to make an arbitrary cut off point which has no other then a weak theological justification for it.

Top 10 so called myths about evolution

This is a response series to the AiG web article series Top 10 myths about evolution. Myth 10 is apparently that computer programs prove evolution.

While it is true that it doesn't necessarily prove anything. Computer simulations however do help to visualize concepts such as natural selection creating new species. What they do prove is that that random mistakes can generate meaningful information. Thus even if it does entail a rigged results thats not the point. The point is that random mistakes can generate order if controlled by natural selection; hence evolution.

It is interesting that the picture they use to illustrate the point depicts the evolutionist program designer as being 100% biased against God. Of course this is not accurate since many evolutionists myself including believe in God and agree with evolution. While I have no philosophical problem with creationism or Intelligent Design I have yet to see evidence of it in nature. As I have said before once I get good evidence I will wholeheartedly become a creationist against all odds.

A debate between Old earth creationists and Young earth creationists

A few months ago there was a debate between young earth creationists creationists Ken Ham and Jason Lisle and old earth creationist Hugh Ross with professor of the Old Testament Walter Kaiser on the John Ankerberg show; I don't agree with everything Hugh Ross says but I am much closer theologically and scientifically to Hugh Ross' position then Ken Ham's. It is rather interesting, I do not have the time now but I will give my comments on parts of it in later articles. You can see the debate here (it has ten parts so don't expect it to be short).

Please watch and share your opinions.

Rethinking Creationism: Is it possible our presuppostions do affect how we interpret the evidence?

Do not be alarmed by this question. This is NOT and argument for creationism, I am simply correcting a my mishandling of the AiG position that evolution is based on the philosophy of naturalism. I feel I have misunderstood their position and I have caused confusion among others such as AiGbusted And being that no creationist will defend himself I have put it on myself to respond to the criticism since I understand their true position, it still is somewhat flawed but it is not as nutty as they make it appear.

AiG creationist thinkers at least have adopted almost a form of Critical Realism in regards to the past. Nothing can be absolutely proven in relation to the distant past before human presence in the region. Therefore whatever theory you make about the past is not independent of your presuppositions. This is how I have basically explained it, and earlier I criticized it on the grounds that it was an attempt on the part of the creationists to avoid the obvious evidence for evolution. Either way their position appears to have been mishandled by several people such as AiGbusted. It has been interpreted as saying we cannot trust our own thoughts because thoughts. The misunderstanding probably stems from this quote form the AiG article, "Is nature the 67th book of the bible?":

"Many who trust in humans as the highest authority reject the Curse as true history and thus deny its effect on our observations. Some point to the effects of the Curse as proof of “bad design.” For Christians, however, it is foolish to ignore the Curse when considering what nature can “reveal” to us. After all, this would be like someone trusting a funhouse mirror to show them how they really looked. They look into the mirror and see a distorted view but assume that this mirror must be “right.”"

Now at first glance this does seem to say that we cannot trust our senses and this does seem to contradict what creationist have claimed about evolution being anti-science and anti-knowledge since it means our brain is just an assortment of chemicals which evolved over billions of years and can't be trusted. Is this a contradiction made by the author? No, creationists such as Ken Ham say that there is a distinction between what they call "operational" science and "historical" science. Operational science is everyday repeatable science which has been used to build technology and send humans to the moon. Historical Science on the other hand has to do with the distant past and origins which are affected by our presuppositions and is therefore not science in the same sense that operational science is. Furthermore in regards of repeatable, testable, and operational science the senses are very reliable and they believe that science requires "biblical presuppositions". loved and hated Creationist astrophysicist Dr. Jason Lisle explains:

"he biblical creationist expects there to be order in the universe because God made all things (John 1:3) and has imposed order on the universe. Since the Bible teaches that God upholds all things by His power (Hebrews 1:3), the creationist expects that the universe would function in a logical, orderly, law-like fashion. Furthermore, God is consistent and omnipresent. Thus, the creationist expects that all regions of the universe will obey the same laws, even in regions where the physical conditions are quite different. The entire field of astronomy requires this important biblical principle."

However they say science in relation to the distant past before the existence of humans or at least before written records and such cannot be proven and if any theory is not based of biblical presuppositions it is flawed because it does not take the bible (what they believe to be the foundation of science) into account. Also the fall is used to explain things like mutations, disease, and some instances of bad design so if you follow their logic nature gives a distorted portrayal of God and thus while it is useful (they believe that historical science can work if interpreted through biblical assumptions) it should not be put at the same level as the bible. That is all they are saying, they are not saying thoughts are unreliable.

If one is to respond to creationist claims he must do it with an accurate portrayal of creationist beliefs not a distorted view and that is the purpose of this article, it is not to endorse young earth creationism in any way. It is to correct flawed arguments in the same way AiGers have done already.

Key to ending the creation/evolution controversy

The creation-evolution controversy has raged for over a century and a half now. And there seems no end in site, it only appears to be getting more ferocious as the years pass, Why is this?

Well one thing might be confusion about why creationists oppose evolution. It is not because of science or any reason related to that. the leading creationists are not morons who can't think straight either, their thinking is crystal clear, and they do have a very important reason to oppose evolution. Well actually two reasons, which both go together, they can be stated simply; doctrine and morality.

It has been stated all over the AiG website what the debate is really about. It is about a theological dispute within the Christian faith. Essentially how do we approach evolution? There are a great many Christians; both scientists, theologians, and laypeople who believe in both God and evolution. Many do not see evolution and religion in conflict. However the problem is that both sides of the extreme (bible-thumping fundamentalists and bible-burning atheists respectively) do see it as in conflict. The main problem for many is death and suffering. Young Earth Creationists at least hold to the belief that there was no death before Adam's sin, and being that the fossil record shows death and suffering long before sin they see this as an obvious problem for Christianity. Atheists such as Albert Einstein and probably Richard Dawkins who agree with the creationists' interpretation of the bible concur with this point.
This problem is a nagging problem for creationists and theistic evolutionists trying to convince creationists to accept modern science.
Is this true, is evolution truly the death knell of Christianity? Well luckily it is not Creationists have not given any proof that there was no animal death before the fall. In fact Psalm 104 seems to indicate there was death in animals before the fall.

Another biblical problem they have with evolution is the existence of Adam. Evolution teaches that humans share common ancestry with great apes so ultimately humans go back to apes not Adam. Creationists believe this is the death knell of Christianity, atheists agree (this particular quote comes from John Stear host of the site No Answers In Genesis):

“If evolution is fundamentally correct, then there was no Adam; no Adam, no fall; no fall, no atonement; no atonement, no reason for Christ to have died on the cross. If Christ died for no reason then he was not divine and Christianity has no basis in fact. Is there really any need for scientific proof in order to debunk Christianity?”

If Adam doesn't exist then yes we do have a problem, I do believe in a literal Adam who is the genetic common ancestor of all people alive today (although some theistic evolutionists don't think he was the genetic common ancestor). Its possible he may have been Mitochondrial Eve's husband. Genetics has traced every human alive to day to a human common ancestor like the bible says. So their fear seems somewhat unfounded. There are many other scientific, theological, and biblical issues which must addressed though.

The second real reason for their rejection of evolution is morality, on their website in the Q&A Morality and Ethics section they quote G.K. Chesterson a 19th century Christian apologist on morality and evolution:

Darwinism can be used to back up two mad moralities, but it cannot be used to back up a single sane one. The kinship and competition of all living creatures can be used as a reason for being insanely cruel or insanely sentimental; but not for a healthy love of animals … That you and a tiger are one may be a reason for being tender to a tiger. Or it may be a reason for being cruel as the tiger. It is one way to train the tiger to imitate you, it is a shorter way to imitate the tiger. But in neither case does evolution tell you how to treat a tiger reasonably, that is, to admire his stripes while avoiding his claws.

If you want to treat a tiger reasonably, you must go back to the garden of Eden. For the obstinate reminder continues to recur: only the supernaturalist has taken a sane view of Nature.’

Basically what they are trying to get at is evolution leaves no basis for morality. Once you remove Creation you can do what ever you want. As shown in this illustration they see evolution as the excuse to throw the bible away and commit all sorts of sins which are at the center of social concerns today:

As you can see here Answers In Genesis state that evolution allows for humans to decide moral truth which is a cardinal belief in humanism and therefore gives way to behaviors which they see as immoral.

Is this true, well their problem is that Creationist are confusing evolution with moral relativism, evolution being a natural process doesn't say anything in regards to morality or ethics or God or atheism for that matter any more then the theory of gravity or the laws of thermodynamics. Scientific theories are amoral. What creationists don't understand is that evolution is what you make of it; if you say evolution is God's method of creation and that we should obey the God of the bible that's what evolution is, a creation process. If you decide that evolution is a godless mindless process that has no plan or purpose then that's what is, if you add evolution to biblical Christianity you will get Christian morality, if you combine it with atheism you will get relativistic morality and make whatever you want of evolution. Carl Sagan thought evolution was a benevolent process and he had an adequate moral standard. And there have been atheists who have used evolution the opposite way to do evil as seen from the Christian worldview. Creationists cant seem to tell the difference between Atheism, Humanism, and evolution. which is much cause of their moral view towards evolution.

As stated before, Creationists are not stupid ad they are thinking very clearly. However science is not gong to convince them, there is plenty of science to address their complaint but what needs to be done is that Christians who accept evolution need to stand up to creationists and atheists and address the theological issues between Christianity and evolution. If we can show that Creationist theology is flawed then the creation/evolution controversy will end soon afterwords. Once the religious element of creationism is gone the pseudoscience will die soon afterwords.

Is Nature's record unreliable because we live in a fallen world?

The young earth creationist ministry Answers In Genesis has a track record of deriding modern science and the theology which concures with modern science. Now there are many Christians who say that I am overly harsh with AiGers and other creationists, of course that only goes to show that they do not know what "harsh" means; you think I'm harsh? Check out this (theistic evolutionist) guy I rest my case.

Anyway one of their most recent articles Are we missing something? in which they attempt to say nature's record is unreliable since Man is fallen.

When people look to nature to reveal truth, they are falling into the same
speculation trap as in describing the house in the field. No matter how
imaginative or intelligent they are, they can never know exactly what happened
in history without trustworthy eyewitness accounts.
Those who promote nature
as a missing aspect of God’s revelation (the so-called “67th book of the Bible”)
need to understand two crucial fallacies with this idea: first, nature is
cursed; second, our observations of nature are not independent from our
presuppositions. When we examine these problems, we see that nature should never
be put on the same level as the Bible.

Essentially this is one of the most major misconceptions floating around the young earth community that we can not know the past. I have already pointed out the problems with this view. Now to the proposition that our trust in nature's account are fallacious; first of all the bible does not say nature is cursed, the only creature positively under the influence of the curse is Man himself. Secondly the scientific method works around this problem, I'll get to this in a moment.

Many who trust in humans as the highest authority reject the Curse as true
history and thus deny its effect on our observations. Some point to the effects
of the
Curse as proof of “bad design.” For Christians, however, it is foolish to
ignore the Curse when considering what nature can “reveal” to us. After all,
this would be like someone trusting a funhouse mirror to show them how they
really looked. They look into the mirror and see a distorted view but assume
that this mirror must be “right.”
Likewise, while nature does reflect some of
God’s qualities (Romans 1:20), if we trusted the nature we see now to show who
God is, we would see the death, violence, and plant and animal defense and
predatory structures and imagine God as reveling in death and destruction.

I for one do not deny the curse, however I take it as being less universal then AiGers take it to be. I did affect Man's reasoning powers and there is no doubt we humans live in a fallen world and that there definitely is something wrong with creation.,however this does not mean that nature is therefore unreliable. Science can evade the difficulties of the fallen human intellect because;

1. Science is not determined by human opinion but by the facts

2. science is self-correcting and any error will be eventually mended because of the scientific process.

3. Being that God wrote the record of nature it can never truly contradict God's word therefore nature should be reliable since it is inspired by God and God is incapable of lying.

This isn’t to say that we shouldn’t study nature. After all, “nature” is
everything around us, and God gave it to humanity so that we could look into the
universe around us and see His glory. However, nature is only as impartial as
the viewer. Although nature itself does not lead to false conclusions about the
past, people who look at nature can be misled by their own mistaken
presuppositions. Those who look to nature as an objective source of God’s
revelation (or an objective source of scientific truth) are ultimately looking,
instead, at their own preconceptions—even if they don’t realize they have them.

This is how science works and another reason why we as Christians have nothing to fear from science; if the current take on the physical record contradicts the bible it will eventually shift back because truth cannot contradict truth.
For the last part I will give comments on in a slightly more choppy fashion.

Ultimately, God’s Word reveals the reason that we should never consider nature
as our sole source of knowledge or as an extra book of the Bible:
The grass
withers and the flowers fall, but the Word of our God stands forever. (Isaiah 40:8; 1 Peter 1:24–25)

True, but he also says "Speak to the rocks and they shall teach you" (Job 12:7-8). The aforementioned passage is most likely referring to God's eternality, not necessarily nature's record.

When the Bible mentions nature and the Word together, we find that only one
of them is permanent and foundational for knowing and fulfilling His will.
Nature—this universe—will pass away and be rolled up like a scroll (Isaiah 34:4), but God’s Word will endure.

Of course I agree, it is the bible (special revelation) which give us what is important in an eternal sense, everything else only matters in a finite and limited scope.

If we depend on nature to reveal the truth, and especially if we reinterpret
God’s Words based on our stories and interpretations of nature, we will be
building our house on a foundation of sand. By contrasting the transience of
nature with the constancy of His Word, God shows us that His Word alone is
sufficient revelation—and in fact, the only
logical framework—from which we can understand and appreciate the universe
around us.

I agree the bible is a logical framework for science but there is no reason to restrict ourselves to an outdated interpretation of the bible. In science the facts speak for themselves, and the facts say; earth is 4.55 billion years old, man shares common ancestry with great apes, and that the universe is 13.7 billion years old. And biblical theology says; there is no reason for the curse to be extended beyond Mankind or for the days of creation to be interpreted as ordinary days.
Young Earth Creationism is unnecessary from both a scientific and theological perspective so why are we still supporting it in the year 2008?

Now if you object to this I am not closed to discussion, if it turns out that I am horribly wrong then I will gladly change my position on Genesis but for now I remain unconvinced.

By the way I must apologize for my lull in the number of posts I make. I have been really busy and I have been putting of updating this blog for a while, I'll try to be more persistant next time, sorry.

for the 4137891st time Answers In Genesis has endangered its credibility

I hate to sound somewhat overly anti-AiG here, I am not against AiG, really I only disagree some parts of what they say; and the areas in which they reside include science, the philosophy of science, the philosophy of religion, theology, biblical interpretation, and history. Ok so I basically disagree on at least one point on everything. Moving on, as you can guess Answers In Genesis has reviewed the movie expelled. At the same time they have supported much of the misinformation in the film. They did not even catch many of the falsehoods, this is quite disturbing, and it is a fatal blow to the credibility of Answers In Genesis (not that AiG supporting a young earth interpretation of the bible was bad enough, the intellectual world is not especially kind to those ideas I am afraid). Either the author of this review didn't do his homework or AiG is just like Expelled; deceitful. I remember Jesus saying something about that, hopefully this is not the case though, I have too much faith in human nature to believe that.

Why Young Earth Creationism isn't science

I have been asked why I don't consider young earth creationism science. It is true young earth creationism is having an unanswerable problem with evidence to support itself, but that does not mean it couldn't otherwise be a scientific theory.

The reason its not science is because young earth creationism does not even follow the same methodology as science, so even if it were legitimate it wouldn't be considered science. You see science starts with no presuppositions of how the world is supposed to be, then looks at the evidence and forms a conclusion; presuppositions may exist but they are ignored. Science draws the conclusion after gathering the evidence. Young Earth Creationism starts out with the conclusion that earth is 6,000 years old and was reshaped by flood 4400 years ago and then find evidence to support the conclusion they have already come to, then they have to force-fit all science into this conclusion. They even freely preach this position; here is a quote from the leading creationist Ken Ham;

When someone tells me they want ‘proof’ or ‘evidence’, not the Bible, my
response is as follows:
‘You might not believe the Bible but I do. And I
believe it gives me the right basis to understand this universe and correctly
interpret the facts around me. I’m going to give you some examples of how
building my thinking on the Bible explains the world and is not contradicted by
science. For instance, the Bible states that God made distinct kinds of animals
and plants. Let me show you what happens when I build my thinking on this
presupposition. I will illustrate how processes such as natural selection,
genetic drift, etc. can be explained and interpreted. You will see how the
science of genetics makes sense based upon the Bible.’

At first glance Ken Ham's view does seem reasonable after all we do interpret everything according to our own biases don't we? Also This perspective allows a person intelligent or not to comfortably except any view and feel perfectly comfortable with it, even though to an outside observer it may obvious that the person is mistaken. Ken Ham has successfully crafted a way that you can believe whatever you want and not have to deal with what the facts have to actually say at all. If I didn't have such high scruples and respect for rational inquiry I would accept this view; it is very, very comfortable, but is it rational? Is this view really how we find truth, is this really how science worked all along? In any area? Why if this idea were true archaeology would be impossible since we would not know anything about this civilization except what they left behind, "we weren't there." The past before human experience can be known.
Suppose I were out hiking in the mountains and I came across the body of a deer which had fallen in my path, also suppose after examining it I found that it was torn apart and showed teeth marks, I would say it must have been eaten by wolves. At this point the only evidence for a wolf attack is the fact that it has teeth marks on its body (as well as the fact that its body was in several pieces). Well what else can I do? Suppose I were to look for wolf foot prints, the deer looks like it was killed relatively recently so there should still be foot prints in the area; so I look around and lo' and behold, there are wolf foot prints all around the place. Also lets say I have to spend the night around that spot, and while I am uneasily trying to sleep I hear wolves howling. This is not a perfect analogy but it shows you can indeed tell what happened in the past without having to here it from an eye witness. Now I may not have the entire picture but I have the basic idea; the deer was attacked by wolves, large parts of its body were eaten. So I can get some idea of the past, unlike how Ken Ham seems to think that we have no way of knowing.

Also there are several problems just with his last few sentences.
--Science does not make sense under his interpretation of the bible
--The bible was never meant to be a science textbook, the bible itself makes this obvious, if it were meant to be a scientific text, the parts of the bible discussing scientific topics (the origin of the universe for one) would be no doubt more detailed.

What do we have here in this view that young earth creationists embrace? Well if this is true and our presuppositions determine reality, then there is no objective truth. You can go ahead and claim the bible is the truth in this view but that is just you assertion, there actually is no substance to it, a Muslim could just as easily claim that what the koran says is absolute truth and his position would be just as valid as your own. Unknowingly and unintentionally Ken Ham and his followers have bought into postmodernism, a view which is both anti-science and anti-Christian, both science and the Christian faith demand that there is a truly objective truth to which all truth can be tested against, otherwise both are in trouble. No matter how tempting an idea may be, we cannot accept postmodern ideas to justify its acceptance.

It must also be mentioned that this view has a general intolerance about it, Answers in Genesis will accept no other interpretations then their own, if you question it based on scientific evidence which contradicted it, you are now a heretic. If we are to make this view the normal view of the scientific community then we have just sentenced science and the scientists to prison, this isn't reconciling science and faith, it is placing science under the thumb of an unnecessary dogma. This isn't science being reconciled with faith, its more like science being oppressed by faith. What could happen if this view is accepted as the mainstream philosophical view on science? Scientists may be forced to rewrite all science into a particular interpretation of the bible, any evidence that truly contradicts their philosophical presuppositions will have to be rationalized or ignored, if they dare try to bring it up as a challenge to the particular view of the scientific community, it would be like a rerun of the Spanish inquisition.

Answers in Genesis says so itself that no theory if it contradicts their view of scripture can be legitimate, if it conflicts with there position it is wrong and that's that, no other examination required. And anyone who dares oppose there position will be fired from their job, lose their reputation and ultimately neither science nor Christianity will be helped by this theocratic control over the scientific community; both will be held back, perhaps for centuries.

Now I am not saying people don't have presuppostions, of course they dom its just they must be discussed in their proper place, in the realm of metaphysics, not in physical science.

I am not saying the AiG proponents all think this way or that somewhere along the line the next generation which holds this veiw might become the oppressors

Ten so called dangers of theistic evolution part 3 (answering dangers 8-10)

Well this is the last part of my rebuttal to the AiG article "Ten Dangers of Theistic Evolution."

I will finish answering the last couple attacks on theistic evolution; dangers eight, nine, and ten (also if you have not read parts one and two go ahead and look at them).

Alright, enough babbling, lets dig in;

Danger no. 8: Loss of Creation Concepts

At first glance, um...no it doesn't, and if you look further their first reason I am afraid isn't very convincing:

Certain essential creation concepts are taught in the Bible. These
include:
--God created matter without using any available material.

Theistic Evolution does not imply that matter was created out of existing material, the Big Bang implies almost a creation out of nothin; of course boith sides will interpret the Big Bang by how they see the universe.

--God created the earth first, and on the fourth day He added the moon, the
solar system, our local galaxy, and all other star systems. This sequence
conflicts with all ideas of ‘cosmic evolution’, such as the ‘big bang’
cosmology.

Here is an excellent article on why this isn't necessarily the case; there is also one article addressing this topic on the Answers In Creation website. And I should mention one more interesting article on Rich Deem's God and Science website on why the old earth interpretation makes as much if not more sense as the young earth interpretation.

Danger no. 9: Misrepresentation of Reality



The Bible carries the seal of truth, and all its pronouncements are authoritative—whether they deal with questions of faith and salvation, daily living, or matters of scientific importance.
Evolutionists brush all this aside, e.g. Richard Dawkins says, ‘Nearly all peoples have developed their own creation myth, and the Genesis story is just the one that happened to have been adopted by one particular tribe of Middle Eastern herders. It has no more special status than the belief of a particular West African tribe that the world was created from the excrement of ants’.4
If evolution is false, then numerous sciences have embraced false testimony. Whenever these sciences conform to evolutionary views, they misrepresent reality. How much more then a theology which departs from what the Bible says and embraces evolution!



Now this is almost amusing, the young earth creationist writer seems to think theistic evolutionists in particular are the same as atheistic evolutionists. The bible is definitely authoritative in the opinion of many theistic evolutionists including myself. It simply doesn't give us the full story: the story not told God has given us the joy of finding out for ourselves, now can you young earth creationists stop interrupting please? Of course I and most all Christians disagree with Richard Dawkins on what he said about particular creation stories. And lastly Evolution is probably true, and the scientifically established age of the earth as well as the Big Bang are definitely true; so I think our theology is pretty safe, how about you?

Danger no. 10: Missing the Purpose



Missing the purpose of the entire bible is what AiG supporters do best, now why do they think we are missing the purpose? Lets see:

In no other historical book do we find so many and such valuable statements
of purpose for man, as in the Bible. For example:
--Man is God’s purpose in
creation (Genesis
1:27-28).

Agreed...no stumbling blocks for the theistic evolutionist

--Man is the purpose of God’s plan of redemption (Isaiah
53:5)

Agreed...no stumbling blocks for the theistic evolutionist here either

--Man is the purpose of the mission of God’s Son (1
John 4:9).

Agreed...once again this is no problem for the theistic evolutionist, only the deistic or atheistic evolutionist.

--We are the purpose of God’s inheritance (Titus
3:7).

Agreed, not a problem for the theistic evolutionist.

--Heaven is our destination (1
Peter 1:4).

Sigh...will you please bring up a something which actually is a problem for theistic evolution? this sensory underload is killing me; the author was doing good at first but now he's just showing a how little he knows about theistic evolutionists.

However, the very thought of purposefulness is anathema to evolutionists. ‘Evolutionary adaptations never follow a purposeful program, they thus cannot be regarded as teleonomical.’5 Thus a belief system such as theistic evolution that marries purposefulness with non-purposefulness is a contradiction in terms.

Well in the end even my view of evolution says that evolution doesn't have anything to do with our purpose in life or how we should act. Evolution is simply how God created us and how he created life on earth, it really doesn't determine who we are; Atheism and Materialism are the philosophies which say Man has no purpose not evolution. Evolution just biological change over time.

Well that concludes my rebuttal. AiG doesn't seem to understand evolution or theistic evolution. Either. Hopefully an era will come in the future where religion and science are in perfect harmony and both sides have learned to compliment each other. Unfortunately that time seems far into the future, it may never come before the second coming.

Ten so called dangers of theistic evolution part 2 (answering dangers 4-7)

I promised I would continue to cover the supposed ten dangers in a later post and so I shall. have received a lot of reception with my last post from young earth creationists and a few atheists. On e concern appears to be that theistic evolution is contrary to the word and I shall answer that claim.

Now onto the so called danger number four;

Danger no. 2: Loss of the Way for Finding
God
"The Bible describes man as being completely ensnared by sin after
Adam’s fall (Romans
7:18-19). Only those persons who realize that they are sinful and
lost will seek the Saviour who ‘came to save that which was lost’ (Luke
19:10).
However, evolution knows no sin in the biblical sense of
missing one’s purpose (in relation to God). Sin is made meaningless, and that is
exactly the opposite of what the Holy Spirit does—He declares sin to be sinful.
If sin is seen as a harmless evolutionary factor, then one has lost the key for
finding God, which is not resolved by adding ‘God’ to the evolutionary
scenario."

Theistic Evolutionists agree with the first paragraph; yes according to Christian theology Man is completely ensnared in sin and evolution does not help make sin meaningless, pre-human hominids may have done things which if they were human would be considered sinful, but at that time they were merely highly intelligent animals. When hominids became humans with souls and morality and a way of knowing God they were meant to act different from animals and primitive hominids, but they still did the animalistic thing and fell from grace. So they still need salvation, they still need Jesus, this by no means impedes upon the Christian doctrine of salvation.

Danger no. 5: The Doctrine of God's Incarnation is
Undermined

And why do they think this? Their reasons border on absurd;

"The incarnation of God through His Son Jesus Christ is one of the basic
teachings of the Bible. The Bible states that ‘The Word was made flesh and dwelt
among us’ (John
1:14), ‘Christ Jesus … was made in the likeness of men (Philippians
2:5-7)."

OK...a young earth creationist it going to have to explain to me why theistic evolution undermines the word becoming flesh, because this makes no sense. Yes According to Christian teaching, Christ came in the flesh, and he came in the image of a man. The fact that God made the human body through millions of years of evolution has not negatively impact the fact that Christ came in human form. That is like saying; "If Adam and Eve were not Jewish then the Carnation of Christ is undermined because the bible says Jesus was Jewish."

Danger no. 6: The Biblical Basis of Jesus' Work of Redemption is
Mythologized

This is pretty self explanatory, but I will still give you the text of why they think this;

The Bible teaches that the first man’s fall into sin was a real event and that this was the direct cause of sin in the world. ‘Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned’ (Romans 5:12).
Theistic evolution does not acknowledge Adam as the first man, nor that he was created directly from ‘the dust of the ground’ by God (Genesis 2:7). Most theistic evolutionists regard the creation account as being merely a mythical tale, albeit with some spiritual significance. However, the sinner Adam and the Saviour Jesus are linked together in the Bible—Romans 5:16-18. Thus any theological view which mythologizes Adam undermines the biblical basis of Jesus’ work of redemption.

I agree with "sin came into the world by Adam" except for the no death before sin part, I personally think Adam was a real person, most conservative Christians who believe in evolution do not say Adam wasn't a real person. He probably was a real person; he may not have been the first physical person but he was the first spiritual person definitely. I think that Adam and Eve lived in the earliest part of human history and probably are the genetic as well as spiritual ancestors of all people alive today (note this does not necessarily mean they were literally the first humans) . Thus the redemption is not mythologized and this young earth claim is baseless.

Danger no. 7: Loss of Biblical Chronology

As far as salvation is concerned that is 100% irrelevant. And as far as Biblical Chronology is concerned; lets see why they think this is the case.

The Bible provides us with a time-scale for history and this underlies a proper understanding of the Bible.

No it doesn't, it only gives us hints which we may interpret according to our own prejudices. The Genealogies probably have gaps, and there is enough scientific evidence for an old earth and universe to suggest the bible leaves a lot out, that is because the bible was not meant to convey scientific knowledge.

This time-scale includes:
--The time-scale cannot be extended
indefinitely into the past, nor into the future. There is a well-defined
beginning in Genesis
1:1, as well as a moment when physical time will end (Matthew
24:14).

Once again that isn't true, and the end times presents no problem whatsoever for Theistic Evolution or Old Earth Creationism

--The total duration of creation was six days (Exodus
20:11).

Exodus 20:11 has no chronological merit the same word for day is used as in Genesis

--The age of the universe may be estimated in terms of the genealogies
recorded in the Bible (but note that it cannot be calculated exactly). It is of
the order of several thousand years, not billions.

The geological record suggests millions of years, I think we can revise the genealogies. Besides Man has only been here for a few thousand years and the genealogies only count after Adam

--Galatians
4:4 points out the most outstanding event in the world’s history:
‘But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth His Son.’ This
happened nearly 2,000 years ago.

Galatians 4:4 has absolutely nothing to do with the age of the earth, and yes I accept the most outstanding event in the history of the universe is yet to come.

--The return of Christ in power and glory is the greatest expected future
event.

Amen, but what the on earth does this have to do with evolution or the age of the earth?

Supporters of theistic evolution (and progressive creation) disregard the
biblically given measures of time in favour of evolutionist time-scales
involving billions of years both past and future (for which there are no
convincing physical grounds).

When it comes to biblical chronology, the measures given in the bible are conveniently flexible. we theistic evolutionists only accept the "evolutionist" timescales because God's creation declares them to be accurate, now back to you Werner.

This can lead to two errors:

Lets look at these two errors

1. Not all statements of the Bible are to be taken
seriously.

You do agree that some parts of the bible shouldn't be taken literally don't you? You know things like passages which imply geocentrism and those which would make more sense under a geocentric framework. We know well enough that these are not addressing scientific concepts eventually Christians will know that Genesis 1 is not a scientific text. Only if you go the extreme will this become a problem. The extreme is taking a position without analyzing each step rationally to make sure it was the correct position and some in between position isn't better. As long as you do this devaluing of the biblical text won't happen. And if the bible turns out to be wrong it will happen, but since I and most Christians are not convinced the Bible is false so I won't jump to that conclusion.

2. Vigilance concerning the second coming of Jesus may be lost.

Probably not, how we look at the beginning does not always define how we look at the end.

Well I only got to seven, I will finish answering the rest of them in my final post about this topic; part 3.

Ten so called dangers of theistic evolution

Answers In Genesis the current hub of the young earth creationist movement (the other being Institute for Creation Research) has written several articles devoted to tearing down the mainstream Christian position on evolution (to make their view look more credible). Well one of them is the "Ten Dangers of Theistic Evolution."

They basically spell out the reason they are trying to tear evolution to the ground (and doing a bad job I am afraid).

Note: For those of you who seem to think so, I am attacking Answers In Genesis, I am not quarrelling over an unimportant issue. I am correcting AiG in a realm I think they are clearly mistaken.

Well lets get right into it. The first problem involves the common misconception among young earth creationists that theistic evolutionists somehow devalue God, or say that he is not as powerful. It is also based on the "no death before sin" argument for young teaching in the bible;

Danger no. 1: Misrepresentation of the nature of
God
The Bible reveals God to us as our Father in Heaven, who is absolutely
perfect (Matthew
5:48), holy (Isaiah
6:3), and omnipotent (Jeremiah
32:17). The Apostle John tells us that ‘God is love’, ‘light’, and
‘life’ (1
John 4:16; 1:5; 1:1-2).
When this God creates something, His work is described as ‘very good’ (Genesis
1:31) and ‘perfect’ (Deuteronomy
32:4).
Theistic evolution gives a false representation of the
nature of God because death and ghastliness are ascribed to the Creator as
principles of creation. (Progressive creationism, likewise, allows for millions
of years of death and horror before sin.)

Well, young earth creationists have a problem with animal death. According to their idea of God animal death is evil so God is evil. This is not a biblical teaching, I have talked about this before.
Only human death is evil, it is talking about spiritual death not physical death. God is still love. Besides I do not believe God is directly guiding natural selection, more he was guiding the force which influence natural selection. The next objection is not much stronger;

Danger no. 2: God becomes a God of gaps

At first this seems like the most ironic hypocritical statement I have heard coming from AiG, well lets look at their reasons, is it?

The Bible states that God is the Prime Cause of all things. ‘But to us there
is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things … and one Lord Jesus Christ,
by whom are all things, and we by Him’ (1
Corinthians 8:6).
However, in theistic evolution the only
workspace allotted to God is that part of nature which evolution cannot
‘explain’ with the means presently at its disposal. In this way He is reduced to
being a ‘god of the gaps’ for those phenomena about which there are doubts. This
leads to the view that ‘God is therefore not absolute, but He Himself has
evolved—He is evolution

And somehow God is not the prime cause of all things according to theistic evolution (sigh). I could do nothing but shake my head when they said that it means God is evolution. No, no, no Mr. Gitt (the name of the person writing this) according to Theistic Evolution God guides evolution he is by no means the process itself, you are the only one who is claiming such a thing. Neither does Theistic Evolution imply God is evolving, and of course according to Theistic Evolution God is the cause of all things, ever heard of the Big Bang (yes there are some who disagree I am simply making a point)? And young earth creationists seem to have a much larger problem with "gods of gaps" since they evoke God directly right and left as the with virtually everything, if you do that if a natural explanation is found you are going to create an environment where your religion contracts every time science expands, that is a religion killer.

Danger no. 3: Denial of Central Biblical
Teachings
The entire Bible bears witness that we are dealing with a source of
truth authored by God (2
Timothy 3:16), with the Old Testament as the indispensable ‘ramp’
leading to the New Testament, like an access road leads to a motor freeway
(John
5:39). The biblical creation account should not be regarded as a
myth, a parable, or an allegory, but as a historical report, because:

Before I let them continue I agree that the Old Testament cannot be discarded or ignored, only liberal Christians say that and I am conservative. I agree that it is the key to understanding the New Testament. And I agree that it is more then a myth, parable or allegory. This is another widespread young earth misconception. Now that we go that over with lets go on to why they think this.

--Biological, astronomical and anthropological facts are given in didactic [teaching] form.

...Yes, they are, very good...Genesis 1 however is not, and besides there are times when a day doesn't always mean a day

--In the Ten Commandments God bases the six working days and one day of rest on the sametime-span as described in the creation account (Exodus 20:8-11).

And this is a good reason to interpret the word yom as day because...Anyway why could God really mean six ages and still give us the layout for a week?

--In the New Testament Jesus referred to facts of the creation (e.g. Matthew 19:4-5).

That could have just as easily been referring to the beginning of mankind and yes I agree, Man And woman evolved (or I'll say were made) both male and female.

--Nowhere in the Bible are there any indications that the creation account should be understood in any other way than as a factual report.

2 Peter 3:8? And The bible has lots of facts and lots of allegory and we should be able to distinguish it using out reason, apparently you don't.

Well I was only able to make it through three of the dangers. So I don't make an inconventiently long article I am going to save the other seven for another post. There are a lot of other things to be covered. Until then, God bless. I mean that both to my fellow Christians( both theistic evolutionists, old earth creationists, and AiG fans) and atheists.

Re-posted: The New Answers Book's attack on Christianity

I posted this earlier then deleted it because I thought it was too harsh towards Young Earth Creationists (the predominant demographic of the people I know). It doesn't have anything that will get me suspended but still my blog is in its infancy and I can't risk having too many people mad at me. I am going to post it again because it needs to be posted (also tell me whether or not it is too harsh);

Yes, as odd as it may sound I have to defend my Christian beliefs from AiG
creationists. Young earth creationists, although they have good intentions, no
one other then atheists have done a better job then them in tearing some
people's faith in the bible to pieces and building up a few others then them.The
entire third chapter of the New Answers book (which I will be critiquing) is
devoted to attacking theistic evolution; the authors of the book start out
talking about the scopes
monkey trial and how William Jennings Brian the defender of creationism was
an old earth creationist, so therefore his attempt to defend creationism was
forfeit. They don't seem to wonder that it might have been because William
Jennings Brian was wrong about evolution that he did such a lousy job defending
creationism.There next move is somewhat unnerving. They say they will be taking
quotes from what atheists said about theistic evolutionists to show theistic
evolution is wrong! Oh good grief! Using that logic we might as well say
Christians were wrong in reinterpreting the bible when scientists said earth
went around the sun. They end the paragraph by saying that reinterpreting the
bible gives you leeway to reinterpret anything you want to in the bible. This
must be addressed, this is only true if you are invalidly reinterpreting the
bible. Reinterpreting the Genesis 1 to mean God created the universe over six
ages is valid; fifteen hundred years before geologists found earth was 4.6
billion years old or biologists found evolution was true many of the church
fathers believed that because of II
Peter 3:8 the days in Genesis were a thousand years long. The next part is
their attack on the scriptural validity of theistic evolution, but unfortunately
they are all operating of at least a few misconceptions.In the next part they
begin quoting the anti-creationist Thomas Huxley;--first of all, why are these
supposed creationists quoting an atheistic evolutionist? He was trying to
destroy belief in the bible in the first place. They surely wouldn't quote an
atheist denouncing the Christian acceptance of heliocentrism as rejecting
scripture would they?--And second of all this is what he said in his quote
(taken from his essay "Lights of the Church and Science");

"I am fairly at a
loss to comprehend how anyone, for a moment, can doubt that Christian theology
must stand or fall with the historical trustworthiness of the Jewish Scriptures.
The very conception of the Messiah, or Christ, is inextricably interwoven with
Jewish history; the identification of Jesus of Nazareth with that Messiah rests
upon the interpretation of the passages of the Hebrew Scriptures which have no
evidential value unless they possess the historical character assigned to them.
If the covenant with Abraham was not made; if circumcision and sacrifices were
not ordained by Jahveh; if the ‘ten words’ were not written by God’s hand on the
stone tables; if Abraham is more or less a mythical hero, such as Theseus; the
Story of the Deluge a fiction; that of the Fall a legend; and that of the
Creation the dream of a seer; if all these definite and detailed narratives of
apparently real events have no more value as history than have the stories of
the regal period of Rome—what is to be said about the Messianic doctrine, which
is so much less clearly enunciated: And what about the authority of the writers
of the books of the New Testament, who, on this theory, have not merely accepted
flimsy fictions for solid truths, but have built the very foundations of
Christian dogma upon legendary quicksands?"

What he said is absolutely true the
bible is worthless if there is no historical or scientific merit behind it and
thank goodness Huxley is wrong and the bible does have factual merit. Other then
that this quote is meaningless because it presupposes Christians who believe in
an old earth and evolution deny the Bibles historical and scientific merit.In
the next paragraph they say he was out to destroy Christianity and vigorously
attacked the old earth position, so one would wonder why these young earth
creationists would use this to stand for anything. The next statement is perhaps
the weakest point in the entire chapter. They give a verse Matthew
19:4-5 where Jesus is talking about marriage. And says in the beginning God
made them male and female. This is interesting but the verse could be
interpreted to mean the beginning of mankind. Despite upholding the doctrine of
marriage, it means nothing to creation.Over the next few paragraphs they go on
quoting and talking about Thomas Huxley praising his passionate dislike of those
who tried to reinterpret the bible to fit with the current scientific thinking.
If the authors of the New Answers book think this is making them look good I
don't know what to say. Who cares what an atheistic evolutionist thinks about
Christians. How about we do the same thing with the doctrine of geocentrism.The
next section of the chapter doesn't get much better, they start out with a quote
from Charles Hodge
saying that the church has had to reinterpret the bible once before to fit with
modern science. Unfortunately young earth creationists may have to learn the
same lesson the 17th century Catholic church had to learn. I would suggest these
young earth creationists to look at proverbs
3:5 and get some humility.Anyway they move on to the argument that the bible
teaches "no death before sin," unfortunately their scriptural support is rather
weak, Genesis
3:29 which they use to support death being caused by the fall; there is just
one problem Genesis 3 only has 24 verses, the verse doesn't even exist! This is
either a typo or outright deception, (lets assume its a typo). Romans
5:12 and 8:18-22
can be interpreted to imply that the death came to Man by Man; (I'll admit
Romans 5:12 is one of their stronger points but it still does not prove it). Genesis 1:31 does not contradict the mechanisms of natural selection or the natural
processes and if you think about it, creation is "very good" with a stable
ecosystem, inhabitable environment; everything just right for humans. God
sanctions the weekly slaughtering of animals and as any anti-christian animal
rights activist will tell you, God does not consider animal death evil. This
does not at all affect the idea of a loving God.Next they bring up a quote by a
liberal Christian, episcopal bishop John Shelby Spong, Spong makes an
interesting point by saying theistic evolution demands an imperfect creation.
But this is simply not true. We live in very good time to exist. The ice age is
over, all the giant carnivores are extinct, the climate is temperate (if we
lived back in the days of Pangaea over 80% of the planet would be an enormous
desert and the rest an ocean). The creation may not be perfect in the same way
as God himself but it is still very good time for humans to live in. God is no
longer guiding the natural processes even if he is still involved in them one
way or another, God has gotten us here, there is no reason to go further. Now it
is up to us to decide whether or not we will enjoy God's creation and tend to it
as he asked, or squander it and waste because of our greed.They close that part
of the chapter by saying that theistic evolutionists (or evolutionary
creationists) need to come to grips that the God they worship is not the true
God. But I don't think they realize the discrepancies between the God of a young
earth and the God of the bible either. Essentially the God of a young earth
would punish mankind by submitting innocent animals to being killed even though
they were innocent, and this is the loving God that gave his life so I could be
forgiven? We must be living in different universes.They end the chapter by
saying two things;--That once people start doubting the bible, (a.k.a. the young
earth interpretation of the bible) they begin to relegate the bible to a book of
suggestions.--And that we are relying on fallible human opinion when we trust
science only.To the first one, that is up to the person, strong Christians did
not reject the bible when they found geocentrism was false. I think Christians
should do fine as long as they do not extrapolate beyond that to say the entire
bible and Genesis is not true, which is simply not the case. There re lots of
archaeological and other scientific discoveries that point to the bible being
true.

NOTE: I don't know why its making that weird structure, I can't correct it.

Answers In Genesis on the fused chromosomes

A little while back I read an AiG article entitled Tail of Two Chromosomes. It was answering Kenneth Miller's argument for human evolution from earlier primates (that the human chromosome number two was the result of the fusing of two chimpanzee chromosomes). It basically said that it is the result of two human chromosomes fusing. The claimed that in other species it is connected to illnesses. And that it does not lead to speciation. After asking Miller himself I realized that the author of the article was missing the point of the article, this is what he said in his reply;

Thanks very much for your note:

[my email to him]
Hi I'm a high school freshman from
Temecula, I have reviewed your analysis of creationism and it seems reasonable.
I have been looking for a response to a creationist response to your fused
chromosome argument found here http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n4/tale-of-two-chromosomes,
they appear to do a good job in defending their case against common descent
(which being an evangelical I am rather pleased I'll admit) but I am still
skeptical, since I could not find a good rebuttal to it I have decided to ask
you personally to review it.

[his response]
I read the article, and was
absolutely amazed at how completely its author missed the point. The fact
that one of our chromosomes has a fusion site within it is not what makes us
different from other primates, and it is not what makes us human. Most of
the "rebuttal" is directed against those two points - which I have never
made.
The real issue is simple. Do we or do we
not share common ancestry with the other great apes, all of which have 48
chromosomes. If we do share such ancestry, then evolution makes a
straightforward, testable prediction.... namely, that two primate chromosomes
must have fused together in the line leading to us, and that our genomes should
carry the evidence of that fusion. If we do not find that fusion point,
then evolution in terms of common ancestry for our species would be argued
against.
The fact that the prediction is fulfilled is a powerful
confirmation of the evolutionary ancestry of our species. It does not
answer the question of how our genetic information differs from other primates,
nor was it meant to. It simply is a test of common ancestry, a test that
evolution passes.
Has any creationist ever made such a specific
prediction to put their hypotheses to such a scientific test? I believe
that the answer is no.
Best Wishes,
Ken

Now to explain what this means to those who don't have as much science up their sleeves; as you know we humans have 46 chromosomes, 23 from each parent. Now great apes (chimpanzees, gorrillas etc.) have 48 chromosomes. Now what would have to have happened between them nd us is that two of the chromosomes would have had to fuse together. And sure enough our chromosome number 2 is made of two fused chromosomes. How do we know this? Well on the ends of chromosomes are caps called telomeres (which dammage to them is linked to aging). Well on a fused chromosome there would be two talomeres end to end. And sure enough there are. This is evidence of common descent. This does not show very well on the creationist's part. I hate to be the bad guy to my creationist companions and family, but it appears this is good evidence of common descent. This is of course helped out by ERVs (nasty little buggers that invade our cells and can fuse their RNA into our genome) and the fact that we have found many transitional fossils, one such interesting fossil is tiktaalik, a fish which has the rudiments of legs and a neck. If anybody has n objection to the evidence I have put forth please do, I welcome debate and discussion.