Posted on 01/16/2011 4:09:10 PM PST by balch3
LOUISVILLE, Ky. (ABP) -- A Southern Baptist seminary president and evolution opponent has turned sights on "theistic evolution," the idea that evolutionary forces are somehow guided by God. Albert Mohler
Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, wrote an article in the Winter 2011 issue of the seminary magazine labeling attempts by Christians to accommodate Darwinism "a biblical and theological disaster."
Mohler said being able to find middle ground between a young-earth creationism that believes God created the world in six 24-hour days and naturalism that regards evolution the product of random chance "would resolve a great cultural and intellectual conflict."
The problem, however, is that it is not evolutionary theory that gives way, but rather the Bible and Christian theology.
Mohler said acceptance of evolutionary theory requires reading the first two chapters of Genesis as a literary rendering and not historical fact, but it doesn't end there. It also requires rethinking the claim that sin and death entered the human race through the Fall of Adam. That in turn, Mohler contended, raises questions about New Testament passages like First Corinthians 15:22, "For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive."
"The New Testament clearly establishes the Gospel of Jesus Christ upon the foundation of the Bible's account of creation," Mohler wrote. "If there was no historical Adam and no historical Fall, the Gospel is no longer understood in biblical terms."
Mohler said that after trying to reconcile their reading of Genesis with science, proponents of theistic evolution are now publicly rejecting biblical inerrancy, the doctrine that the Bible is totally free from error.
"We now face the undeniable truth that the most basic and fundamental questions of biblical authority and Gospel integrity are at stake," Mohler concluded. "Are you ready for this debate?"
In a separate article in the same issue, Gregory Wills, professor of church history at Southern Seminary, said attempts to affirm both creation and evolution in the 19th and 20th century produced Christian liberalism, which attracted large numbers of Americans, including the clerical and academic leadership of most denominations.
After establishing the concept that Genesis is true from a religious but not a historical standpoint, Wills said, liberalism went on to apply naturalistic criteria to accounts of miracles and prophecy as well. The result, he says, was a Bible "with little functional authority."
"Liberalism in America began with the rejection of the Bible's creation account," Wills wrote. "It culminated with a broad rejection of the beliefs of historic Christianity. Yet many Christians today wish to repeat the experiment. We should not expect different results."
Mohler, who in the last year became involved in public debate about evolution with the BioLogos Foundation, a conservative evangelical group that promotes integrating faith and science, has long maintained the most natural reading of the Bible is that God created the world in six 24-hour days just a few thousand years ago.
Writing in Time magazine in 2005, Mohler rejected the idea of human "descent."
"Evangelicals must absolutely affirm the special creation of humans in God's image, with no physical evolution from any nonhuman species," he wrote. "Just as important, the Bible clearly teaches that God is involved in every aspect and moment in the life of His creation and the universe. That rules out the image of a kind of divine watchmaker."
Ever watch, “Time Enough at Last?”
That is exactly how I feel!
“That other scientists and scientists in general are unaware of this process shows their lack of understanding of the scientific method.”
Do tell...
Hopy you don’t need glasses.
Mendel for just a quick example.
I am the stereotype. Big glasses, big books.
“Personally, I think Biology would be liberated without Darwinism. Pitch all that overboard, start from scratch. I’d bet you’d see some real developments when you stopped assuming Darwin was right.”
Perhaps the brain trust at the idiotically named Discovery Institute will take you up on that challenge. Chuck it all and develop an entire new biological synthesis that will set everything straight. Any idea how stupid that sounds? Apparently not. Ever taken a science course, known a scientist, or heaven forbid, actually worked in any of the many disciplines?
without God and His omnipresence, could grass grow?
Could a child grow into an adult?
Could the sun shine?
if only I were a trained theologian.
Actually I can explain the basics of evolution and natural selection such that an imbecile could understand them - unfortunately those methods wouldn’t work with the likes of you...
“Ever taken a science course, known a scientist, or heaven forbid, actually worked in any of the many disciplines?”
Yes I have, sir. Quite a few, actually.
“It did when I was in High School and college.”
Not if taught by a person who understood what they were teaching - or perhaps you were one of those students who just didn’t pay very close attention...
RADICAL IDEAS (barf alert for conservatives):
“Cells can be subdivided into the following subcategories:
1. Prokaryotes: Prokaryotes lack a nucleus (though they do have circular DNA) and other membrane-bound organelles (though they do contain ribosomes). Bacteria and Archaea are two domains of prokaryotes.
2. Eukaryotes: Eukaryotes, on the other hand, have distinct nuclei bound by a nuclear membrane and membrane-bound organelles (mitochondria, chloroplasts, lysosomes, rough and smooth endoplasmic reticulum, vacuoles). In addition, they possess organized chromosomes which store genetic material.”
The funniest thing about theistic evolution is that Christians who buy into it think they’re being logical and sophisticated, but they are then worshipping a Lord descended from a fictional character. The Bible places Adam in Jesus’ geneaology...
Are you a Christian?
And I’m not sure why you are telling me this...
Are you a Christian?
before they chuck it all, I wanted to read it just one last time. I’m gonna miss cell theory. Especially the mitochondrial RNA.
Puzzlingly irrelevant. Do you mean to imply that a person’s philosophical beliefs are restricted by empirical evidence? Or is it the other way ‘round? Do you believe that people who believe or espouse the theory of evolution cannot be Christians? How about Muslim? Or Hindu? What about all the animists in the world? Are they all “Darwinists”?
Not typically but it's still accurate.
I didn't say anything about evolution. You're the one making that ASSumption.PastorJimCM made the assertion "that things move from order to disorder not the other way around".His assertion is refuted by the fact that plants move from disorder to order, and do so via a gain of energy at the Sun's expense - all obedient to the laws of Thermodynamics.Another refutation of his assertion is the cyclical transformation of water between vapor, and liquid, and ice - all driven by the Sun's decay (and all without DNA).
I wonder...what would Pasteur have thought if someone had told him that in 150 years scientists would be telling people that if you don’t believe in spontaneous generation you’re an ignorant religious fanatic?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.