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."
In order to keep it clear, it is important to understand that the reason for not being certain about the position and momentum of a particle is not because of any magical / mystical cause, but because the very execution of our methods to determine such values is intrusive enough to cause the values to be measured, to change.
In other words, the physical forces involved in conducting the experiment itself causes the subject to change its values due to issues pertaining to scale.
No, you may not.
You really don’t have anything to apologize for, aruanan.
Evolution as a paradigm for biological diversity predates Darwin by over 1,000 years. The Greek philosophers founded the theory, and one could argue that Voltaire (FAR from a fundamentalist Christian!) was a more articulate spokesman against it than Darwin was for it.
http://history.hanover.edu/texts/voltaire/volathe1.html
Natural selection was implied by a parable from Jesus himself, which makes acknowledgement of it over 1,800 years old when Darwin got ahold of it.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2013:18-23&version=KJV
Darwin was the first one to publish a book that linked the two together, making natural selection the mechanism by which evolution occurred.
Notice I said he was the first one to publish. Alfred Russel Wallace was working on his own version of the theory, which prompted Darwin to scramble.
Really?
Gee, here they are telling us in Evolution 101 How Life Originated.
That's the same kind of crap I was taught in High School and College. Didn't you learn this from your High School and College classes? Or weren't you paying attention?
Go back and reread what I wrote. Do you understand the difference between hypothesis and theory?
HAHAHAHAHA no.
Sorry James, Heisenberg says you’re wrong about the nature of that problem.
Do you really need someone to hold your hand through this?
What were we talking about and what branch of science does it entail?
Are you an evolutionist by education or training?
Are you an scientist by education or training?
That's like asking if someone is Jewish by education or training. Evolutionism is a religion.
WE can start in Genesis 1 with the first verse.
*In the beginning....*
Is that wrong? Wasn’t there a beginning?
Heisenberg’s microscope
One way in which Heisenberg originally argued for the uncertainty principle is by using an imaginary microscope as a measuring device. He imagines an experimenter trying to measure the position and momentum of an electron by shooting a photon at it.
If the photon has a short wavelength, and therefore a large momentum, the position can be measured accurately. But the photon scatters in a random direction, transferring a large and uncertain amount of momentum to the electron. If the photon has a long wavelength and low momentum, the collision doesn’t disturb the electron’s momentum very much, but the scattering will reveal its position only vaguely.
If a large aperture is used for the microscope, the electron’s location can be well resolved (see Rayleigh criterion); but by the principle of conservation of momentum, the transverse momentum of the incoming photon and hence the new momentum of the electron resolves poorly. If a small aperture is used, the accuracy of the two resolutions is the other way around.
The trade-offs imply that no matter what photon wavelength and aperture size are used, the product of the uncertainty in measured position and measured momentum is greater than or equal to a lower bound, which is up to a small numerical factor equal to Planck’s constant.
Yes. Specifically, I need you to explain your specific use of those terms. Why the hesitation?
Let these remain a mystery. Now, back to what was asked...
I’ll take those as a *No*.
Thank you.
It’s immaterial to this discussion, and to the general relevance of reality, what you assume and don’t assume.
What was asked of you that you seem so inclined to avoid and choose distraction, instead, is totally relevant to this discussion, unfortunately for you.
Differentiation presumes breeding.
Since it is impossible for there to be an infinite number of past “events”, and therefore there is a finite number of events, and one “first” event.
That first event/effect has to have an uncaused cause.
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.
