Mohler takes on 'theistic evolution'

Associated Baptist Press ^ | January 13, 2011 | Bob Allen

[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."

[Alamo-Girl]

Likewise, Christians must communicate across the "dead spirit" gap, and it seems only possible when God chooses to open the heart of the listener.

Well and truly said, dear brother in Christ!

It is snowing here, too - and as I look out meditating on your insights, I am joined in prayer for kosta50, that he may receive from God the gift of "ears to hear."

[bvw]

Neils Bohr, unseen

What Can the Bohr−Sommerfeld Model Show Students of Chemistry in the 21st Century?
Mansoor Niaz, Epistemology of Science Group, Departamento de Qumica, Universidad de Oriente

Abstract: Bohr’s model of the atom is considered to be important by general chemistry textbooks. A shortcoming of this model was that it could not explain the spectra of atoms containing more than one electron. To increase the explanatory power of the model, Sommerfeld hypothesized the existence of elliptical orbits. This study aims to elaborate a framework based on history and philosophy of science and formulate suggestions for facilitating students’ understanding of models in chemistry. Four educational implications emerged: (i) Sommerfeld’s innovation introducing elliptical orbits helped to restore the viability of Bohr’s model; (ii) Bohr−Sommerfeld’s model went no further than the alkali metals, which led scientists to look for other models; (iii) scientific models are tentative in nature; and (iv) inclusion of the Bohr−Sommerfeld model in textbooks can help students understand how science [aka intelligent design of representational models] progresses.

Arnold Sommerfield, born 1868, the model-designer who improved on the Bohr Model, also wrote what is considered the classic work on Optics. It is called Optics.

In his wisdom he saw atoms and his intelligently designed models allowed others to see atoms as well. Optics.

Here's looking at you, kid!

[kosta50]

Not allowing you to dictate the rules of engagement entails not allowing you to control the dictionary

What does dictionary have to do with it? Since when does dictionary determine if God is a hypothesis or a fact? My comment was about you presenting your beliefs as "proof" of God's existence.

space/time precedes physical causation therefore the cause of space/time cannot be "in" space/time (physical, thing, event, caused.)

That is a theory, not a fact. How do you know there was no time or space? Science has been wrong almost as often as it was right. Not so long ago, medical science denied the pathogenic basis of the disease. Guess what? It had to eat crow—with feathers!

Just because today's scientists believe in the Big Bang and quantum mathematicians "prove" on their blackboards that space/time did not exist, or because a book says God created in the "beginning", or because someone believes there are pink unicorns on Jupiter does not make it a fact.

[kosta50]

Moreover, since spiritual truth can only be spiritually discerned, then there is no way that kosta50 can follow your rationale...John 3:3...1 Cor 2:14...

So, let me ask you, padre, if a Muslim quotes from the Koran, does that make it true? If he says only Muslims can know the truth because the Koran says so, is that a fact? What makes you different from him? You are proving your own belief with a book which you choose to believe is true. In other words, it's "true" because you say it is.

My tagline shows part of the Mithral prayer, not because I subscribe to it, but because it reflects the same beliefs Christians claim. Mithraism, I am sure you know, preceded Christianity.

And, btw, John 3:3 is a contentious verse. It neither says "born again" nor could it have been said in Aramaic.

[Just mythoughts]

And, btw, John 3:3 is a contentious verse. It neither says "born again" nor could it have been said in Aramaic.

I am not disagreeing, but for the unlearned what does John 3:3 really say?

[xzins]

Kosta, it isn’t a philosophical debate. It isn’t about “logic”; it’s about revelation.

The scripture is a roadmap and not a debating manual.

Happy Hunting.

[Alamo-Girl]

Just because today's scientists believe in the Big Bang and quantum mathematicians "prove" on their blackboards that space/time did not exist, or because a book says God created in the "beginning", or because someone believes there are pink unicorns on Jupiter does not make it a fact.

LOLOL!

Since I will not allow you to the control the dictionary, e.g. "fact" and "proof" - and other rules of engagement, e.g. false analogy (a logical fallacy btw) - then we have nothing further to discuss.

But it has been interesting. Thanks for the banter, dear kosta50!

[kosta50]

Which would not be saying Borhs model was “wrong” or “useless”; it was more correct than anything that had gone before and great practical use was made of it.

Exactly. One has to realize that just because we now know that the Ptolemaic navigational system was based on geocentric universal model it does not mean it doesn't work! It still works. The efficacy of a working model does not depend on, nor explain how the world really is

[kosta50]

It is snowing here, too - and as I look out meditating on your insights, I am joined in prayer for kosta50, that he may receive from God the gift of "ears to hear."

That is very kind of your AG. Maybe, if it is God's doing, he will do the same for you and padre. :)

[kosta50]

Kosta, it isn’t a philosophical debate. It isn’t about “logic”; it’s about revelation. The scripture is a roadmap and not a debating manual.

Well, then what are we doing on these forums if not debating the scripture? My comment had nothing to do with philosophy, padre, but with the language used.

But I will agree with you that logic is the first causality when debating the scripture.

[xzins]

same for you...

We are not the ones who have personally voiced lack of belief in God and His Christ.

[James C. Bennett]

Well said.

[Alamo-Girl]

So very true, dear brother in Christ! Thank you!!!

[xzins]

What you are doing is debating scripture. I am looking for opportunities to grow.

[kosta50]

Since I will not allow you to the control the dictionary, e.g. "fact" and "proof" - and other rules of engagement, e.g. false analogy (a logical fallacy btw) - then we have nothing further to discuss.

I don't control dictionaries; dictionaries are agreed-upon definitions of words, and facts are something that should be provable, something real, something we all (not some) know it exists. Gnostic, spiritual, revelational, etc. knowledge is not a fact, and neither is a theory. I go by dictionary rules. I don't make up my own definitions.

I agree that we have nothing more to discuss. But you are welcome to give a closing remark. Thanks for the banter, too.

[kosta50]

What you are doing is debating scripture. I am looking for opportunities to grow

Me too.

[xzins]

What you are doing is debating scripture. I am looking for opportunities to grow Me too.

Then surrender.

[James C. Bennett]

Hello Xzins,

As someone who has invested effort in understanding Hebrew scripture, I thought it might be pertinent to request your views on a question I had asked earlier on this thread, for which I got no answers.

When David had a child borne to him by his partner out of an affair, the deity of your adopted religion kills it with a week-long illness as punishment. How do you resolve the moral contradiction of the child having to pay with its life for a ‘sin’ it did not commit? What did the child suffer for?

Additionally, the Amalakite infants were slaughtered by Saul and his men, obeying orders from the same deity. What is the moral argument for such a genocide?

Thanks in advance,

JCB.

[xzins]

God is a God and was intervening in history for His desired Holy direction.

Many are under the impression God is a man.

He isn’t.

[kosta50]

what does John 3:3 really say?

John uses the word "from above" (anothen), not "again". The word anothen means also "from the beginning." Nowehere in the NT does it mean "again." The word for "again" in Greek is palin. Curiously, Paul uses the phrase plain anothen once in the entire NT, which translations treat as simple "again". But anothen alone is never translated as "again" except in John 3:3, and that only by some Bible versions, not all.

Judging from the Nicodemus' reaction (John 3:4), he (mis)understood Jesus' words to mean literally "again". The problem with that is that Jesus and Nicodmeus would have been speaking in Aramaic, not Greek, and such misunderstanding, while very remotely possible in Greek (based on Paul's singular example), is not possible is Aramaic.

Bible scholars conclude, therefore, that the conversation never took place, but was rather created by John for a specific agenda.