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."
Sorry James, but you (and none of us) is/are qualified to judge God. Some here maybe happy to entertain your questions when you create another ‘Earth, universe and variety of lifeforms’...
out of nothing!
Oh and btw David and Bathsheba’s baby was not ‘punished’ rather he/she was immediately accepted into heaven and God’s presence - if you had been able to continue reading w/ discernment rather than derision.
Yes, but by "Hebrew speaking" centurions they mean Aramaic-speaking. The confusion comes from the Greek of the New Testament, which uses the term hebraïs to describe the language spoken in Palestine, but the it actually refers to the Jewish version of Aramaic (i.e. Chaldee), not the biblical Hebrew the Old Testament was written in. That language found in the Greek OT (LXX) anything OT Hebrew is referred to as ioudaïs.
Jewish Encyclopedia states that "as time went on the circle of the Hebrew-speaking population narrowed down, in spite of that language having sole control of the school, the synagogue, and the literature, until Hebrew became exclusively the language of literature and prayer." [my emphasis]
Well almost James.
You see Jesus Christ added onto this rule - to do good to those who hate you and revile you. While other religions state it in only in a ‘negative’ context, Christ reversed it as also as a ‘positive.’ If a soldier bids a christian to carry his pack a mile Christ stated we are to carry it 2 miles.
Most religions have in mind to try to ‘earn’ their way to heaven through good deeds. Now the Muslim religion is more than just religion as it seeks to dominate or decimate all others and is a satanic-inspired system.
But Christ preached love and belief in His perfect sacrifice as our only option for salvation. Christians and Jews who are/will be in heaven some day are not there on the own self-righteousness rather the imputed (to believers) righteousness of Christ. See Abram in Genesis.
Don’t get so ticked off. I was only trying to point out that intra-species transition is not the same process as the supposed inter-species transition.
Not the same process. That’s all I meant.
And the general point is that the inter-species transition should be more carefully described. But this is impossible because it’s never been observed, which makes the job of arguing honestly in favor of evolution very difficult.
Estimate the average number, theoretically, of supposed intermediate (but as of yet unidentified) species between two known species. (Is this a taboo subject for evolutionists?) Notice the number will necessarily be far greater than two.
Let’s take a very low number—say, fifty. This means that the number of unidentified intermediate species is fifty times greater than the number of known species.
Not only should there be more transitional species in the fossil record. There should be more of them still in existence. Or at least some, as opposed to virtually zero.
Apologies to BrandtMichaels! The system is sluggish and keeps stalling. I didn’t realize my post went through three times. RM please remove the duplicates. Thank you.
You need to actually read what I write, especially the part from the Jewish Encyclopedia (which I linked) that says "Hebrew became exclusively the language of literature and prayer." Did I say otherwise?
Of course. None completely satisfy, none are firmly proven scientifically (or complete in data, e.g., amount of dark matter.) Heck we still don't know why matter exists.
But we are still limited in discussion to some guidelines: staying in category, logic, using the best known 'facts' etc.
The point being that just because it works it doesn't have to be true…Cosmological theories have been radically revised… to balance out the equation.
Yeah. To paraphrase Einstein, we really don't know very much.
So, I am not just a theological skeptic, but a skeptic of human nature. After all, theology is something man-made just as cosmology is.
In addition to the observer problem, yeah, it all adds up to a lot of minuses.
So when you say that time/space had to be created because (supposedly) they didn't exist, that's a theory. We don't know that.
It's a theory based on current science. New science was discovered supporting a "beginning and end." You can reject it, but if you're arguing science, you have to find the scientific fault (or logic fault). It's not enough to say: "we don't know that."
Well, not and be arguing effectively. We don't know, but based on the best evidence, the theory follows. If you disagree, what do you do with the evidence that contradicts you and what evidence do you have to support you?
I should be clear that I'm using the First Cause argument because Bennet used it, perhaps unaware, and I jumped in with it - to show his error of course. :)
But, yeah, even Aquinas never intended his argument from causation to be firm solid proof. It's an "argument." It relies on assumptions, some capacity for reason resulting in conclusions. It has been used and debated as a cornerstone for discussion on the question "Why is there anything at all?" for a long, long time. (Aquinas revised it from Aristotle.)
This is what humans do. We alone, as far as we are aware, know that we exist. And in those interested in this type of knowledge, there is an unceasing desire to explore, "Why?"
We love mysteries. Chesterton (who wrote mysteries) said:
"All science, even the divine science, is a sublime detective story. Only it is not set to detect why a man is dead; but the darker secret of why he is alive."You are correct that the whole standard model, etc., could be turned on its head tomorrow. It is a likely bet that if not tomorrow, eventually.
Perhaps our language is not capable of expressing some concepts, but when I define "eternal" as without a beginning or end, which is an acceptable definition, that's what I mean by it. If we can accept that something we call "deity" has no beginning and no end, why not space and time?
Because, eternal when used in proper orthodox theology means outside time. "Beginning" and "ending" are non sequiturs when speaking of the deity. You can use them, but you're not in agreement with terms with those making the arguments you are participating in.
You're correct that the word can be used the way you do, but a requirement for productive argument is agreement of terms.
That is what I mean by being stuck in the box. It doesn't require it. Time/space can exists without beginning or end, uncaused,
That's pretty close to Bertram Russell's objection to the causation argument: "No, it just is."
I think this appeals to you, other objections appeal to me. Neither is hard proof. We argue our points as we examine the mystery from our own view and experience.
just as a presumed deity can be imagined to exist without cause. How do we know the Creator was not caused?
Once again it's a definition thing. Forget God for a second and just use "First Cause." The causation argument is an argument that a first cause must exist because events happen and there is cause and effect.
In this argument, if you follow its premises - the first cause cannot have a cause - that's what the argument concludes: there must be an uncaused first cause.
IMHO, it has it good points and its weaknesses. Here, I've been trying to argue it accurately, reject objections that are not effective, recognize those that are.
If we substitute god/deity with A and Space/Time as B, we can't say one is without cause and the other requires it based on logic alone.
Same answer. It is required based on the logic. The objections have to attack the logic - many have. You can attack the premise that cause and effect is false, an illusion caused by a web of simultaneous events. Etc. etc.
Aquinas wrote four cosmological arguments. They were in the form of logic. If you say x is not true, the requirement is to demonstrate why the logic fails.
Again, none of these fulfill the strict requirements of formal logic for absolute proof.
Seeking for the betterment is fine, as long as we keep in mind that we don't know or understand everything.
The best always have shared your philosophy here.
True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing. And in knowing that you know nothing, that makes you the smartest of all.Maybe curiosity is its own end and the reward is both knowledge and humility.
- SocratesWe know nothing at all. All our knowledge is but the knowledge of school children. The real nature of things we shall never know.
- Albert EinsteinAs we acquire more knowledge, things do not become more comprehensible, but more mysterious.
- Albert Schweitzer
thanks very much for your reply and discussion, I enjoy it immensely - the ants must envy us this pleasure, yes?
"Must have a cause" is not a proof that it must. The first cause is a perfect example that we can believe something is without one, an exception.
The First Cause (which Aquinas says is God) eliminates this infinite regress because it is - by definition - uncaused.
How does he know it's God? If something we call God can be believed uncaused, then the universe can just as easily be assumed uncaused.
It requires no previous cause, no chain, and therefore does not infinitely regress
Except this is not through knowledge, but by our limited convention.
Thanks Kosta - unfortunately the rm removed all 3 of your post plus mine (#560).
In hindsight, when I said horse-h—key I should have added that it was mimicry for Col. Potter from the MASH TV show.
Also the important thing lost from #560 is that you should truly read God’s Word w/ utmost respect and awe.
Also there are many former skeptics who have often sought to debunk the Bible and in their research have become true believers ~ saints. One of the best and most recent is Lee Strobel who was an investigative reporter for the Chicago Tribune iirc. His wife found faith and salvation in Christ which led him on a long journey of research and finally acceptance of Jesus as his lord and saviour.
His 1st 3 books (also available recorded and short enough to listen to on your commute) are:
‘The Case for Christ’
‘The Case for Faith’
‘The Case for Creation’
These are well-researched w/ many ‘expert’ interviews. I’d also recommend ‘More Than A Carpenter’ by Josh McDowell (iirc that’s the author).
I recommend reading the gospel accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke, & John as well as the above for anyone questioning the authority of the Bible and who Jesus truly was/is.
You waste HOURS and HOURS arguing something that you don't even bother to use a single hour of your time to try to understand. And reading Creationist sources will NOT educate you, it will just further your appalling ignorance of the subject.
You see, Creationists are statistically among the lowest educated segments of the population, and Creationist sources know and use this to peddle disinformation, knowing that the vast majority of Creationists are not smart enough or educated enough to figure it out.
Inter-species transition HAS been observed, just like transitional species. Holding your fingers in your ears, closing your eyes and chanting “NAH NAH NAH” isn't going to make those observations go away either.
Every species in the fossil record is a “transitional” from what went before to what is coming next.
And almost all of the species that ever existed are now extinct. Obviously they were either a dead end, or they “transitioned”.
The several different species of Australopithocine and early Hominids are not enough for you? You cannot explain them at all according to your “model”, and yet you think that there should be EVEN MORE of them?
In fact much of the writing of that time deviated off into Latin to formulate their more esoteric points or when quoting a former scholar to buttress their point; VERY annoying as I cannot read Latin and a translation is rarely provided.
Either way it seems highly likely that a Rabbi like Jesus the Christ could, much like a Medieval scholar discussing esoteric point in Latin; speak and discuss theological or philosophical points in Hebrew.
D’Artagnan is trying to convince Aramis to give up the Priesthood and join him on an adventure. The two prelates start in a long discussion with Aramis, most of which takes place in Latin; much to the consternation of D’Artagnan.
Also in “the Three Musketeers” it is pointed out that Aramis, with his pretensions to education and the Priesthood, liked to “show off” his rudimentary Latin. Only to be mildly corrected by Athos, whose Latin was superlative!
Nor am I ‘ticked off’ by you. As I recognize you as someone (who is like what I once was) who has not considered any/all of the creation science evidence nor any/all of the other 100+ natural clocks indicating less than millions and billions of years. See my links page.
I must say though claiming all lifeforms are transitional is simply the last straw for a desperate theory still trying to hang on. Anyone who is not math-challenged can easily see enough negative mutations will accumulate and render the species extinct far before even one tenth of 1% of the genome mutates favorably. And in conjunction w/ Haldane you must have a pair copy the exact same sexually-related mutations and find each other in order to re-produce this ‘new’ species.
Natural selection theoretically acts on phenotype, not genotype. This clarifies how the supposed interspecies change is not the same as that of intra-species.
Please stay focused on the topic at hand.
The transitional species you claim exist are only a guess. Scientific validation requires many steps beyond guessing.
Can you demonstrate ANY species that has EVER gone extinct due to accumulation of “negative” mutations? Do you think Creation “scientists” could do an experiment and show how this would work in the laboratory?
When a bacteria is under stress it begins to express an error prone DNA polymerase instead of the usual high fidelity DNA polymerase. This error prone DNA polymerase introduces more changes in the DNA every time the bacteria reproduces.
So why would a population of bacteria WITH error prone DNA polymerase survive better than a population of bacteria WITHOUT that gene?
Why would they have that gene and why would they express it during times of stress?
If accumulation of “negative” mutations is going to lead to the extinction of the bacterial population according to your ludicrous “model” - why would there even BE a gene for error prone DNA polymerase?
“you must have a pair copy the exact same sexually-related mutations and find each other in order to re-produce this ‘new’ species”
A highly significant argument. If a refutation can be found by the opposition, I’d like to see it.
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.