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."

[betty boop]

The difference between Gnostics and Jews is more than just a label. Gnostics believe that those souls living in the flesh are souls that have sinned and were cast out of their natural spiritual existence and placed into a fleshy "dungeon." Judaism doesn't believe that at all.

Of course not. But the above observation seems not to grasp a far more fundamental principle of Gnosticism, i.e., that God is directly the author of both good and evil. "Evil" is everything worldly; thus the Creation itself is "evil."

Christians believe, OTOH, that God is Goodness itself, and created a world that was "very good," albeit not "perfect." (If it were "perfect," it would be static; moreover, human free will would be pointless in such a world.)

Christians believe that evil is "merely" the absence of the good. God is not the malefactor of evil; only creatures made in His image — possessing reason and free will — can be such.

You wrote:

The way Alamo Girl describes Adam, originally existing only as a spirit, makes him an angel who was given dominion over earth.

I don't read Alamo-Girl that way at all. Angels and humans — though both are, as you say "noëtic spirits," and as such Sons of God — are still distinctly different orders of divine Being — one "heavenly," the other "earthly"; one discarnate, the other incarnate.

God specified Adam (Man) in Genesis 1; brought him into Being in Genesis 2, and then gave him dominion over the earth. When Adam fell, he did so as a man, not as an angel — for he never was intended to be an angel.

It seems another characteristic of gnostic thinking is the absolute separation of the spiritual (seen as "good") and the earthly (seen as "bad"). That is, there can be no interface between heaven and earth in principle. But of course both Jews and Christians believe that God is constantly active in His creation — that the Creation of the Beginning is constantly ongoing. IOW, the "earthly" constantly resonates with the "heavenly."

Just some thoughts....

[allmendream]

Once again, the example of a change that can happen WITHIN a species, is perfectly applicable to the change that will happen during speciation. There isn't one type of mutation that happens within a population and a different kind that happens during speciation; speciation is the accumulation of these changes within separate populations until the two populations no longer look or act the same and can no longer reproduce together.

Obviously in the case of sickle cell anemia this did not lead to speciation, but there was ABSOLUTELY no such requirement that the mutation happen in two different individuals for for them to meet and reproduce for this change to be introduced into the population.

That is what we are discussing here, changes introduced into a population. And the example I provided showed that no such criteria as was suggested is needed to explain how DNA changes are introduced into a population.

So once again the Creationist argument is based upon nothing but ignorance.

If there are two separated populations of the same species, what is going to STOP this accumulation of change until these two populations are no longer able to reproduce fertile offspring?

[reasonisfaith]

I think one major problem we’re having here is that neither the genetic nor the evolutionary processes of speciation can be precisely described.

[allmendream]

Why would a bacteria under stress express error prone DNA polymerase instead of the usual high fidelity DNA polymerase if genetic change is “mostly of an entropic nature” that “doesn’t move the genome towards higher or better functioning”?

Apparently the mathematics of bacterial population dynamics ‘thinks’ that by introducing mutations during stress it can adapt and overcome the stress and better survive - i.e. better functioning.

Why would a bacteria have error prone DNA polymerase in the first place if most genetic changes were “entropic”? And why would it be expressed at times of high stress?

[allmendream]

I think one of the major problems you are having is that you don't understand the processes of speciation AT ALL, even after I have described it to you.

I described, precisely, how DNA replication is not 100% accurate, and thus it introduces germline changes. I described to you that these germline changes passed down from parent to child introduce variation into a population. Darwin described, accurately, how natural selection acts upon such variation.

Now if we observe a 0.001% change in a population over 20 years, what is going to stop it from becoming a 1% change in 20,000 years?

If two populations with that rate of change are separated for 20,000 years; why would they not be some 2% different in DNA between them? Why would this 2% difference not be sufficient to call them two different species?

[Religion Moderator]

you don't understand

Reading the mind of another Freeper is a form of "making it personal."

Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.

[James C. Bennett]

"David and Bathsheba’s baby was not ‘punished’ rather he/she was immediately accepted into heaven and God’s presence...

And how do you reason that?

[allmendream]

Deuteronomy 23:2 No one born of a forbidden marriage[a] nor any of their descendants may enter the assembly of the LORD, not even in the tenth generation.

[James C. Bennett]

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.

 

“Here shall no end be hindered, no hope marred

No loss be feared: faith—yea, a little faith—

Shall save thee from the anguish of thy dread.”

 

-          Bhagavad-Gita, Ch: II, Lines 140-142.

 

ARJUNA:

“And what road goeth he who, having faith,

Fails, Krishna! in the striving; falling back

From holiness, missing the perfect rule?

Is he not lost, straying from Brahma’s light,

Like the vain cloud, which floats ’twixt earth and Heaven

When lightning splits it, and it vanisheth?

Fain would I hear thee answer me herein,

Since, Krishna! none save thou can clear the doubt.”

 

KRISHNA:

“He is not lost, thou Son of Prithâ! No!

Nor earth, nor heaven is forfeit, even for him,

Because no heart that holds one right desire

Treadeth the road of loss! He who should fail,

Desiring righteousness, cometh at death

Unto the Region of the Just.”

 

-          Bhagavad-Gita, Ch: VI, Lines 125-138.

 

  “Of many thousand mortals, one, perchance,

Striveth for Truth; and of those few that strive—

Nay, and rise high—one only—here and there—

Knoweth Me, as I am, the very Truth.”

 

-          Bhagavad-Gita, Ch: VII, Lines 8-11.

 

  “There be those, too, whose knowledge, turned aside

By this desire or that, gives them to serve

Some lower gods, with various rites, constrained

By that which mouldeth them. Unto all such—

Worship what shrine they will, what shapes, in faith—

’Tis I who give them faith! I am content!

The heart thus asking favor from its God,

Darkened but ardent, hath the end it craves,

The lesser blessing—but ’tis I who give!

Yet soon is withered what small fruit they reap

Those men of little minds, who worship so,

Go where they worship, passing with their gods.

But Mine come unto me! Blind are the eyes

Which deem th’ Unmanifested manifest,

Not comprehending Me in my true Self!

Imperishable, viewless, undeclared,

Hidden behind my magic veil of shows,

I am not seen by all; I am not known—

Unborn and changeless—to the idle world.

But I, Arjuna! know all things which were,

And all which are, and all which are to be,

Albeit not one among them knoweth Me!”

 

-          Bhagavad-Gita, Ch: VII, Lines 69-90.

 

  “Nay, and of hearts which follow other gods

In simple faith, their prayers arise to me,

O Kunti’s Son! though they pray wrongfully:

For I am the Receiver and the Lord

Of every sacrifice, which these know not

Rightfully; so they fall to earth again!”

 

-          Bhagavad-Gita, Ch: IX, Lines 92-97.

 

 

“Yet not by the Vedas, nor from sacrifice,

Nor penance, nor gift-giving, nor with prayer

Shall any so behold, as thou hast seen!

Only by fullest service, perfect faith,

And uttermost surrender am I known

And seen, and entered into, Indian Prince!

Who doeth all for Me; who findeth Me

In all; adoreth always; loveth all

Which I have made, and Me, for Love’s sole end,

That man, Arjuna! unto Me doth wend.”

 

-          Bhagavad-Gita, Ch: XI, Lines 332-344.

 

 

[James C. Bennett]

"David and Bathsheba’s baby was not ‘punished’ rather he/she was immediately accepted into heaven and God’s presence..."

Pinging you to #608.

Deuteronomy 23:2 - "No one born of a forbidden marriage[a] nor any of their descendants may enter the assembly of the LORD, not even in the tenth generation."

[betty boop]

But then came the twentieth century and along with it the discovery that Newton’s physics fail at the very large scale (Relativity) and the very small scale (Quantum Mechanics) simply because – tada – the observer is in fact part of the observation. Rest in Peace, Descartes.

Indeed, dearest sister in Christ! Ever since Francis Bacon, the scientific method has relentlessly been trying for complete "objectivity," which in practice has meant disqualifying all "subjective" perceptions. That is to say, to make science completely free of the "prejudices" of scientific observers. Which in practice meant dumping all of philosophy so as to clear the way for the Novum Organum of a new and improved scientific Weltanschauung which would be untainted by philosophical ideas and intellectual habits. In other words, perfectly "objective," perfectly empirical....

Oh, according to the Merriam-Webster on-line dictionary, that German word "Weltanschauung" translates as: "a comprehensive conception or apprehension of the world especially from a specific standpoint." [Jeepers, subjectivity is invoked in the definition itself.]

The Newtonian revolution — which essentially describes the universe as a vast mechanism whose functions are totally independent of observers — seemed to make this expectation tenable. For quite a while. But then, as you point out, both Relativity and Quantum theory absolutely depend on the presence of observers. So perhaps reluctantly, scientists will come to realize that subjectivity per se cannot be separated from science in principle.

Indeed, on the most basic level, how could that be so? It is subjective minds who are doing the science. And human minds at that; so can we finally stop beefing about the so-called "anthropic principle," widely thought to "distort" scientific knowledge?

Whose scientific knowledge is this, after all?

And indeed, as a practical matter, it seems subjectivity and objectivity — though it appears to me they belong together, to work together — have never been so "fashionably" separated. As Wolfgang Smith points out in Cosmos and Transcendence, the so-called Newtonian reduction itself is already a commitment to a metaphysical (ergo "subjective") proposition, not a "physical" or "scientific" one. It is, to that extent, philosophy in disguise. And —

What we have collectively failed to grasp is that this purportedly scientific Weltanschauung is based, not upon the legitimate findings of science, but upon hidden psychological or a priori assumptions which turn out in the last analysis to be self-contradictory. In the name of physics civilization has succumbed to fantasy.

As you note, the Newtonian reduction confines itself to only two of the four classical (Aristotelian) causes, the material and the efficient. But as the physical mathematician and theoretical biologist Robert Rosen well demonstrates (in Life Itself), it is impossible to speak of biological function (or the function of any complex system in nature) without reference to a final cause, executing (so to speak) its formal cause.

In short, all four causal categories are needed — as you say, "Formal cause and final cause are back on the table." And this is fascinating to me, for final cause in particular gives many scientists the heebie-jeebies these days. :^) It's one of the things that Francis Bacon thought he could dispense with, and still do science....

We live in such fascinating times, dearest sister! So much going on, all over the place, in so many different fields. There is tremendous ferment around so many questions.

Thank you so very much for your outstanding essay/post!

May God continue to bless America; may He continue to guide her by His Light and Grace.

[MHGinTN]

I'm still chuckling over the notion that a poster wants ‘the facts, just the facts’ and continues to stick to that position in order to discard anything uncertain. I mean, if someone is so wedded to stultification the uncertainty of quantum reality must be quite frazzling.

[betty boop]

And these are the guys whose "testimony" you cite in support of your own [nihilist] argument? Notwithstanding that you reject "testimony" in principle?

Good grief, dear kosta; but you must be dreaming. Either that, or grossly (and grotesquely) misrepresenting what these men were saying.

Let's have a look:

True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing. And in knowing that you know nothing, that makes you the smartest of all. — Socrates

In the first place, in this passage, the correct word isn't "exists," it's "consists". The prefix "con" stipulates a relation to something outside the cognitive self. Socrates — the great gadfly of Athens (who stung so many "worthy ones" that they ended up conspiring to kill him, which conspiracy was successful) — did say something to the effect that "I know that I know nothing; and because of this knowledge, I am wiser than other men."

You leave out the context of this remark. Socrates, in modesty before the God whose oracle was at Delphi, was trying to mitigate, distance himself, from the oracular words the Pythia had spoken, in response to Socrates' friend's question. The answer was: Socrates is the wisest of men.

In his response, indeed Socrates was the wisest of men. He knew that wisdom was of divine Source. He knelt to this Source.

This hardly constitutes a repudiation of God! Socrates doesn't even complain that there are limits to human knowledge that cannot be overcome in principle, on categorical grounds....

We know nothing at all. All our knowledge is but the knowledge of school children. The real nature of things we shall never know. — Albert Einstein

Again, the great-souled Einstein (IMHO) is not expunging the universe of "metaphysical" reality. He is simply acknowledging the category problem already alluded to: I.e., that God, being outside of dimensionality altogether, is not entirely reducible to human terms.

Of all the persons you cite, kosta, Einstein is probably the most profoundly religious in spirit. Alamo-Girl and I have been posting excerpts of his comments along these lines forever it seems, and to you directly. But it's as if you never heard of them....

As we acquire more knowledge, things do not become more comprehensible, but more mysterious. — Albert Schweitzer

And thus, for the third time, your "source" is acknowledging a mysterious "beyond" the Limit of human reason....

Thinking it over, it seems you want the world to be so "flat" that questions involving context [which would seem to involve the presence of at least one additional temporal dimension] can never come up. It's all dominoes, from first to last. Simply take the man at his word — and then explain his words in ways he would never have intended.

What do you really hope to accomplish by such methods?

Just wondering....

Thank you so much for writing, dear kosta!

[betty boop]

...if someone is so wedded to stultification the uncertainty of quantum reality must be quite frazzling.

I'm sure that would be the case, dear brother in Christ, had such a person bothered to consider the "enormity" of what quantum theory seems to be pointing to....

But I have some doubt that is the case in the present circumstance.

A person cannot have "facts" without acknowledging some ground by which such purported "facts" can be "validated." This is the fly in their ointment....

Were that my position, I wouldn't be able to sleep at night, either.

Thank you ever so much, dear brother, for your most perceptive insights!

May God bless us all!

[RobbyS]

Well, he’s right that the theory of evolution is more than an explanation of evidence. From day one, it has been an overarching theory of the universe. Theistic evolution counters this with still another myth, which is something like Teilhard de Chardin’s view of things.

[RobbyS]

Yes, but this is extrapolation. And it's a tenuous thread. Until they actually can reproduce life from dead matter and/or show how to create complex beings from materials at hand, it is all guesswork. We really don't have any idea how long homo sapiens has been on the earth. The gap between us and our nearest biological relatives is immense. No wonder that there is so much serious speculation about space aliens.

[RobbyS]

Yes, but this is extrapolation. And it's a tenuous thread. Until they actually can reproduce life from dead matter and/or show how to create complex beings from materials at hand, it is all guesswork. We really don't have any idea how long homo sapiens has been on the earth. The gap between us and our nearest biological relatives is immense. No wonder that there is so much serious speculation about space aliens.

[D-fendr]

Thanks for your reply:

Well, if all that exists is caused, and God exists, he must be caused. And if he is caused, then he is not the first cause…

… and what caused God must have a cause, which must have a cause, ad infinitum.

This just restated the argument FOR an uncaused first cause.

Without an uncaused first cause, you encounter the infinite regress problem above and nothing exists - which, from observation, we "know" is not true.

Accepting your objection we would have: "If all that exists is caused, nothing exists." The result of your objection is precisely the problem that the first cause argument solves, and so this objection fails.

A more fruitful line would be to attack the infinite regress problem itself rather than project it out further.

[allmendream]

“The gap between us and our nearest biological relatives is immense”

The gap between us and our nearest biological relatives (chimpanzees) is quite small, only 2% in genetic DNA and some 6-10% in genomic DNA.

Rats and mice, for example, are much more different from each other in DNA than a human and a chimpanzee are.

Do you speculate ‘seriously’ about extraterrestrial origins of mice?

Ever read “Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy”? LOL!

[xzins]

Actually, Robby is correct. And the fact that humans are collecting chimp DNA to compare is proof Robby is right.

There’s an immense gap between us an any other creature on earth.

How long do you think before chimps will be checking out DNA? Writing books? Creating computers?

Chip, my dog, is content to lay by the fire and lick himself....and us, if we’ll let him. He gets so excited when I take the leash off the hook.

He does not put it on my neck. And he doesn’t light the fireplace for me to get comfy in front of.

Labs are among the smarter canines.