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."

[kosta50]

Well duh!

Well, duh, you could have answered the question. :)

What a splendid exhibition of "bean-counter" mentality!

Is that worse than someone who avoids answering questions?

I mean, does kosta really suppose that "love thy neighbor as thyself" is an immediately executable programmed command?

It is a commandment. What does that mean to you, in your private word-meaning world? Let me help you with some synonyms so there is no confusion: commandment—rule, mandate, precept, edict, order...hmmmm.

[not an]...immediately executable programmed command

How "immediate" is immediate to you, bb? Today, tomorrow, next week, when you feel like it, when you can walk on water, in heaven, on Greek Calends, eventually, in eternity...?

I would imagine that for someone who truly believes in Christ, obedience to his commandments would be the way of life even if one doesn't (yet) find it in his or her heart, just knowing that it was your God who tells you the truth and what he wishes—a sacred obligation and deep-felt desire to please him? Or is it just lip service?

Do you not live with the desire to please God? Do you not say "thy will be done," and know that it is his will that you love your neighbor as yourself?

Do you see what I am getting at? It's all talk, self-edification, but words and actions speak differently. You know what that means...even in your private vocabulary, I don't have to define it.

[betty boop]

How "immediate" is immediate to you, bb? Today, tomorrow, next week, when you feel like it, when you can walk on water, in heaven, on Greek Calends, eventually, in eternity...?

Jeepers, dear kosta, none of those items makes my "to-do list," short- or long-term.

To answer your question, which seems to have something to do with Who is the Source of Truth? And if it is God Himself, who needs Abraham or Moses?

But Judeo-Christianity absolutely depends on the "testimony" of Abraham and Moses....

Which struck me as your way of delegitimating the honor and reputation of a man of faith, a man of the cloth with long service as a military chaplain....

You keep up that sort of thing around here, and sooner or later, you'll find no one around here will ever want to speak to you again.

Starting with me.

[kosta50]

Jeepers, dear kosta, none of those items makes my "to-do list," short- or long-term.

Obeying commandments of your God is not on your "to-do" list? Thank you very much. What was I thinking!

Which struck me as your way of delegitimating the honor and reputation of a man of faith, a man of the cloth with long service as a military chaplain....

You give me way too much credit where credit is not due. Your conspiracy theory is false. My quesitons were theological, not personal.

My point was: if faith is salvific, no man can give it, to himself or to others, lest man save himself or other men. So, unless God wills it, no amount of preaching will give faith. By the commandment still stands.

If you disagree with this, just state why and spare me your conspiracy theories. If you can't answer it, then hold your peace.

[kosta50]

by the commandment = but the commandment

[reasonisfaith]

Conventional biology defines cats and dogs as distinct species. Clearly, this is a good distinction.

According to evolutionism, cats and dogs were once the same animal, but genetic change eventually made them too different to be able to reproduce with one another.

But this version of events could not have happened, because of the negative feedback effect. Genetic change in an individual leads to nonviable reproductive function: the very first pre-cat would have no mate, thus no offspring.

[reasonisfaith]

I would ask that you provide an example of macroevolution.

[whattajoke]

I would ask that you provide an example of macroevolution.

And I would answer: Every single species alive or extinct today.

Are you implying you accept so-called "micro-evolution?" If so, before we continue, can you please define "micro-evolution," how you measure it, and most importantly, the mechanism within the biology of the organism to shut off the micro-evolutionary changes before they become "macro." Feel free to change what a species is as well, because you'll certainly need to do so.

[D-fendr]

No, that's not the point I was making. If we can assume that something (i.e. "deity", whatever that may be) can exist without cause, why not the stuff from which the world is made?

Because all the stuff from which the world is made is dependent, effects of external causes that are effects from external causes, etc… This is what we observe of all the stuff the world is made of. We can't choose to believe they are what we wish to imagine if it is contrary to what we observe them to be - if we are to continue in a reasonable argument.

The first premise of the first cause argument is based on the observable world: Everything we observe in the universe depends on something outside it in order to exist.

Imagining that this is not so is not reasonable.

First cause is a mental box in which many are trapped.

First cause is a logical conclusion based on the above premise.

Dependent existences absent the existence an independent cause cannot exist. We observe a universe of dependent existences/causes, therefore there must be an independent, uncaused, first cause.

We are merely speculating and hypothesizing.

This would be a big step above pure imagination, especially when we have a hypothesis based on observation and logic.

The first cause argument is merely one of many possible arguments.

Chose one that fits observation and reason/logic.

D, I understand what the first cause argument says. I am saying is has holes.

But, friend, I don't think you've found one yet. You indicate it can be effectively refuted by imagining contrary to observation, which makes me think you don't fully grasp that its only parts are observation and logic. Your hole has to be found there.

Wait right here, are you calling God Physics?!?

As I said, it's an "an analogy (with all the limitations analogies have)." Not meant to be taken literally but as a possible way to communicate the idea or concept of something unchanging and eternal causing change in time merely by existing. Didn't work in this case.

Thanks very much for your reply.

[kosta50]

Because all the stuff from which the world is made is dependent, effects of external causes that are effects from external causes, etc…

But how do we know that energy/matter was created by 'external' causes?

We observe a universe of dependent existences/causes, therefore there must be an independent, uncaused, first cause.

Ptolemy observed that planets, observed form the earth, apparently make "loops" so he devised a navigational system based on that observation. It's the observer problem. We observe the world and conclude that it had to be created by an external source the way Ptolemy observed and concluded the planets run in "epicycles".

His system factually flawed, because it is based on the geocentric model of the universe, but it still works because its systematic and because we still observe form the earth. Nevertheless, just because science creates a working model doesn't mean that model represents reality.

Today we have the Big Bang (a relatively recent theory) leading us all the back to the initial event, but it doesn't tell us that this was the first or the nteenth repetition of a newly created world ex nihilo or the perpetuum mobile one without the beginning or the end.

Ancients knew that the sun, in the course of a year, makes "figure 8" (analemma)  in the sky (and some probably thought it was a "sign").

But they didn't know that this was a relative, local, perspective and that the sun is stationary with repsect to us.

So, when you insist on "dependent existence" I wonder how do we know that energy and spacetime didn't exist all along. Let's not forget that all cosmological theories (scientific or theological) are just that—theories, or, if you will, modern-day "epicycles."

This would be a big step above pure imagination, especially when we have a hypothesis based on observation and logic.

Observations can be flawed, limited, distorted,etc. Logic is still valid, but the conclusions aren't necessarily true.

Chose one that fits observation and reason/logic.

And end up with another Ptolemaic system?

But, friend, I don't think you've found one yet...Your hole has to be found there.

Sometimes admitting that we don't know is the most truthful thing we can do. There is no more reason to have eternal energy then an eternal "outside"  source.

Two hundred years from now, if the earth and humanity are still around, people will be saying about us "did they really believe that?" It's really an eye-opener to read what people believed in 18011.

[allmendream]

Your view of evolution you seem to have got from a comic book.

According to DNA evidence, dogs and cats once shared a common ancestor.

It was not an INDIVIDUAL that was the first “pre-cat” it was a POPULATION.

Once the pre-dog and pre-cat populations were separated each POPULATION accumulated change in DNA differently.

Do you have ANY example of this supposed “negative feedback effect” on reproduction that would lead to a “dead end”?

Which one is a “dead end” in your example, a cat or a dog?

Or are you just being disingenuous and changing what your argument is because you were caught flat footed trying to defend the indefensible bit of nonsense that change in DNA of a population would lead to that population becoming extinct due to non reproductive viability.

[xzins]

Ask yourself at which point would you give up on yourself, and you shall know; then treat others accordingly, as I suppose you love them just same as you love yourself; or is that just an empty Christian slogan?

The way you are interpreting it, Kosta, it is an empty Christian slogan. You totally ignore Paul's instructions to withdraw from Christians who wander after attempts to draw them back. You ignore the example of the Apostles and Evangelists to go to a community, to preach to all, and then to concentrate on those who respond. And you forget the example of Jesus who told some of His own nation that they were of their father the devil

As I said, "pearls and swine" is Jesus' metaphor, not mine.

So, given all of that context, what does "loving myself" mean? It means truly caring for myself which includes being brutally honest. It doesn't mean being numbly happy with any sin that I get myself into.

[xzins]

Who preached to Abraham and Moses?

Those are interesting questions that do have answers, despite the assumption I hear in your comment that no one preached to them. There is a long tradition that Moses heard both the preaching of his Jewish countrymen, whether he understood them to be so at any given time. There’s also no doubt that his father-in-law preached to him, seeing that Jethro was a believer.

So far as the preaching to Abraham, it must be remembered that the ages of the children of Noah and the age of Abraham gives him contact with that era as one just a few generations removed. Additionally, we know this to be a literate age, and we know that it was an age that included a Melchizadek, priest of the most high God.

Abraham’s call, of course, was from God Himself, but that is not evidence that it is the first time Abraham had heard of the most high God.

There are a variety of reasons why I have been called. One of them is not to spend inordinate amounts of time with those who reject the Holy Spirit. Stephen’s indictment of the leaders of the Jews was that “they always resist the Holy Spirit.” God eventually opened the heart of one of them that day, Paul, and others remained closed.

Stephen finished his message to all of those folks and spoke to them no more. God provided the increase.

[cotton]

Millions of years ago there was a rock, now either it was in a pond or it rained and some of the minerals in the rock were infused into the water, Lightening stuck the water, and perhaps a seed of life from a cosmic molecule fell into the water as well. Soon the complicated group of contaminates in the water gathered a membrane around itself and it became the first living cell. They cell divided and mutated into pre-plants and something like an amoeba. The amoeba grew and mutated into sea dwelling living things. One day one of these crawled out to the water and just happened to be able to survive due to mutations. Some of its offspring became amphibians like the frog and some of these mutated into the reptiles while others blindly mutated into the mammals. One of the mammals became the ancestor of all the ape like creatures including mankind. One of the men became a prince and married a princess.

[reasonisfaith]

You misunderstand.

Evolutionists think species change from one to another. If this were true, the change would necessarily begin with one individual animal.

But if the animal changes into another kind of animal, it can’t reproduce. It has no other animal to mate with.

[reasonisfaith]

“Every single species alive or extinct today.”

What I would like to see is an example of the evolution of these species. Evolution, theoretically, is a process. You have only provided an example of the product.

[allmendream]

You misunderstand.

The theory of evolution says species change. This is true, and while each individual change necessarily begins with one animal who is part of an interbreedomg population, “the change” that accumulates over time does so IN the population.

For example, the big river changed course and cut through the chimpanzee population range. Chimpanzees do not swim across rivers. The changes that started to accumulate in each separate population changed one into the bonobo chimpanzee and the other into the pan chimpanzee.

There was no “first bonobo” that couldn't find a mate, there was a population of pre-bonobo chimps that accumulated DIFFERENT changes than the pre-pan chimps.

So which chimp is going to be a “dead end”? And how is this change in DNA over time going to lead to a loss of reproductive viability in either population?

[reasonisfaith]

But even if these two kinds of chimpanzees are in a strict sense different species, we still don’t have scientific evidence (observation of the process) that they were once a single species.

[xzins]

And thus endeth the fairy tale

[allmendream]

Does one need to directly observe erosion grinding out the Grand Canyon for one to know that erosion is both necessary and sufficient to explain how the Grand Canyon formed?

According to our Flood “geologists” we apparently do!

So even if you don't accept that bonobo chimps and pan chimps were once a single population, what flaw do you see in the theoretical model whereby a barrier would cause two populations of the same species to accumulate different changes?

Where in that theoretical model that you don't seem to understand is the necessity for a “freak” to find a “freak” mate?

Didn't we already go over this a hundred posts ago when you quoted what you thought was a “gem” from some other poster who said every change would have to happen independently in both male and female and those two would find each other?

Did you not learn anything from that previous conversation?

[reasonisfaith]

Regarding the “previous conversation,” I think the discussion didn’t progress beyond the problem presented.

At this point, your argument is dependent on the following proposal: that evolution causes the species of individuals to change into a different species, while at the same time remaining the same species in order to reproduce.

Are these, finally, the long lost transitional forms? Individual animals who are two species at the same time?