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."

[allmendream]

You didn't progress past the problem presented? Well then, that must be because you STILL don't understand what you are arguing against.

The theory of speciation I have presented depends upon the following proposal: that change in DNA accumulating in separated populations will accumulate until those populations that previously were one and the same, can no longer reproduce together and are thus absolutely different species.

There is no dependence upon them to change into a different species while remaining the same species in order to reproduce; whatever you have convinced yourself that bit of tautology means.

Long lost transitional forms? You really do seem to learn nothing from previous conversations. I have presented you with two examples of a clear “transitional”, neither of which you have dealt with at all.

It is estimated that we shared a common ancestor with chimps some six million years ago. Some three million years ago we find a bipedal ape that looks like what one would expect something to look that shared a common ancestor with chimps only three million years in the past.

So where exactly does Australopithocine (or Neanderthal) fit in your model? All separately and uniquely created by God at the same time as humans along with triceratops and brontosaurus burgers in Flintstone? Was early man having a Yabba Dabba Do time?

[reasonisfaith]

The theory is very nice.

But unless you have observed evidence of the process of one animal species changing permanently into another, you have nothing.

I could say to you that I, long ago, introduced your father to your mother. But it wouldn’t make sense to accept this claim as fact, unless you had reliable evidence that such an event were observed.

It is the process of evolution that is in question and needs to be proven, not those things which are claimed to be its products.

The cute little fishamander you showed in post # 355 brings no evidence, based on its appearance in the photo, that its species came into existence through a process of changing from another species. All you have is the cute little photo.

Same goes for Australopithecus. Just not as cute.

[allmendream]

All we have of Australopithocine are not so cute photos?

Wow is that a delusional statement. Also no explanation forthcoming about where Australopithocine fits into your model. Once again the Creationist model is neither predictive or explanatory, an absolute intellectual dead end subscribed to most frequently by the least educated segments of our society.

We have observed the process of one animals species changing permanently into another species that can no longer reproduce with the parent species.

I covered this with you previously and told you THEN that putting your fingers in your ears and chanting “Nah Nah Nah” will not make that evidence go away.

Do we need to be able to SEE the Grand Canyon hollow out via erosion over millions of years to see that the model of erosion that we observe is both necessary and sufficient to explain the presence of the canyon?

You don't seem to really understand much about the scientific method.

Galileo dropping weights off the leaning tower of Pisa didn't establish only how those particular weights would fall at that particular location and at that particular time.

The PRINCIPLES uncovered showed how all objects operate under gravitational attraction at all places and at all times.

So no, we didn't SEE the river change course to separate the ancestral chimp population that would give rise to both pan and bonobo - but we see where the river is now, and that on one side we have chimps that are different than the chimps on the other side - and science provides a model for how that change happened to THAT species in THAT location - as well as providing a model for how it would happen to ANY species in ANY location where two populations are separated and differences accumulate.

[D-fendr]

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

As I said earlier, the first cause argument is not in the same category as firm scientific proof. It's an argument, and a good one, for why anything exists - using observation and logic.

Nevertheless, just because science creates a working model doesn't mean that model represents reality.

In a way it does. It, to some degree of accuracy models what is observed - that is the way in which it works.

Until a more accurate model, Ptolemy's ruled. It wasn't enough for someone to say: "there will be a more accurate model," they had to create it - and it had to "work", to a greater degree of accuracy, be a better model of what is observed.

The same with Newtonian physics until Einstein and so on.

I can agree that a model of reality will likely be replaced with another based on new knowledge or a better modeler. I can even believe that all man's model's are lacking.

However, that is not the same as proving the current model wrong.

I think it should be clear that Aquinas Cosmological Argument is more in the sphere of philosophy than science - although all philosophy still relies on the physical accuracy, the sense observation, being true. It draws conclusions and arguments from science.

It could be undermined by new science; however, it is not reliant on much else in science than cause and effect. Until this part of science is changed firmly, it has a good chance of holding. For example, it is immune to the changes you explain in the orbits of the planets. And I do appreciate your posts and points on this aspect, on science and on man's limitations in general. In general I agree: science only names, describes and models reality - and any model could be wrong.

thanks very much for your reply.

[whattajoke]

It appears that you would have also acquitted OJ Simpson. Your definition of "evidence" is to see something with your own eyes. Do you hold geology and astronomy to the same standard at which you hold biology? Why not?

Have you seen the continents move? And yet you accept that earthquakes do indeed happen, right? Why is that? Seriously, why is that? Much science exists because of the preponderance of evidence of events gone by. Your issue with evolutionary biology makes no sense as you present it.

Help me out with this little guy, the red panda. Since species are so distinct and easily discerned, you will be much appreciated by biologists trying to classify them. Have a shot at hagfish and lampreys as well. Your contribution to science will be remembered forever.

[whattajoke]

Now, I realize you'll come up with some magic wand wave of why these examples aren't actually speciation as you see it, but here is a very basic, very high-level list of some fascinating events that have been observed.

In the first example, the lizards evolved VERY quickly (island speciation). "But it's just adaptation," you'll cry.

And that brings me back to the same question again: What is the biological mechanism that stops "adaptation" before it becomes "speciation." This is just a different way of asking you how your so-called "micro" evolution stops before becoming "macro."

[D-fendr]

Your post reminded me of the quote attributed to statistician George Box:

“All models are wrong, but some are useful.”

[James C. Bennett]

Great posts, there!

[James C. Bennett]

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

There are exceptions?

[kosta50]

Your post reminded me of the quote attributed to statistician George Box: “All models are wrong, but some are useful.”

That is a very wise and true statement!

[reasonisfaith]

There is a very important difference between the products of geological versus genetic processes. (This difference represents another, separate and very large stumbling block for scientific materialism.)

Geology involves mere pattern formation, while genes make use of coded instructions.

[kosta50]

The way you are interpreting it, Kosta, it is an empty Christian slogan

Well, that's what lip-service is—hypocrisy. The commandment to love your neighbor as yourself is an unambiguous and binding mandate uttered by what Christians believe is God.

It is not something they can wait for to "happen" at the "right moment," but a matter of unconditional obedience to their Lord God. You yourself even said not too many posts ago "Just submit." Easier said then done, isn't it? Humbling too (I hope).

You totally ignore Paul's instructions to withdraw from Christians who wander after attempts to draw them back.

I was talking about Jesus' commandments. Even Paul differentiates between them.

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.

Again, the topic was Jesus' reiteration of the OT commandment to love your neighbor as yourself. And my question to you was "at which point would you give up on yourself", or, should I say, your loved ones?

And you forget the example of Jesus who told some of His own nation that they were of their father the devil

I did not forget it. From the Christian point of view, that was God speaking in his supra-knowledge of what's in our "hearts." In that respect, it should be obvious that he is the only one who can make that judgment, lest someone else wants to play God.

[kosta50]

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.

You mean like Paul? The way you talk, you would have given up on Paul. And Paul's example shows that it seems only God determines who believes and who doesn't (after all, faith is salvific and therefore must come from God). So, again, what does preaching accomplish, except maybe test the preacher's own faith?

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.

Opening his heart did little for Paul's conversion. According to the Bible, that happened when Paul was  "struck" and knocked into believing on the way to Damascus. 

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

You think Stephen had to die just so God could convert Paul? LOL.

[xzins]

No, I think Stephen’s preaching to them stopped. It’s a good illustration that the Word is the seed, not our eloquence, persistence, or intelligence. God can use all those things, but this story demonstrates that they are not the issue.

You continue to ignore biblical directives that Christians are not bound to perpetuate futility with resistant non-believers or believers.

If those are the instructions, then it cannot be a violation of the “love” the bible talks about to follow those instructions.

I suspect you’d like it to be a violation due to your incessant need to throw unbelief at believers. I don’t know if that’s to assuage your own doubts, to attempt to undermine their faith, or because you’re bothered by loneliness...or something else. Nonetheless, it is not a violation of biblical love.

[kosta50]

It's an argument, and a good one, for why anything exists - using observation and logic.

So is the conclusion that a rumbling volcano or the sun is a god, it seems.

It [working model], to some degree of accuracy models what is observed - that is the way in which it works.

But what is observed is not necessarily how things really are.

Until a more accurate model, Ptolemy's ruled.

And therein lies the problem. We confuse "what works" with "how it must be." Just because Ptolemy's system still works (we haven't moved to another planet!), it doesn't mean it's geocentrically presumed world is correct.

Let me try to illustrate what I mean by another example:  since no one really sells old-fashioned records (generally speaking), my old turntable is just a historic decoration, but it doesn't mean it doesn't work! Find me a record and it will play music again.

However, just because it produces music doesn't really explain or establish what music truly is.  It's only one way of capturing music and reproducing it, but it proves nothing of the nature of music itself.

I think it should be clear that Aquinas Cosmological Argument is more in the sphere of philosophy than science - although all philosophy still relies on the physical accuracy, the sense observation, being true. It draws conclusions and arguments from science.

Aristotelian "science" is no science (it was based on observation and perceptual conclusions, lacking in what is known as scientific method; it is based on logical arrangement of human impressions). He, for example, "explained" gravity by stating that all things fall towards the center (?); from that, Aristotelian philosophy concludes that we must be in the center (of the world)! Not very scientific at all.

However, one can see why the Church liked it. Combined with Ptolemy's geocentrically based "working model",  and theology, seeing man as God's central creation, it is easy to see that the Old World Order was a powerful belief system that seemed unshakable much more than our belief in the Bing Bang and first cause is likely to be.

Three independent sources of knowledge came to the same conclusion: theology (by divine revelation), philosophy (logic, reason) and a working mathematically-derived scientific method of navigation (grounded in the repeatable results and observable, physical reality) all pointed to the earth and man as being in the physical and spiritual center of the created world!

Thus, no matter which source of human knowledge was examined, the conclusion (result) was the same! Who could argue with that? Is there any wonder that, when presented with carter-pocketed lunar surface in Galileo's telescope, the Vatican officials concluded it was the devil, the father of deceit and lies, "distorting" the image of perfect heavens to make them believe they were imperfect things in God's house! In some respects, many even on these forums today use the same argument, invoking the "devil" as being behind any source of doubt!

Just considering the mindset of the world of Galileo's time, and prior, can immediately show you why Aquinas' philosophical conclusions not only "made sense," but had backing in every known field of human knowledge!  Yet, today we know that (at least) two of these sources of human knowledge were in error. Of course, theological error is difficult to prove, which is why it still lingers. It's only basis of credibility is someone's willingness to just believe it.

Needless to say, our evidence for modern cosmological beliefs  is not even close to the synchrony of knowledge achieved in the Old World Order, that turned out to be dead wrong, as least cosmologically speaking.

The Big Bang is the "religion" of science that has been around for only a few decades, and has already been revised n-number of times. There is certainly a big question as to why the universe seems to be expanding at an accelerated speed when it should be  slowing down.

And the fact that blackboard scientists, desperately trying to balance their equations, keep reaching for nebulous (no pun intended) "degrees of freedom,"  such as dark energy and dark matter—without even knowing what they are or how to detect them—tells me that they are as much in the dark about our origins as anyone else is and are trying to make the ultimate discovery by hoping for a miracle.

I doubt the miracles will come anytime soon, because man will never know everything simply because there is too much too know. So, I don't really see anything man knows except as a working models, which, as Box's wise statement says "are all wrong, except some are useful." We should also keep in mind another famous inidivdual's saying: "man's gotta know his limitations."

In general I agree: science only names, describes and models reality - and any model could be wrong.

And that should hand over our beds and in front of our bathroom mirrors so we remind ourselves every day who we are, if not where we come from. :)

Thanks for your input.

[kosta50]

No, I think Stephen’s preaching to them stopped

First, he preached Judaism. His preaching, in and of itself, would not have gotten him in trouble. It was his claim (vision) that he could see God and the Son of Man sitting to the right (seat of honor) of God that got him in trouble.

The OT states that no one has seen God and lived, and such statements were considered blasphemy by the Jews, which, according to the Law written by God himself, and dictated word for word to Moses, was punishable by stoning to death.

Besides, I would hardly call a vision "preaching the word", but you are free to believe whatever you want. It's just not what the Bible says. Besides, Paul's heart doesn;t seem to have been opened by Stephen's preaching, as you said. Rather, Paul was enraged by what every Jew would have understood to be Stephen's blasphemy.

You continue to ignore biblical directives that Christians are not bound to perpetuate futility with resistant non-believers or believers

And you continue to ignore the ones given by God himself—that Christians are to love their neighbor as themselves—as not something optional. Therefore I asked you twice at which point would you give up on your loved ones?

Perhaps Moses should have given up after the third plague failed to convince the Pharaoh? You can imagine what good that would have done.

I suspect you’d like it to be a violation due to your incessant need to throw unbelief at believers

And, perhaps you  have a need to throw your belief at unbelievers and then imply the same, but reverse motives to others. I have no such needs. I have only questions when I don't see something I agree with.

I don’t know if that’s to assuage your own doubts, to attempt to undermine their faith, or because you’re bothered by loneliness...or something else

I have no desire to undermine anyone's faith but to ask honest questions when I see something that doesn't fit. But I can sense that something is not right when I run into people who are too easily offended when questioned.

[xzins]

And, perhaps you have a need to throw your belief at unbelievers

On the basis of the above, and other statements of non-belief, if you were in my parish, I'd have to deny communion to you. That is an act of love, but it is also, as Paul would say, a delivering "to satan for the destruction of the flesh that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus."

Unbelief is the unforgiveable sin...IF...it isn't overcome.

[betty boop]

There are exceptions?

I think you missed my point, James C. Bennett.

[kosta50]

On the basis of the above, and other statements of non-belief, if you were in my parish, I'd have to deny communion to you

And you should, as I would have no reasopn to present myself for one.

[betty boop]

Unbelief is the unforgiveable sin...IF...it isn't overcome.

What is particularly aggravating is the marshaling of considerable intellectual ability and resources to "proving" unbelief. Obviously, such a person is not trying to overcome his unbelief.

By now we have a litany of reasons to doubt, or rather reasons justifying unbelief. So we know what such folks don't believe.

But can any of these folks tell us what they do believe?

I would find that fascinating I'm sure.

I understand from my own religious tradition the "tough love" involved in denying communion to a member of one's own parish. But the good shepherd must also look after the safety and well-being of his flock....

Thank you so very much, dear Padre, for sharing your thoughts....