re: Dr who was once an evolutionist explains why mankind is no accident

[quote]"When you really stop and take one step back and consider how enormously complex the body is, there's no possibility it could be an accident."

There aren't any accidents in evolution. For someone who was an "evolutionist" he sure has a bad grasp on evolution. Not to mention, 260 million years is a very long time for development.

I'd like to know his thoughts on dinosaurs.

quote:

---

come on now. you know there are plenty of biblical scholars who fall in the theistic evolution camp. including billy graham. i'm pretty sure he's not misreading scripture

---

People bring their own biases to the scriptures. It happens all the time and its happened since Moses. This is no different. Instead of letting scripture interpret scripture, people interpret scripture by their own experiences. A lot of good and godly men have taken on bad theology because of this mistake.

quote:

---

not applicable. they weren't aware of darwinism. scripture allows for more than one position on the matter

---

They were aware of other philosophies and the Bible doesn't allow for those other philosophies because there are contradictions between the Bible and those philosophies. "Theistic evolution" is no different in that regard. Scripture as a whole does not allow for such a view of evolution.

quote:

---

this has occurred. in spades

---

Not from the Bible. The evidence presented is extra-biblical and taken from an anti-God perspective. Theistic evolution is a middle ground meant to bridge the gap between what we "know" about evolution and what the Bible says. It's not something you would even consider if you read the Bible without trying to insert evolutionary theory into it.

quote:

---

the bible doesn't only "provide" one position on this matter

---

Yes, it does. There is no way you can read the Bible by itself and come to conclusion of theistic evolution without first assuming theistic evolution (or some variation of evolution).

quote:

---

did not have any evidence of darwinism. not applicable.

---

You miss the point. You make it seem like this molecules-to-man evolution concept hasn't ever been considered prior to Darwin and his direct antecedents. There were philosophers purporting these sorts of thoughts long before Darwin even if the details weren't fleshed out.

But in a way, you are proving my point. Theologians for nearly 2,000 years (and Jewish scholars prior to that) didn't even consider "evolution" as a Biblical option because they hadn't heard about Darwinian evolution. This tells me that the Bible doesn't even suggest such a thing and that you have to twist the scriptures to even make such an option viable. A plain reading of scripture doesn't present the reader with that notion.

quote:

---

again, not relevant. there's a huge gap between postulating about the heliocentric model and actually observing it, a la galileo. ditto evolution and darwinism.

---

Funny you should use the term "observe" when talking about this. Evolutionary theory of origins cannot be observed or falsified so it's technically not even scientific.

quote:

---

please tell me you're not calling billy graham a heretic.

---

I think you missed the point of what I was saying. Read this part again: "The underlying presupposition is that God's word is the fundamental basis for interpreting truth and reality, not that truth and reality as we perceive it interpret God's word."

I was saying that Christians always have to start with the Bible for understanding truth. Theistic evolution actually starts with extra-biblical philosophy (it's not science) and attempts to reconcile the Bible with that.

quote:

---

i am aware of all of them and this situation is not the same

---

Read my response in the previous section: Christians always have to assume the Bible is true and start with the Bible, not start with the truth of some other philosophy and then try to make the Bible fit it. If the Bible is true, there will be no need to try to make it "fit". The evolutionary theory of origins is not even scientific, yet so many Christians are willing to abandon the clear teaching of scripture because they don't want to seem unscientific or foolish in the eyes of the world.

quote:

---

that's not what is happening. genesis allows for more than one interpretation on anthropogenic origins. one of those options matches what we know from physical history. it's a reasonable position to maintain.

---

A couple of things. First, Genesis does not provide an account that clearly supports a theistic evolution stance. Even in the narrative of the giving of the 10 commandments, the 4th commandment references God creating the world in 6 days and resting on the 7th as a model for us. That doesn't really make sense if creation wasn't a literal 6 days. Plus, Moses was the author of both of those accounts. There's no indication that they were meant to be understood differently than what they were.

Secondly, we don't "know" that we have evolved from star dust over billions of years since the big bang. That is assumed based on naturalistic, materialistic presuppositions that guide the interpretation of the evidence we do have. That theory is simply assumed based on non-biblical assumptions. You have to start with unbiblical assumptions to then try to make the Bible fit the narrative by twisting the scriptures.

quote:

---

this is not at all an implication of theistic evolution.

---

It most certainly is. Romans 5, for instance, talks about Adam dying and Jesus dying and equating them. You have to equivocate the meaning of death in terms of physical and spiritual in order to make the passage not mean physical death coming into the world through Adam's sin. Evolution requires death to have occurred prior to sin coming in to the world. Jesus conquering death as the second Adam doesn't make as much sense if death didn't actually come into the world through Adam. Spiritual death will always exist by means of punishment in Hell, so clearly that's not what the text means.

Also, Jesus is compared to Adam many times. If Adam is mythologized, it makes little sense to compare Jesus to a myth.

Sin also doesn't really come into the world through Adam if Adam is symbolic of mankind. The Bible says there was no sin before Adam disobeyed God. If evolution is true, there wasn't an Adam who became the representative for mankind as Jesus is our representative by faith now. We have no representative, meaning original sin didn't happen and we aren't under it. There are a lot of theological problems with this theory.

quote:

---

also not happening

---

Uh, yes, they are.

quote:

---

this is a false dilemma regarding theistic evolution

---

No it's not a false dilemma. Why does the Bible need to be twisted in the first place if it isn't being made to fit the man-made theory of evolutionary origins? Man has become the authority and is attempting to change the meaning of the Bible to fit that authority.

quote:

---

false. it harmonizes and there is nothing theologically or hermeneutically unsound about that

---

There is nothing to harmonize, but you just proved my point. You have to make the Bible say something it doesn't in order to fit what other men are saying is true. The Bible isn't the authority in that case, but men.

quote:

---

also false. again, billy graham explained this.

---

Graham said it makes no difference if the Biblical narrative were factually true or if we evolved and God put a spirit into man. He didn't address how sin could enter the world if there were violations of God's moral law prior to Adam being "created" (evolved and a spirit put into him?) Graham simply didn't want to turn people off from the scriptures so he tried to find a middle ground between the popular narrative of evolutionary origins and the Biblical account of creation. If you have more information on his specific beliefs about these issues, please point me in the right way, because he seems to have no thought this issue through.

quote:

---

either it’s demonstrably nonsense scientifically, or god is a being who seems undeserving of reverence.

---

1. There is no such thing as God the father.
Its a myth.
2. Yes. Nonsense. It stood for years when there was no science. Then there were burnings at the stake to stop discussing observations.

now faith is the only defense.

quote:

---

“It’s really complicated to it couldn’t be an accident”

Isn’t a compelling case

---

i don't know about the op but, people like francis collins and tipler have made a really strong argument that the complexity we see in life is basically impossible to have happened without design.

quote:

---

There aren't any accidents in evolution

---

there most certainly are. they're called mutations, usually caused by radiation. the causes are not endemic to earth's natural environment. iow, from outside the system. those factors cause changes that otherwise would not have happened if earth's natural selection were left to it's own forces.

quote:

---

There is no such thing as God the father. Its a myth.

---

That's some mighty fine faith you got there. I think it may overshadow my own.

quote:

---

For the age of the earth?

If you can’t figire that out there is no point in going further.

---

There are some logical conclusions that can be drawn about the age of the earth and the origins of mankind from the Bible.

quote:

---

There are some logical conclusions that can be drawn about the age of the earth and the origins of mankind from the Bible.

---

Sure. Lol

quote:

---

There is no such thing as God the father.

---

quote:

---

Its a myth

---

prove it. "but but you can't prove a negative."

quote:

---

It stood for years when there was no science

---

and seems to be still standing.

quote:

---

Then there were burnings at the stake to stop discussing observations

---

wrong.

quote:

---

now faith is the only defense

---

it's like you're not even reading this thread. let me guess, you think the current scientists and philosophers who are christians are compartmentalizing.

geez. so pathetic. it's amazing what some people think about religion

quote:

---

If you can’t figure that out there is no point in going further

---

so you're just full of crap. that's all you had to say

let me know when you have a substantive, scholarly, mature reply