Two Conservative Christian Scientists–Two Different Views of Creation
by Ervin Taylor
An article posted recently (July 6, 2012) on the Christianity Today (CT) web site will almost certainly resonate with many Adventist scientists who are involved on both sides of the polarizing debates about evolution and creation which have been under way within the Adventist faith community over the last 3-4 decades. This article, written by Tim Stafford, a CT senior writer, is entitled “A Tale of Two Scientists: What Really Happened 'In the Beginning.'” The subtitle was “How two evangelicals—one a young-earth creationist, the other an evolutionary creationist—have lived out their faith and professions."
Some populist Adventist writers featured in the “flagship” denominational publication have repeatedly proclaimed that you can be a “Bible-believing Christian” or be an advocate of biological evolution over long geological ages, but not both. This article profiling these two conservative Christian scientists, exposes the mistaken assumptions involved in holding to such an absolutistic either/or position. (Parenthetically, when the term “Bible-believing Christian” is used in Adventist denominational publications, it typically seems to mean “An Adventist believing the Bible the way I do.”)
Both of these scientists grew up in churches which self-describe themselves as fundamentalist. Todd Wood grew up in a small rural independent church, Northwest Baptist. Darrel Falk grew up in the Church of the Nazarene in Canada. The CT writer relates how both “grew up with absolute confidence in the Bible . . . Both of them had an unusual aptitude for mathematics and an interest in science . . . They could have followed very similar pathways, and in a sense, they did. But the controversies over evolution within the Christian community have taken the two scientists on very different journeys in a time when common ground on human origins and the Genesis narrative seems to be shrinking.”
After graduating from high school, Wood attended what is now known as Liberty University, an independent evangelical Christian educational institution founded by Jerry Falwell, an American fundamentalist Baptist pastor, television evangelist and conservative political commentator. In its science classes, Liberty University espouses young earth and young life creationism. While at Liberty University, Wood read all he could in the creationism literature and particularly he became interested in what was being characterized as “scientific creationism,” a term widely regarded as an oxymoron by most scientists.
The CT writer explained the historical background to the rise of scientific creationism: “About 30 years earlier, creation science as a movement had been born with the 1961 publication of The Genesis Flood, authored by John Whitcomb and Henry Morris. Whitcomb was an Old Testament professor who read Genesis literally. Morris was a professor of hydraulic engineering fascinated by questions of origins. Together they updated the writings of George Price, a Seventh-day Adventist schoolteacher and amateur geologist who believed that almost all geological formations worldwide had been laid down in Noah's flood about 4,000 years before. Price's flood geology attracted limited interest until Morris and Whitcomb popularized it for a wider audience.”
Falk attended for a year at a church Bible college and then transferred to Simon Frazer University, one of Canada’s major research universities. Wishing to be a physician, he had to take biology. He states that he had “known the beauty of Christianity. Now [in biology classes at Simon Frazer], I discovered the beauty of genetics.” After much reflection, he was impressed with the evidence that all life is related due to a common origin. As Stafford relates Falk’s perspective: “The beauty of the cell seemed [to Falk] to be evidence of God's design and providential oversight … But he had no one to help him rebuild his picture of God's creation [since] the only way he knew how to read Genesis was that creation was a six-day event.” Falk went on to complete his doctoral degree at the University of Alberta.
After completing his B.A. at Liberty University, Wood applied and was accepted as a graduate student in biochemistry at the University of Virginia. The CT article relates that Wood “was not talented as an experimentalist, but his love for research and his mathematical abilities paid off in the classroom. Computational analysis was just beginning to become a significant part of biology, as decoding the genome offered reams of data that required computer analysis. Wood was at home with this. He didn't discuss his creationist beliefs; he believed that he was in graduate school to learn, not to argue. ‘I went in fully aware of the stereotype of creationists as bellicose. I didn't want to be anything like that.’ His professors, he soon realized, were hardly the enemy; they were brilliant men introducing him to a wonderful world where he knew he could thrive. The first human genome sequence was published the year that Wood began graduate school, providing strong evidence for evolution. The DNA for chimps and humans was virtually the same. Traces of common origins were everywhere: Humans even possessed a broken version of the gene that lizards and birds use to produce eggs.”
After graduation from Simon Fraser in 1968, Falk went on to postdoctoral studies at the University of British Columbia. A Christian professor at the university invited him to lunch and in discussion he offered the view that faith and learning were meant to grow together. Falk began to read books by Christians that expressed faith in a far deeper way than anything he had previously read—books by journalist Malcolm Muggeridge, theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and Leo Tolstoy, and accounts of Mother Teresa.
Following a post-doctoral fellowship, Falk obtained a tenure-track position at Syracuse University. He and his wife visited several local Church of the Nazarene churches in Syracuse. One seemed delighted that he was a professor at Syracuse. Though the church certainly didn't believe in evolution, and came to know that Falk did, they never bothered about it. "That church, God's gift to us, built a bridge to us and welcomed us just as we were, gradual creation perspective and all." The pastor helped Falk as he found his way to a fuller, more robust faith, eventually asking him to teach a Sunday school class for young adults.
After finishing his doctoral dissertation, Wood took a postdoctoral position at Clemson University, part of a team that was decoding the rice genome. He lived a lifestyle that comes with large teams of scientists working under time and budget constraints. But he was not happy. He loved science when he could explore problems in his own time and in his own way. After a year at Clemson, Wood did the unthinkable: He applied for a position at tiny Bryan College, to work with Harvard-trained creationist geologist Kurt Wise. Although he knew it would end his academic career outside of the conservative Protestant world, he did it with a sense of calling. Finally, he would have time and opportunity to work at science in the way he believed in.
While at Syracuse, Falk worked to build a Christian fellowship among faculty and grad students. Working on the genetics of the fruit fly, he gained tenure. Gradually, though, he began to long to work at a Christian educational institution. Through a series of dramatic events, he first went to Mount Vernon Nazarene in Ohio for four years before moving to Point Loma Nazarene in San Diego.
Almost three decades later, both Wood and Falk continue to be concerned with how God created the world and they continue to be active members of evangelical churches. However, their understandings about when and how it happened have taken them in very different directions. Wood remains fully committed to a six-day creation since he sees no other way to read the Bible. But that doesn't keep him from recognizing that evolution has powerful scientific evidence supporting it. Falk wrote a book Coming to Peace with Science in which he lays out the evidence for an ancient earth and the gradual development of its creatures over millions of years. In recent years, Falk has found a new role through interactions with Francis Collins, the world-famous geneticist who headed the human genome project and now leads the National Institutes for Health (NIH). After publishing the bestselling book The Language of God, Collins received so many e-mailed questions that he decided to create BioLogos, a small organization to help answer them. When Collins was asked to head the NIH, Falk took over as president of BioLogos. Under Falk's leadership, BioLogos has emerged as an important group of Christians advocating "evolutionary creation."
Falk has held to his plea for Christians to love and respect each other while advocating different points of view. In bearing this out, BioLogos recently invited a number of Southern Baptist biblical scholars to publish essays critical of the BioLogos perspective on the BioLogos website, in order to foster mutual understanding. Falk wrote. "We must recognize that we will never reach the point where we all see Scripture the same way. When there is division in the church, it will be difficult for the thirsty to find their way to Jesus."
Just a note: I'm pretty sure Adventism is not the only denomination to define "Bible-believing Christian" as "believing the Bible the way I do." I think that's pretty ubiquitous among conservative denominations.
Great blog! I believe Jesus is way more interested in how we show love than in how we interpret Genesis.
Actually it's becoming harder to find true creationists in the Sunday churches. Most of them have caved into the pressure to accept evolution–in spite of the lack of evidence. Even the pope has placed his blessing on the theory.
I keep wondering why articles on this subject continue to appear here. I wonder if it's because of frustration on the part of the progressives who sponsor this site, because of their inability to convinve the majority of faithful SDA's that they can be a Adventists and evolutionists at the same time. To paraphrase something James said, can the same spring produce both salt water and fresh water at the same time?
Keep trying, but it won't work. The theory of evolution is even more bankrupt than the US economy. Those of us who refuse to accept the theory recognize its numerous inherent weaknesses.
Jean, I doubt it will work for older generations. As a 'young person' of 32 years, I can tell you I was raised pretty fundamentalist and strongly believe in YEC. As to evolution, I kind of just avoided the whole issue (which was easy because my expertise is in humanities and law, not science).
Sometime in my late 20s, I kind of decided I needed to have an honest look at the issue – and come what may for my faith. In particular, because I wasn't a scientist, instead of focusing on WHETHER evolution were true, I wanted to ask myself, would may faith be destroyed IF evolution were true. I knew that 99% of scientists at PHD level did believe in evolution, and new that personally I would forever be a bit of an agnostic, for the simple reason I don't nor ever will have the skills to come to a definite conclusion.
What I discovered that contrary to what I had been taught, and as Erv mentions, my SDA faith was not necessary destroyed IF one accepted evolution. I worked out in my own mind how to reconcile the two. Whilst I will never know WHETHER evolution is true, I am confident that IF it were true I could faithfully remain a Seventh-day Adventists and pretty much affirm all our Fundamental Beliefs.
In that faith journey, I read a whole heap of books, including the one by Collins. I also read a book by a group of Adventist theologians and other professionals. One of the authors of that book was Erv. I only heard about that book after asking Erv on this site.
So you see Jean, things are changing, however slowly – at least in my own generation.
As a 'young person' of 32 years, I can tell you I was raised pretty fundamentalist and strongly believe in YEC.
Stephen, I myself am also 32. Are you seriously proud to adhere to the indoctrination of our youth? If so, that's all well and good, but… I'm a bit more proud of learning to think for myself. Just sayin'.
Tim, interesting to hear we are the same age. Two points:
1. You are being naive if you think any of us can escape indocrination. We are all indoctrinated into our nations, our societies, our clubs, our peers, our families – not just our Churches. Even people who think they are non-conforming are usually just conforming to another sub-group, with its own official or unofficial sets of cultural rules. You may be thinking for yourself in rejecting the SDA Church but I suspect you have now instead accepts the indocrination and enculturalisation of another group or strata – even if you don't realise it.
The first step to true 'liberty' is to realise we human beings are social creatures, and that we will naturally seek acceptance in a group. Once you accept your own enthnocentric bias, and are open about it, then one can begin to utilise sociological imagination.
The only truly 'liberated' people who are non-conformists to society are our serial killers and other seriously mentally ill. I would bet (or at least seriously hope) you do not fit into that category?
2. I am not sure on what basis you can say I am 'proudly' adhering to the doctrination of my youth. I think my comments above demonstrate that I have and continue to investigate the voracity of the offical beliefs of the SDA Church, including its stance on creationism. Just because after such investigations I have chosen to remain in the SDA Church is not in of itself indication that I am not 'learning to think for myself'. I reject your implict suggestion that you are somehow done more 'thinking' because you made a choice to leave, whilst I made a choice to stay.
3. Is your comment trolling?
And if you want to read it too, it is called 'Understanding Genesis' and be purchased through AToday (and I am not in any way connected to AToday or trying to spruke their products):
https://atoday.org/transaction_detail.php?id=2&hash=
However, after reading a whole bunch of books, the best one by far was by John Lennox, 'Seven Days that Divide the World':
http://www.amazon.com/Seven-Days-That-Divide-World/dp/0310492173
What I love about Lennox book is that it is small, and tackles the issue of evolution from a conservative, Bible-believing, sola scriptura and literal point of view. Lennox doesn't need to undermine the literal meaning of scripture – he shows that it is possible to believe in scripture by a literal reading. He points out that the problem isn't the Bible that is abrogated by evolution – it is just our preconceived interpretation of the Bible that is abrogated by evolution.
I do strongly suggest you check these out – even to educate yourself about what the arguments are for and against. It is what the Bereans would do.
The idea that only the older generation still believes in creation as commonly understood by the SDA Church, is nonsense. Maybe in your little subculture that is true. But I see younger people with the same diversity of beliefs on this subject as the older generation.
I think the majority have probably never given it much serious thought. That in itself, regardless of their conclusions, is worrying. There are very few, of any age, who could actually defend either side convincingly from scientific evidence. I suspect that is why 'accept creation by faith and don't ask questions' is becoming an increasingly popular option. I can't see that ending well.
Actually it's becoming harder to find true creationists in the Sunday churches. Most of them have caved into the pressure to accept evolution–in spite of the lack of evidence.
Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, I hate to be the one to break it to you, and here of all places, but… the evidence for evolution is so tremendous both in terms of quantity and quality that it's, as far as scientific theories go, incontrovertible. That you choose to ignore the evidence doesn't mean the evidence doesn't exist. If you close your eyes and hide under your bedsheets, it doesn't mean that the night light in the hallway has actually disappeared — it just means that you've chosen to hide yourself so that you can't see it. The evidence is there, like it or not. That's part of the reason you find it increasingly difficult to find YEC types — that is, harder to find people who shut their eyes tight and chant "God did it, God did it!!! Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep!!!!!!!!!!" instead of looking at the real world around them.
Try not to lose any sleep over it.
I could easily turn your statements around and say that the evidence for evolution is paltry at best and that you are closing your eyes and choosing to ignore the lack of evidence. But there wouldn't be much point in it because we will obviously never agree on this issue.
Try not to lose any sleep over it. 🙂
I could easily turn your statements around and say that the evidence for evolution is paltry at best and that you are closing your eyes and choosing to ignore the lack of evidence.
Ok, but it's NOT paltry at best, Jean. That's what you either don't want to understand or aren't capable of understanding. Yes, you can say it, but it is not true. You can say "2 + 2 = 591 and a partridge in a pear tree" if you'd like, but it is not a matter of opinion — it is demonstrably false. To suggest that the evidence supporting the theory of evolution is "paltry at best" is, likewise, demonstrably false.
I'm so fascinated by people like you who have the ability to ignore gargantuan swaths of evidence in toto. Not saying that to be nasty or get a rise out of you — I'm genuinely fascinated. I'd love to study you in a social psych laboratory (case study), to be perfectly frank. I don't understand how an ostensibly reasonable, clinically ordinary person, in good conscience, can flat out ignore an entire field of good evidence in favor of a magical fantasy about the world being magically created by an invisible space creature who lives beyond the stars by speaking magic words into empty space. I don't understand what kind of cognitive gymnastics allow a person to do that, and I wish very much that I did.
Keep trying, but it won't work. The theory of evolution is even more bankrupt than the US economy. Those of us who refuse to accept the theory recognize its numerous inherent weaknesses.
I smiled at this. I don't know anybody under the age of 50 who agrees with you, which means that it's likely that all the YEC types will be dead and gone sometime before I myself croak. And I can't help but imagine that the world will be a tremendously beautiful place without that delusion. I look forward to it.
Agree. As I said, I didn't want to look. I still don't really know for sure, because I am not a scientist. But even a simple Wikipedia search will demonstrate that some 99% of scientists do believe – and they have believed for multiple generations for over 150 years. Even many of the SDA Church's own scientists have come that conclusion.
Let me put it another way to Jean. In light of some 99% of scientists believing, do you accept the possibility that evolution COULD be true? And IF evolution were true, have you seriously thought about its consequences for your faith?
It would be good if there could be an environment within the SDA Church where its theologians could at least hypothetically consider our theological framework as IF evolution were true, but leaving open the possiblity that it may or may not be. Unfortunately, our Church seems to be going backwards with that one. Crazy enough, there is an expectation that lay people, who are not scientists, affirm belief in one scientific theory over another – something they are uniquely not qualified to do.
Jean,
You seem to be very confident in your position of truth by majority. First these discussions keep arising because the issue is not settled. Science especially in the area of genomics keeps adding evidence for evolutionary theory. You may be correct in your claim that there are a cadre of older fundamentalists that will never accept evolution. Fair enough. However, I am over 50 and as a practicing biomedical scientist I must accept what the data tells me and that is evolutionary theory has predictive value that we use in the lab all the time. I came out of Adventism and its clinging to literal interpretation of genesis via two major influences. First my post doc at the Univ of California and secondly by some of our own theologians at LLU trained in non-SDA theological seminaries. Over time I brought my father over 70 yrs old out of the literal interpretation of genesis and acceptance of deep time. He finally saw that what we see most likely did not appear in 6 literal days. But he was still and Adventist to the day he died but of course you would say he was not.
A question that I have for you and it relates to my post below is do you think that acceptance of the 28 fundamental beliefs as stated by the GC are necessary for salvation or just necessary to being identified as "SDA"?
"A question that I have for you and it relates to my post below is do you think that acceptance of the 28 fundamental beliefs as stated by the GC are necessary for salvation or just necessary to being identified as 'SDA'?"
A complicated question, since all of the 28 FB are not created equal. Certainly belief in Jesus as Saviour and Lord is necessary for salvation. By that I mean that if one knows that truth, but rejects it, I don't see how they can be saved. On the other hand, how could one call one’s self an Adventist if they only believed some of the FB? A 35% SDA; a 67% SDA? It's like the argument of the beard. How many FB does it take to make an Adventist?
As for your dad, I wouldn't necessarily say he wasn't an Adventist; only that he was a confused or deceived Adventist. After 70, some folks are more easily confused than when they were younger. Only the Lord knows the heart.
This could all be settled so easily: Simply take a vote, either in each local church or conference. Voila! If the majority believes in YEC, that becomes the official SDA position (Oh, you say, it already is?). OTOH, if the majority believe in evolution, YEC lost, and evolution will be taught in all SDA schools.
After all, the majority is always right, isn't it?
Jean,
My dad was not confused. He made a rational decision. There is a spectrum of interpretation of biblical script. My father started thinking rationally and he began with the flood story. He came to me not the other way around. The logistics of an ark are so preposterous that a rational mind would come to view it as a story. Actually a salvation story. As to the FB beliefs thank you for the answer. So I just have to accept Jesus as my savior and all the other FB's I can lay by the wayside. If I do that certainly I am not an adventist but at least saved. Glad to know that.
Many of the people here and Dr. Taylor belong to a group of Adventists and former Adventists that meet regularly and discuss issues of belief and science on a regular basis and do not shrink from the possibility that SDA theology does not have all of the answers.
After 70, some folks are more easily confused than when they were younger.
And after 70, many folks are wiser than they were when they were younger.
Only in respecting other Christians' different views that are not essential to salvation will the church progress. Either it will become an exclusive club with fewer and fewer members as the educational levels increase or it will grow and represent the many rather than the few.
Only if the members allow members to grow in understanding at their own pace, will the church exhibit the love that should demonstrate Christianity. If one prefers an ecclesiastical body to make statements of what should or should not be believed, Roman Catholicism might be a better fit. The church is not responsible for our standing before God; only each individual must answer for himself.
He drew a circle that shut me out,
Rebel, heretic, a thing to flout,
But love and I had the wit to win,
We drew a circle and took him in.
What kind of church do you want your church to be?
Elaine I do totally agree with you (and feels good to do so).
I would say that I do believe in all 28 Fundamentals of the SDA Church (although even within Adventism, and even within conservative Adventism), there is disagreement on nuisances etc). However, I do think the Church is going in the wrong direction in prescribing too many FBs.
I don't think FBs on Ellen White or Investigative Judgment are core salvation issues. They are important, sure, and I believe them, but I don't feel comfortable saying someone should be excluded from the SDA Church if they don't believe them.
The problem is that the Church Manual and Baptismal vow makes clear that the FBs are not different from the Gospel, they are our the SDA Church's understanding of the Gospel. Thus, we are saying FBs such as Ellen White and Investigative Judgment are in effect salvation issues, when they are not.
When asked about this issue recently, I heard ex-GC President Jan Paulsen state in effect that not all FBs are equal, and some are more 'fundamental' than others. Why then are they all treated equally in our baptismal vows?
If I had my way, there would be just 7 FBs:
Surely many of the common criticisms against the SDA Church would fall away, and surely our resources could be better utilised if we focused on the ‘core’ fundamentals? There is a significant, but slight difference, in saying you believe a certain thing, but realising it isn't really a 'core' issue that others must subscribe to. No doubt many will criticise such an approach as heretical.
Just putting this out for though: if we are saved by God's grace, apart from accepting that grace, what else is really a 'salvation issue'? And why must fundamental beliefs only be composed of 'salvation issues'? I find it hard to distinguish the FBs you want included from those you want excluded. The first two are not even mentioned explicitly in the Bible.
Ok good points; however, I would argue that accepting the primacy of the Bible and Jesus as God is a salvation issue. I don't mean by that one needs to accept the Bible or doctrine of the Trinity to be saved, because there will be lots of people in heaven who have never even heard of Jesus (i.e. Rom 2). But understanding that a man just didn't die on a Cross but God is not just important but vital to the message of salvation.
Perhaps let me re-phrase what I said because you do raise good points. What is the 'essence' of the Good News we are meant to take to the world? I would think the notion that God became down and became a man is one of them. I would also think the fact that He died and through that sacrafice we can have eternal life is another. I would think that He is coming back is another.
I wouldn't though say believing in Ellen White is part of that same essence – would you? Again, don't get me wrong, I do believe in Ellen White.
Similarly, why isn't the belief in Michael the Archangel in the FBs? What makes it a 'non-core' belief? Should it be?
If accepting that God, not just a man, died on Calvary, is necessary (or at least 'vital') for salvation, how can you assert that many will be in heaven who have never heard of Jesus?
What exactly does correct knowledge add to our experience of salvation? If nothing, what is its purpose?
Kevin, are you seriously suggesting that only those who have heard the name of Jesus will be in heaven, and that those who have not heard of him will not be – or are you merely being facetious? I base my view on Romans 2 – how to you base yours?
What benefit is there in the good news – why don't you tell me why Jesus gave the Great Commission in Matt 28? For me, the purpose is to give people the comfort that they God has died for them.
As to who will and will not be in heaven – I try not to be dogmatic about it, because who am I do know how God judges. All I know is there probably will be people in heaven who have never heard of God. However, no everyone will be in heaven, because some will experience the second resurrection.
Back to the issue, are you suggesting new converts should have to accept all 28 fundmentals? If the answer is no, then what do you say are the 'fundamnetal fundamentals' that should be the test of baptism and membership into the SDA Church?
Stephen
you made the two statements that 1) accepting that Jesus, who died on the cross, was God and man was vital to salvation; and 2) that there will be many in heaven who have never heard the name of Jesus. I was asking how you can assert both things. If many who have never heard the name of Jesus (and thus presumably have no opinion on whether the was merely a man or also God) will be in heaven, in what way then is such knowledge 'vital for salvation'?
I believe all that is necessary for salvation is to respond positively to God. I see many benefits in understanding the gospel story, but that does not make it 'vital for salvation'. I have thought about the idea of what is essential to be a Seventh-day Adventist member (which I assume we both see as separate to salvation). Belief in God is essential. Belief in the Bible as the foundation of belief and practice. The Sabbath. The Second Coming. Salvation by grace. The rest probably are not essential in my mind. But most are helpful. I believe we can assert a strong belief in the truthfulness of a doctrine, and even demonstrate its helpfullness for Christian living, without having to claim it is essential for membership or salvation.
Elaine,
Like you I have wondered why is this issue one that would be relevant in terms of ones own salvation? If one becomes an SDA convert and truly believes that acceptance of the SDA 28 fundamental beliefs are a necessary criteria for standing before God and his judgement, then indeed salvation and acceptance are linked.
Great blog!
I find the experience of Falk encouraging. Perhaps especially that it illustrates there are environments where old earth age views can be lived out within a community of faith.
Stephen Fergusson, I would like to pick up a point you make if I may.
"It would be good if there could be an environment within the SDA Church where its theologians could at least hypothetically consider our theological framework as IF evolution were true, but leaving open the possiblity that it may or may not be. Unfortunately, our Church seems to be going backwards with that one."
Yes, it would be good if there could be! But as that point implies – I don't think there is. Job security, money, power, politics etc seem to be doing a good job to ensure there may not be for some time too.
You also note:
"…Crazy enough, there is an expectation that lay people, who are not scientists, affirm belief in one scientific theory over another – something they are uniquely not qualified to do."
That last part is where I think there is another perspective to consider. I think lay people are qualified to do so. First, it seems to me to be very "Catholic" to set the theologians up as the only ones who can answer the big questions about how it would effect our doctrines. Secondly, it seems to risk insulting the intelligence of the membership to suggest that they cannot, if they so chose, examine the data provided by scientists etc and form their own conclusions.
I am no scientist, and there are a multitude of things I do not know. Perhaps those readers here who are scientists can see much folly in what I say at times as I don't know what I don't know and therefore may make very ignorant statements at times. (though I hope not:)
However, in spite of that proviso, I think it is a cop out to subscribe to the idea that you and I cannot have access to enough simplified data to make an informed appraisel and reach some reasonably firm conclusions.
Does it not strike you as rather odd that many of these very lay people you describe as uniquely not qualifed are, or at least consider themselves to be, imminently qualified to declare that most of the science is totally screwed up and wrong?
Seems we sometimes want it both ways: When the answers have potential to confront our comfort we either become an "agnostic" about it, or suddenly become qualified to declare it wrong. In a similar fashion, when information "fits" our view we are immedialely wonderfully qualified to declare it truth.
The thing I find most difficult here on AT is that I end up defending a particular "position", whereas in reality my intent is more often to explore the what ifs etc. Oh for more people like Falk was obviously so fortunate to have mixed with at the right times.
Thanks Chris, I don't disagree with anything you said.
When I said lay people are not qualified to affirm or disbelieve a scientific theory, I didn't mean theologians are either – I kind of meant only scientists, and SDA's own scientists, are the ones who can truly answer. Perhaps I should have been clearer on that point, but it does seem that our theologians aren't willing to listen to our own scientists, as a spate of firings at various Adventist universities would seem to show.
A logical approach would be for the Church's own scientists to have the most weight in matters of science (the 'how' question), and then for our theologians to work out the theological question (the 'why' question). However, it seems all rather like an investigative committee who is told in advance what its outcome must be.
For me personally, I like to adopt the 'precautionary principle' on such issues. For example, I don't know if Global Warming is real, and even the UN reports only talk about % of probability. However, it would be crazy to simply pretend there were no risks and do absolutely nothing about it.
My house may not burn down, and probably won't, but I do have insurance. As I said, I lament that theologians seem restricted (with notable exceptions) from even exploring the what IF – even hypothetically.
Replace the word 'theologian' with 'politican' and 'evolution' with 'Global Warming' and you have a pretty mirror image debate going on.
P.S. I do understand what you mean in terms of being pigeon-holed for a particular 'position', which usually is not what one starts out on. Sometimes I have found myself defending a particular 'position' that is actually furtherer away from my own personal 'position'.
Thanks Stephen.
I did realize you were separating theologians and scientists, so you were not unclear. I sort of wrapped my point about them up in the same sentence, but intended that each had their area of expertise.
As for the church having their own scientists working on it. I think Dr Taylor pointed out some facts abotu the GRI and its absolute failure to find good cause to defend a YEC etc. I reckon that speaks volumes about what the outcome would be if our scientists were given freedom from the constraints of "expected outcomes" and all the other political pressures etc.
Yes I remember Erv saying as such. Didn't many of the early leaders of the GRI, after being sponsored by the Church to obtain special qualifications in the relevant science, actually go on to reject YEC? And doesn't the GRI admit that they don't have a viable model that explains YEC scientifically, so all they suggest is to have faith that one day one will be found? Again, as someone who isn't a scientist and doesn't really know anything about the science, one has to be honest…
Theologians are not in a much better position. I suspect most prefer to avoid the question rather than address it. The logical position for a church that tends towards literalism is to take the verse "in six days the Lord created the heavens and the earth, and everything in them" as definitive. But many – perhaps most – educated SDAs, including pastors, tend to hold to an old universe and young life on earth position. The problem is, by interpreting the Bible to mean the length of day one was not necessarily 24 hours (because darkness had covered the earth for some time – perhaps millions of years – before light was created), you undermine the insistence that the other 5 days must be 24 hours. Accepting the old age of the universe based on scientific argument somewhat undermines the argument for young life on earth as the same facts and dating methods are what lead many to believe life on earth is also old.
I think we have to accept that most of our scientists, historians, archaeologists, social scientists, and anyone else who studies anything connected with history is unlikely to accept the church's position.
At the risk of being irritating, may I make one more point?
The concept that "the church's own scientists" could provide some authoritative positions seems somewhat problematic. There is a "selection" problem. Those of us who left the church, in part because we found that we could no longer believe some of the Fundamental Beliefs, such as YEC, are no longer among "the church's own scientists." Fortunately, some adventist scientists remained in the church, despite the church's positions that are out of accord with scientific evidence. But, overall, one might see a pretty biased representation among "the church's own," whose livelihood, teaching or working in adventist institutions depends on them teaching and, perhaps, even believing and defending all the church's FBs.
Joe,
You are the zoologist here and I am a bit lazy because I am working on a paper. I have a question that relates to my post below. If the human genome, base for base is nearly identical to the chimp how come we are so phenotypically different? This also applies to other species of apes. I know we retain some phenotypical characteristics suggesting our primordial origins like vestigal breasts. What is the current thought of the zoological community or comparative anatomists that think about these types of questions?
Hello, Doctorf. I'm not really a zoologist. My training was in biological psychology and my experience has been in interdisciplinary primatology. All along the way I've maintained an active intererest in genetics and genomics, along with speciation and ontogeny, so I do have familiarity with the issues. In my opinion, we need much more phenotypic characterization of individual humans and other primates to address your very good and important question. So I think we need to know, to the extent possible, the range of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) at orthologous loci in species to be compared and be able to connect this information with data on behavioral/physiological/anatomical phenotypic variation. We also need to better understand epigenetic processes involved in gene regulation and proteomic cascades. A start can be with some of the SNP variants that are associated with identified syndromes in humans–but it is likely that many of these syndromes are based on complex gene interactions. And now, studies of chimpanzees are being increasingly restricted due to the recent IoM report. Fortunately, Dan Geschwind from UCLA is chairing a working group regarding implementation of the IoM recommendations, and he appreciates the potential value of the genomics work. Feel free to contact me directly for more on this. <agingapes AT gmail DOT com> Take care.
Joe,
Thank you for the reply. Having done some work on epigenetics with regards to say drug receptor interactions the work I do is so "specific." Indeed epigenetic modulation of gene expression may provide some of the answers we seek and correlating a difference in gene regulation to a particular phenotypic trait seems daunting indeed. I wonder if the ability of speech which is one trait that separates apes from humans is tied to SNP's in genes. To bad we do not have a human "speech knockout" model. If we did we would isolate that gene and do a comparison of similar genes in apes.
Archiving your email.
Regards
John Buchholz
Excellent point Joe Erwin. To expand on this topic to include other areas of the denomination – not only have some of the church's scientists investigated their way out of the church, those who have been staunch believers regarding the investigative judgement, sabbath observance, the facts behind EGW, in their research found themselves outside. Those who try to analyze all sides of an issue find themselves on the outside looking in at the same time obtain labels (backslider, "will not be able to be saved" quote from EGW) The church is in trouble and the younger set are not willing to keep that naive acceptance of doctrinal beliefs just because the GC said so. A good review of those who have been excommunicated whether it be scientific or other of the 28 doctrines would be worthwhile to help us as a church become grounded. I believe in the New Covenant approach and at the same time my children are six generation SDA, my father-in-law was a minister, my husband changed his major at AU from theology to business. It was huge back then that there were two factions on campus as to creation and how old the earth was. We spent our entire career in administrative positions throughout the country in AHS (Oh the politics through the years in all arenas with incredible damage to people when they don't fit the mold of the church's FB's). Many of us chose to be quiet until retirement to ensure our job and retirement benefits. What a sad commentary. II Timmothy 1:7 "For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind (self discipline)"
As someone who is researching the SDA church, all I can say is that looking too closely at the church is not conducive to restful sleep. You need to have a strong grip on the fact that the church – including its leaders – is human, and the organisation is not the church, if you want any chance of remaining a member. I don't believe any of us really want to see a study of how much damage the church has done to those who don't fit its mould – doctrinally or socially – over its history. Some things are just too depressing.
Stephen Ferguson,
In light of Joe and Bea's insights above and your last point about the GRI. As for having patience while an answer is found? I think that decades of money, a steady turn over of scientists as one by one they researched themselves into the wrong answer at great personal expense, and the fact that 99% of scientists at large believe in the "wrong" answer IS your answer.
It is time we stopped beating our heads against a door that is not even there! The sooner our theologians (who do exhibit that selection problem) get to work on the question of how evolution affects our doctrines because it is real, not if it is real the better.
Great blog Erv! From the post Wood discovered "The first human genome sequence was published the year that Wood began graduate school, providing strong evidence for evolution. The DNA for chimps and humans was virtually the same. Traces of common origins were everywhere: Humans even possessed a broken version of the gene that lizards and birds use to produce eggs.”
I use molecular techniques in my own lab and discovered the same thing that convinced me of common origins at the molecular level. We use conserved overlapping sequences in widely disparate species to develop probes to quantify gene expression in animal models where the genome has not been fully sequenced. Also it is fascinating to me that as our DNA, base for base is nearly identical to chimps I wonder how that small difference can result in two phenotypically disparate creatures. That said the genomic evidence showed Wood that evolutionary theory is not just a wild fantasy.
Speaking of The Genetic Code, last a pioneering synthetic geneticist Dr. Craig Venter presented a thought provoking lecture, according to Claire O’Connell, who reported on this for New Scientist. What is life from the perspective of a genetic engineer whose team programmed DNA in a computer in the first attempt to build a synthetic organism? Venter told the packed audience in Dublin that life is DNA-software-driven machinery that operates protein robots. Here’s the key passage in the article:
“All living cells that we know of on this planet are ‘DNA software’-driven biological machines comprised of hundreds of thousands of protein robots, coded for by the DNA, that carry out precise functions,” said Venter. “We are now using computer software to design new DNA software.”
Software operates other machines (e.g., robots) that are also intelligently designed.
Systems of interconnected software and hardware are irreducibly complex.
Functional systems imply purposefully planned architecture of the whole.
Software is comprised of information, which is immaterial.
Information is independent of the storage medium bearing it (e.g., electrons, magnets, silicon chips, molecules of DNA).
Meaningful information is aperiodic; so is DNA.
As a form of information, DNA software is complex and specified.
Epigenetics regulates genetics just as computer software can regulate other software.
Software can improve over time, but only by intelligent design, not by random mutation.
Software can contain bugs and still be intelligently designed.
O’Connell told a humorous story that illustrates that last point. When Venter’s team programmed their synthetic organism by running their computer-generated “DNA software” through a bacterium’s “hardware,” it was buggy. They had inserted some text as a watermark, including a quote by late physicist Richard Feynman — but got it wrong. They had to go back later on and fix it.
No one sensible would claim that a mistake in the software by Venter’s team counts as evidence against its being the product of intelligent design, nor should anyone look to dysteleology in life as a disproof of design.
Your comment is a plagiarisation — verbatim — of the following blog post, which I note that you did not author:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/07/software_machin062211.html
In the future, you might want to cite your source. Do you have any of your own thoughts on the topic, Darrel, or are we supposed to simply swallow the plagiarized blog post as some sort of evidence of "intelligent design," as you seem to be suggesting?
For your own edification, in case you want to start thinking for yourself (but why break precedent?) — molecules and proteins, under the right physical conditions, can assemble themselves in impressively complex ways, leading to equally complex functionality, without any human intervention or magic or "god" or the will of some invisible bipedal spirit-creature who lives beyond the stars and does magic tricks that we call "miracles" by sending magical zombie avatars to walk amongst humans and wow them with his magical powers.
The comparison made in the blog post you plagiarized is fallacious and is "evidence" of nothing.
Darrel,
The comparison falls apart. Software is a set of instructions where subroutines are executed line by line according to the computer code. Tim is correct. Proteins coming off the mRNA do not need "instructions" on folding. Proteins fold and monomeric proteins self assemble by themselves with no help from me, you or God. What your argument is in essence is a "pleading" from complexity. It argues that complexity is derived from complexity. Well if you go down that road you need a complex God to assemble a complex God. Starting with God as a creator is an ultimate assumption. Fine within the realm of theology but not within the realm of science. We have no evidence that a "mind" wrote the genetic code. We have evidence that the DNA as a molecular structure is self assembling. We have evidence that stars are being formed and destroyed all the time. Is a "mind" responsible for those phenomena? Luskin is typical of the mind set trying to use an argument as his "evidence" for his God. That is OK and works for some, but not others.
Yes, I do use Luskin’s material. Can you address
the thoughts? Software and DNA. I know we
have been down this road before: “Only A Mind Writes Code!”
Tim
I have a question that atheists have never satisfactorily answered, why was the holocaust wrong. Why is the bombing 9/11 appalling? why is even murder wrong? if there is no transcendant morality?
I don't think we need to usurp the thread on Ervin's blog post, so no, but if you'd like to bring this up in your own blog post, I'd be very happy to chime in at that time.
To be honest, I find your question here rather alarming — if you suppose that the only reason we shouldn't be running around killing each other is the fear of God, it isn't my moral compass you should be worried about, but your own.
Rather than being alarming, Tapiwa's question is very legitimate and profound. What reason would you gives for humans to avoid killing each other? From the atheistic perspective, our relatives in the animal kingdom do it all the time. What's the difference? If we're all just evolved animals there is no rationale for right or wrong. It's all purely subjective.
Jean animals do not murder, they kill. The killing has two purposes. One to feed the hunter and second to feed the dependent young. Murder is "killing" with malfeasant intent. Now you can entertain the concept of morality in the argument. We come into this world, amoral. We learn morals from our interactions with other humans.
Mr. Mushaninga has asked some interesting questions, but, I'm not sure I understand why he asked this question in the context of the topic of this particularly blog. I have my suspicions but since I can't read Mr. Mushaninga's mind I can't be sure. Some theists might have a greater problem with why the God they believe in permitted the holocaust than atheists have with explaining why it was wrong. Not being an athiest myself, I can only read what some atheists have written about why the holocaust, and the 9/11 bombing and murder is wrong and some of them have very valid arguments.
Some theists might have a greater problem with why the God they believe in permitted the holocaust than atheists have with explaining why it was wrong.
That is, I think, the real problem, one that has endured throughout our history. The holocaust, 9/11 and other acute tragedies aside, approximately 21,000 children under the age of five die every single day around the world, from starvation, dehydration and illness. That's the equivalent of seven (7) world trade center attacks each and every day where the victims are all under five years of age. They die in pain and they die crying while their parents, many of whom are Christian themselves, plead with God to save their childrens' lives. If we assert the existence of such an omnibenevolent, omnipotent diety, then their prayers are met with the very coldest of silences. I, as an atheist, would drop what I'm doing and immediately run to assist anybody (perfect stranger or not) screaming for help — done it a dozen times and Lord knows — no pun intended — that I'll have to do it again. Yet the Christian God has ignored for 2,000 years screams for help from billions of people whom He allegedly knows better than they know themselves. And my morality is under question?
To borrow from Carl Sagan, I believe we as human beings are "capable of such beautiful dreams, and such horrible nightmares." It doesn't take any mental gymnastics to see that we atheists are not the ones making the extraordinary claim here, and I marvel at the mind that seeks to impugn our moral compass.
Sorry, Ervin… went off on the tangent even though I said I wouldn't. 😉 We can move on if you'd like.
"Some theists might have a greater problem with why the God they believe in permitted the holocaust than atheists have with explaining why it was wrong."
I believe the opposite is true. Atheists have no explanation for the existence of right or wrong. If we are the product of random chance, then there is no basis for right or wrong. It's purely subjective. How can they condemn cannibals or the holocaust? If we are nothing more than evolved animals then it doesn't really matter. Atrocities are such only in the mind of someone who thinks they are atrocities. From the atheistic point of view there is no objective standard by which one can judge right from wrong.
How can one not respond to such unbelievable assertions.
On the one hand, one might claim that some wrongs are just as self-evident as some rights.
Perhaps a more compelling argument based on evolutionary thinking would be that there is survival value in doing terrible things and there is survival value in doing constructive things. Neither the good nor the bad would occur without the biological potential for humans to do such things. Again, employing the term "random," is of little value here–a point I have made elsewhere.
So, we all recognize that the holocaust was horrific and unacceptable. Religious people, agnostics, and atheists–and yet it occurred as a terrible activity of humans. Genocide has happened many times in many places, probably more at the hands of humans than any other animal. The Bible tells of God ordering perpetration of genocide. Where does THAT fit into all this stuff about morality being God-given?
Jean,
Joe addresses your assumptions. Indeed God in the old testament sanctions genocide and he gets "his" people to do it. That makes God guilty of genocide without the hutzpa to do it himself. From my own perspective I do not think a God of love would order such atrocity. People did this and said they were "just following" Gods orders.
Wow, we certainly got off topic. But that is the way of these blogs at times.
Not to take is even further off topic, but it's not even plain old genocide — it's more like genocide plus, in that God directs people to kill men, women, children, newborn infants and livestock. It'd actually be rather impressive if it weren't so horrible. He makes Pol Pot look like a big softie.
Doctorf and Tim have given the agnostic, skeptical take on Scripture. They have shown that they don't understand Scripture or the character of God.
Ok, do you want to… you know, maybe expound on what it is precisely that we don't seem to understand?
Scripture declares that "God is love." Neither of of you appear to believe that. If it is true that God's very nature is that of agape, then your understanding of His activities as recorded in Scripture is rather faulty.
Scripture declares that "God is love.". . .If it is true that God's very nature is that of agape, then your understanding of His activities as recorded in Scripture is rather faulty.
Ok, Jean, but if you'll recall, Scripture is a book, not a leaflet — it actually says a lot of other things in there as well. If you want to pick and choose and just take "God is love" while ignoring everything else, that's totally fine — that's A-OK. But the rest of us aren't going to do that.
What exactly is faulty about our understanding of the passages in which God gave orders to kill every man, woman, child and infant as well as kill all of their animals, sparing nothing, or the other passages in which God gave orders to kill every man, woman and child with the exception of female virgins, whom the soldiers were to take back home with them, give them precisely one month to mourn their dead families and friends before having sex with them?
Help us understand.
If you understood how depraved (but in an atheistic world view there can be no such thing as depravity) these people were (their own records bear this out), in spite of their exposure to the true God through Abraham and his descendents), you might begin to grasp the reasons behind His orders to destroy them. But, if you read carefully you'll note that it was not His original plan for Israel to eliminate the Canaanites. God said that He would drive them out. But, due to their repeated rebellion, He allowed them to fight the wars themselves. As to why He allowed them to take home the virgins, I don't have all the answers. For some reason, He allowed some concessions to the current culture, such as slavery and the situation that you mentioned. But not having all answers, or not being able to understand all of God's dealings with mankind, does not mean that He is not a God of love. It only means that we are finite beings and will never be able to completely understand the Infinite One.
But I don't expect my answer to be satisfactory for someone who has no faith in God.
If you understood how depraved (but in an atheistic world view there can be no such thing as depravity) these people were (their own records bear this out), in spite of their exposure to the true God through Abraham and his descendents), you might begin to grasp the reasons behind His orders to destroy them.
By virtue of my professional life, I'm more well-acquainted with human depravity than the likes of you and your quiet little comfortable SDA life can possibly imagine. You want to go 1 for 1 on that topic, you'll be vomiting at the things I could tell you. So while I appreciate the suggestion that mine is a lack of understanding, please rest assured that you're wrong.
As for the rest of your post, do you want to explain how any of that makes sense in light of the fact that he didn't just allow babies — innocent of the societal depravity you suggest — to be slaughtered, but commanded it?
Didn't think I'd get a response to this one. Heh.
Dr Taylor
I have also read the atheistic arguments and I am still not convinced maybe you can direct me to other atheists who have attempted. I Don't have an agenda I am genuinely curious and the blog offers some dialogue and feedback. I am sorry if you feel i have digressed from the topic but I beg you please indulge me
I've read them too, Tapiwa, as well as the evolutionary arguments. It's all tommyrot, to use a techinical term. 😉
I''m not Ervin, but you might be interested in Sam Harris's book on morality. Sorry, I can't remember the exact title.
The title is "The Moral Landscape."
An -excellent- book by an excellent thinker. Got it on my bookshelf.
I would agree that the Harris book "Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Moral Values" (2101) presents his arguments well. Harris has another book "The End of Faith: Religion Terror and the Future of Reason" (2006). Both books are polemics and many of his arguments, in my view, are flawed.
It would be to our advantage if we were able to read and recognize that there are other ways of viewing morals than coming directly from God. Of course, the Christian view is definitely polemic, also.
Ahh yes, Timo, ignore my comments beyond a perfunctory "some points I believe have validity," and then move right into an attempt to impugn me personally. Well done. If you decide instead to actually address what I wrote, I'll be waiting. And in the event that you do decide to do that, I'd be curious to know what precisely in my comments was incorrect as well as the way in which I've painted a "caricature" of the God you purport to exist.
Timo,
I do not understand how you assign Tims view of God as hatred of the God that he was handed by his lifes experience. The Bible and its writers are assigning the characteristics of God. If he is all powerful and can arbitrate justice and relieve suffering and does not do so then he is a criminal. I serve in the Army reserves and we are duty bound to protect the unarmed including protection from armed aggressors, feeding and providing shelter as the circumstances dictate and that includes our enemies that have surrenderd. I have never heard of God doing one thing for any human but I know men and women that have saved the lives of their fellowmen by countless acts of bravery. God does no such thing. If he cannot he is impotent. If he can and does not then he is complicit in suffering. I echo Tim's question. Why is it that I am duty bound to ease pain and suffering of my fellow soldiers and surrendered enemies and God is not? The mental exercises to excuse God from great travesty is astounding to me. God has a lot to answer for in my view.
"Since God did not "actually write" the words, and they were passed down through oral traditions for millenia…"
Precisely! This is what some of us have been saying for a long time. This means that the Bible is a human record of people no worse, no better than we today. But that makes it impossible to accept that it is divine, inspired, and should be used as a guide for life. Why should ancient men be the final arbiter of what we should do today based on their account about God's doing these things?
Their morals were often worse than anything we see today. The problem: according to the writers, God ordered these atrocious acts. Christians have to face and answer these questions if they wish to make converts to such a religion.
Your opinion against those who believe otherwise. Prove it!
Wait, what? What part of Elaine's post was opinion? Did you accidentally reply in the wrong place or something?
She claims that the Bible is not divinely inspired. She can't prove that; anymore than I can prove that it is divinely inspired. But I believe the evidence is no my side.
She was simply pointing out that it is a human record written by people who weren't substantively different than we are today, just like the Qur`an, the Tripitaka, the Bhagavad-Gita and Upanishads, the Alkitab Alaqdas, the Adi Granth in Sikhism, the Avestra, the Book of Mormon, the Evangelion and dozens if not hundreds of other "holy scriptures" — not to mention, to only a slightly lesser extent, the library of the lovely 'prophetess' Ellen G. White for you SDA folks.
Nobody is going to stop you from wielding argumentum ad ignorantiam or any other fallacious nonsense of your choosing, but before you go down that road and/or scoff at those who dare to question the "divine inspiration" of the Biblical authors, you may want to ask yourself why you dismiss the divinity of all other holy scriptures, only a fraction of which, I'm guessing, you're familiar with and a smaller fraction still that you've actually read.
One doesn't have to read very far in other "scriptures" to see their internal inconsistencies. I suppose you've read them all? One bit of evidence that the Bible is divinely inspired is its internal consitency, along with fulfilled prophecy. I know that those who are skeptics claim to find no internal consitency and don't believe prophecy was fulfilled. That's their privilege. Call it nonsense if you want. Skeptics have been doing so for thousands of years. And yet the Bible remains as the infallible standard for millions of people.
But this is the problem. All believers find their scriptures to be coherent and consistent. What I find concerning is how often we refuse to apply the same standards to our inspired writngs as we do to others. I believe the Bible is inspired (contradictions and all), but we have to be consistent in how we judge our books against those of others.
Bio-logos ia an organization that attempts to undermine scripture-as does this blogger.
Also, there is NO excuse for those who continue to push evolution on Christianity. The science does not support darwinian evolution. To suggest so is simply those who are being stubborn and hard hearted for they still have a foot in the world.
Bio-logos ia an organization that attempts to undermine scripture-as does this blogger.
Uhh.. hi there, Jane. I don't want to derail the crazy train or anything, but this blog post is simply a factual account of two scientists' lives. The author of the post — Ervin Taylor — expresses no personal opinions at all. Can you maybe help the rest of us understand in what way exactly this blogger has attempted to "undermine scripture"? Unless… facts undermine scripture or something?
May I join Tim in asking "JaNe" how Biologos and the blog writer "undermine scripture"? I am very interested in understanding your pespective. I would also invite Jean to express an opinion on this. It would be helpful if you might provide specifics.
JaNe is correct, I think, that there is no particular reason "to push evolution on Christianity." It seems to me that most of the effort is in the other direction, with some Christians making such unfounded assertions as "science does not support darwinian evolution." This is just an example of someone being "stubborn and hard hearted" and projecting that characteristic onto others. There is no "Great Commission" in evolutionary biology to push the concept of evolution. Evolution is taught in public schools because the vast majority of evidence and the vast majority of scientists recognize it as a terrifically important biological process, not because someone is targeting Christians who refuse to acknowledge evidence. And, of course, many Christians DO acknowledge evolution as valid.
I believe the arguments for atheistic morality are self contradictory at best. is there some universal atheistic moral code. the whole evolutionary morality thing is hogwash. Some of the people who were responsible for the Rwandan genocide were atheistic. there were a lot nazi's who were atheistic. My question is what univerasl atheistic morale code can Tim and Co use to critisize the genocide or the holocaust? Tim and Co are just preferential and not consistent with their own world view. morality cannot survive outside religion. I know they will come back with some evolutionary morality that is to perpetuate our race etc. our world is overpopulated so why would Tim want to save peoples lives if that only perpetuates overpopulation? Is what the chinese do immoral Mr Tim?
Atheists have been disingenuos and hypocritical in their assertion that religion breeds violence etc. how about the nazi, communism, the french revolution? Violence is a humanity problem not a religious one. usually the religion is the outlet with which individuals are violent. so to say religion breeds violence is a mute point and an ethical one OH RIGHT YOU HAVE NO ETHICS TO BASE YOUR MORAL SENSIBILITES.
Atheists take their morality from religion. they simply take the tenets they like and discard the rest. you do not subscribe to Murder Mr tim because you grew up in a society which accepts the religious concept that murder is wrong. There is no universal atheistc notion that murder is wrong in fact ising evolutionary language, it make ensure you come out the fittest!!!
If there is a moral code for atheists please let me know I have a friend who does not believe in God and he victimises homosexuals and says that is his purpose! if the two of you were left alone I'm sure you would wish he was a aloving christian Tim!
Well stated, Tapiwa! But, unfortunately, only a few of us here will agree with you.
If there is a moral code for atheists please let me know I have a friend who does not believe in God and he victimises homosexuals and says that is his purpose! if the two of you were left alone I'm sure you would wish he was a aloving christian Tim!
Curious person to keep around as a friend, but I ain't one to judge. And I doubt I'd have to be overly concerned about him — pretty handy with a 9mm myself, as my pals Priscilla and Tukunda would attest to (former .mil SDA pals who I know read these columns, but for whatever reason never post — hi! :).
Goodness
My spelling and grammar!!! i was typing to fast sorry to everyone!!!!!
Tapiwa,
No worries on the grammar and spelling. It happens to us all when thoughts tumble out. Sometimes I re-read one of my own posts and say "oh good grief."
Of course, someone must point out that some of those responsible for genocide in Rwanda were also Christian, even adventists. The range of human nature seems to find ways of being expressed both inside and outside religion. Let us hope that religion refines human nature. If it were not so, there might be little basis for it continuing. But it is also quite evident that most agnostics and atheists are not a bunch of murderers. While I realize that some think of indigenous people as a bunch of "savages" who are unaware of the judeo-christian God, that is not consistent with my personal experience. Human nature seems to be a mixed bag.
Joe,
I wonder if morals also evolved along with the evolution of written language?
I wonder if it might be more likely that what we define as "morals" or "ethics" arose with the development of language itself, not written language. Written language is only about 5,000 years old. Human language systems are estimated to have been in place by at least 100,000 years ago based on arguments based on archaeological data.
As a Christian, I believe all human beings are made in the image of God – whether they believe in God or not – see Gen 1. All human beings, whether they have heard God or not, have a notion of the Moral Law, or natural law – see Rom. 2. Therefore, of course atheists can be moral people, and often are more moral than believers.
Jesus parable of the Good Samaritan was exactly to make that point. As believers, we should be better than non-believers, but sadly we are not. However, that is not to say the absence of morality in believers somehow inversely proves that morality does not come from God. I think this is the point that people like Richard Dawkins miss.
I am willing to accept the possibility that mankind evolved over millions of years (to be exact, I am agnostic on the issue). However, I do not accept that morality is merely a survival strategy. I believe there is an absolute right or wrong – although we can debate what that means.
If we simply adopt a postmodern approach to morality, then is a pandaros box of problem. For example, as a thought experiment, if you were guaranteed 100% that you would not be prosecuted for killing another human being – would you do it? If the answer is no, why? If the answer is because it is against social mores – well what is social mores say it is ok?
That is the logic of the Nazis (to break that rule never to invoke the Nazis as an example). The logic of social darwinism cannot be adequately refuted without the rejection of post modernism and the invoking of an absolute morality. Only God, the immovable and transcent I AM, can offer an absolute morality.
It seems contradictory for the I AM GOD to order "Thou shalt not kill," and then order total genocide. Does that not suggest some sort of "situational ethics?"
Very good question – and it relates to our other question on the nature of the Law. The command 'Thou shalt not kill' is apophatic – it is transcendant and an enduring, eternal, natural law statement that applies regardless of situation, culture, time or place. The command to kill an enemy at war is causatic – it requires a 'what if' situation. One cannot use the example of a causatic command to claim that an apophatic command is not enduring.
Timo,
Thank you for the response. I agree we anthropomorphize God. That is we make God in our image and assign God the supernatural tendencies. I do not believe God ordered any of the killing that went on in biblical times. That was their doing and consistent with the predatory ways of the nomadic tribes. Jean suggests that Isreael's predation was justified because of the "depravity" of Israels enemies. Well there you have it. She is just regurgitating the apologetics for the atrocities. In reality Israel was getting its collective butt kicked throughout its history. The way the bible is written Gods people if they were "faithful" to him then they were successful in war and gathering riches. But, relative to the real powers of the times, Egyptians, Hittites, Babylonians, Persia, Greece and Rome (the heathens) Israel's record of economic and military prowess is paltry. Most of the time they were slaves.
In the end I do not think we have the slightest clue about what God is or what he/she does and God certainly is not helping us out in the knowing department. I agree with your position on the mental gymnastics we as humans must utilize in order to reconcile a "God of love" with that of the God presented in ancient biblical culture.
Drf, although much is made of "survival of the fittest" as being "nature red in tooth and claw," it is clear that affectional systems, caregiving, foodsharing, social cohesion, communication, defense against predators, and many other patterns of behavior we would think of as morally positive, occur in animals other than humans. It may be that our awareness of fairness and morality-like behavior, in ourselves and others, was given a big boost by spoken and written language.
Maybe our awareness of morality required a word for it. I have often thought that "In the beginning was the Word" could have been a reference to the origins of language, though that is probably an overwrought notion.
There is a cognitive developmental concept that also seems relevant here. It seems that most children are not able to see things from the perspectives of others–at least not until they reach 14 or so years of age, and, in some cases, never. One wonders how the development of "morality" is affected by this.
I have seen adults who are unable to see other than there own perspective. It's part of Developmental Personality Disorder. The late wife of Robert Kennedy who just took her own life was presumably suffering from that condition that has many manifestations.
Often they are very narcissistic; seem to have no patience and understanding of other's feelings and are guided only by their own desires. These demonstrate a lack of a moral compass usually seen in mature adults. But, small children exhibit an appreciation for others' feelings quite early, so which is it: innate or taught? Videos have shown small children comforting another child who is crying, or hand a toy to one who doesn't have one.
The answer most of the time to the question 'is this innate or taught' is 'both'. One of the truely difficult parts of testing the question is that those who are young enough to be sure they were not taught are notoriusly uncooperative with testing. There is also the matter of personal variation. It is like trying to test what is 'taught' and what is 'caught'. There are always those of us, for whatever reason, who mess up the results. It is like using the words 'typical', and 'normal'. I had a brain map done today – the result was, in the words of my psychologist, not just 'typical and 'normal' for someone with my condition, but was a 'clasical' result. I don't see my brain map making it into any text book to demonstrate a 'normal' result, though. But, given time, who knows, maybe it will become 'normal' in the future.
This is one of many characteristics where there seem to be enormous individual differences, but also, a large degree of gene X environment interaction.
" Developmental Personality Disorder"?? Elaine, could you please inform us where in the DSM IV or other dignostic research, this "personality disorder' is? You of all people, not being at all able to see another's perspective, should not be throwing around clinical terms you do not understand. Fundamentalists of the Left and the Right can both be the most intolerant and arrogant people on the planet. But it is really upsetting when one side "diagnosis" the other as mentally ill.
I have studied all the theories of naturalistic views on Moral development and It is still perfectly explicated by CS Lewis: Yes, we have an instinct for self preservation and we have an instinct for helping others. If that were all we had, we would not find on a another level The Moral Impulse –that we aught to respond to the "weaker" instinct. We aught to, even at personal risk, obey the impulse to help, to be unselfish. "Well, this is because to be unselfish is to promote our gene pool!" What about those who are not of "our gene pool?" Why am I compelled to help my enemy?
With the recent defection of EO Wilson on 'kin selection' theory. We would be wise to re-look at Naom Chomsky's research that the language of grammer and also the moral aptitude are both hardwired from the beginning, with no evolutionary history. Just like the migratory birds who carry around in the heads star charts of the heavens, we have the abilities of language and moral sense, as a gift!
Borderline Personality Disorder, DSM IV. Simply Google the name and multiple
sites, identifying it as the DSM IV and describes the identifying manifestations.
It is a valid diagnosis
Evolution undermines objective morality; this notion is widespread in academic circles. Darwin taught this in The Descent of Man, and at the same time lauded "simpathy," as being what makes us human. Hitler and Marx rightly falted him for this contradiction to the "process" of Evolution, which is mindless emotionless indifference to suffering.
Michael Ruse, in a 1985 article co-authored with E. O. Wilson, wrote: "Ethics as we understand it is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to co-operate." The new atheists movement asks us to be enraged at the lack of moral intervention of God. It is a good point; we all struggle to understand many things. But the moral outrage regarding the unfairness in the world tell us more than many would want.
It affirms the sinful nature of man, because we don't lift a finger to do much to help and often the horrors of this planet are because of our selfishness. The moral outrage we have also affirms that ethics are not relative. There is objective good and evil. This of course is impossible in a naturalistic world view.
Darrel, you seem to be very confused….
Au contraire, mon frère. He makes very good sense. In a naturalistic world view there simply is no basis for labeling anything "good" or "evil."
I am noticing that no one is answering my questions!!!???
IS THERE A UNIVERSAL ATHEISTIC MORAL CODE?
My uneducated grandmother once said something profound to me. "Education without God will only make you articulate your foolishness better and make you appear wise when you are in fact foolish. true education is at the feet of Jesus" ( I'm paraphrasing)
They don't answer becauses there is no answer, except the one that will prove the errors of their way of thinking. How could there be an objective moral code among atheists, who (as they believe) arrived here by random processes? It could only be on the basis of consensus; majority opinion. An objective moral code could only come from a Being of a much higher order than ourselves. That would have to be God.
Is there a universal theistic moral code? No. I'm sorry I have to the one to tell Tapiwa and Jean that different theistic systems have different moral codes. So why would one expect a universal atheistic moral code? As for the moral code of Jesus, Christian are still arguing among themselves as to what it exactly includes. For example, is capitalism "moral" within a Christian context? I would suggest that it is not, but there are many Christians who are committed to capitalism.
You didn't answer Tapiwa's question, you just sidestepped it. On what basis, from an atheistic point of view, could there be any kind of objective moral code? There is no rationale for it. Being the product of random chance, everyone should be able to make their own rules, according to their own preferences. And whoever has the biggest weapons runs the show.
Jean, are you truly suggesting that if you weren't a Christian, you'd be running around raping, murdering, stealing, et al.?
I marvel at the mind that claims no god equals no morality. It takes a very special kind of thinking to ask the question you and Tapiwa do.
A very succinct answer to your question, which I echo in its totality, is as follows:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSYosM2ZhzY
If there were no God, therefore no objective standard of morality, how do any of us know what we might be doing? If "survival of the fittest" and natural selection are how we got here, how can anyone be dogmatic oas to what kind of morality would exist?
Hmmmm. Wouldn't it be wonderful to find reasons to not be dogmatic?
"Treat others as you wish to be treated" is probably not universal as a moral code among either theistic or atheistic circles, but it seems to be a widely held guiding principle.
"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to `bend' their observations to fit in with it. "—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin 31 (1980), p. 138.
"Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists, not because it has been observed to occur . . or can be proved by logical coherent evidence, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible." *D.M.S. Watson, "Adaptation," in Nature, Vol. 123, p. 233 (1929).
Every argument has two sides:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D._M._S._Watson
Famous Quote
This statement by Watson first appeared in an article entitled "Adaptation" for the journal Nature.[3] This quote is often utilized in Creationist publications and websites in an attempt to demonstrate that Watson, and thus by extension promoters of evolution in general, simply dismiss creationist viewpoints outright due to a presumed antitheistic bias. However, an examination of the article itself reveals that while Watson is somewhat diffident concerning several of the proposed explanations for and examples of evolutionary adaptation, it is his opinion that evolution has an overall explanatory power that is unmatched by any other competing explanation, including special creation. It is for this reason that Watson states near the beginning of his article in words echoing those quoted above that:
It is thus due to Watson's assessment of evolution has having an explanatory power for observations in biology superior to special creation that he labels special creation, as well as other alternatives, "incredible" and not from any predetermined dogmatic stance against creationism per se. One should finally note that although Watson's statements are supportive of theory of evolution, proponents of evolution themselves have found several aspects of his article as well as its use in current discussions on the status of evolution problematic.
Tim, no one is suggesting if “you are not a Christian
you will be immoral,” but that the moral impulse is
evidence of Our Creator. You can believe there is
no god and your heart will continue pump just fine.
You can even believe you have no organ called a heart
and it will continue to work. The same with the bundle of
hardware and software that we call conscience or moral
self, it will continue to work if you believe or not.
But if you educate and brainwash yourself to the
point that you attempt to override the moral software with
relativism then at some point you will begin to
loose touch with your sense of right and wrong
and convince yourself to do evil (Stalin and Timethy McVeigh).
Of course you can override the moral software the religion
brainwashing as well to do evil Inquizion and 9/11).
Unconvincing, Darrel.
Simple observation would demonstrate that religion and morals are often at odds.
Faithful Islamic believers have their own moral code, and their religion is their guide for morals. That disproves that morals and religion are in harmony.
What was the religion of the Israelites? What were their morals? What were the Christian morals that conducted the Crusades?
"moral impulse is evidence of Our Creator." Totally subjective and without evidence.
Why do so many scientist's accept evolution? Is it because they first consider the 2 opposing theories, creation and evolution, as the only possible theories of the origin of living things and then look at the scientific facts and see which theorey they best fit. Or is it that prior to looking at scientific facts scientists will not even considere creation as a possible theorey of origins for what ever reason. In other words they look at all scientific facts with their anti creation glassess. The next 2 quotes unfortunately show that it is the latter
"Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists, not because it has been observed to occur . . or can be proved by logical coherent evidence, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible." *D.M.S. Watson, "Adaptation," in Nature, Vol. 123, p. 233 (1929).
So now when scientists look at scientific facts the allways try to make them fit their pet theorey of eveolution, even 'bending' the facts to do so:
"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to `bend' their observations to fit in with it. "—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin 31 (1980), p. 138.
So now when students go to university and scientists tell them that evolution is a proven fact, who is being 'barin-washed?
What about all you 'Christian scientists'. Scientists will tell you that "creation is not science", do you agree with this statement?
"Particularly difficult to accept as chance processes are those prolonged changes which lead to a new lifestyle, such as the evolution of birds from reptiles or, perhaps odder, the return of mammals to a life in the sea, as in the case of dolphins and whales." *G.R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), p 160.
Even Stephen Jay Gould sees them as children's stories:
"What good is half a jaw or half a wing? . . These tales, in the 'Just So Stories' tradition of evolutionary natural history, do not prove anything . . concepts salvaged only by facile speculation do not appeal much to me." *Stephen Jay Gould, "The Return of Hopeful Monsters," Natural History, June/July, 1977
"I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption . . The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do. . For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom." *Aldous Huxley, " Confessions of a Professed Atheist," Report: Perspective on the News, Vol. 3, June, 1966 p. 19 [Grandson of evolutionist *Thomas Huxley and brother of evolutionist *Julian Huxley, *Aldous Huxley was one the most influential writers and philosophers of the 20th century.]
"Why do so many scientist's (sic) accept evolution? Is it because they first consider the 2 opposing theories, creation and evolution, as the only possible theories of the origin of living things and then look at the scientific facts?"
The poor, deluded scientists who have not first learned about Creationism, for had they, they would discard any possible evidence of evolution in favor of Creationism. You have demonstrated an amazing ignorance of how scientific facts are pursued.
Creationism is NOT scientific. It is a belief accepted on faith without evidence. Scientists do not approach their work like a true-false, or yes-no test: either this is true or it is false.
This reflects the attitude of many Christians: The truth of Creationism is not accepted by scientists because they do not consider it as a possible answer to the observed world. Their task is to understand how their observations of the natural world might have developed and they do not force it to fit into a pre-planned theory, unlike Creationists who must fit all discoveries into the Bible story of creation. This is pitting 21st century knowledge against ancient writings and if modern knowledge does not fit the Bible description, it is thrown out. Of course, supernatural events by their very nature can never be exposed to study.
"Creationism is NOT scientific. It is a belief accepted on faith without evidence. Scientists do not approach their work like a true-false, or yes-no test: either this is true or it is false."
This shows how little you know about evolutionary scientists or creation scientists. Most evolutionary scientists (I'm not talking about high school teachers and the like) have already decided that evolution is fact, and they will ignore or try to explain away any evidence to the contrary. Creation scientists are not trying to prove creation, per se, only show how the available evidence is consistent with the Biblical record.
Jean YEC appear to adopt two contradictory positions:
1. They say science proves the world is only 6,000 years old, not billions of years old.
2. They adopt a contradictory position, saying that science can't be trusted in any way as a source of truth, and we must just accept the Bible.
I would respectfully say you seem to oscilate between those contradictory views. Which is it – can we trust science or not?
Maybe some creation scientists claim that science "proves" that the earth is only 6000 years old. The majority of material that I've studied says merely that the evidence is consistent with an earth that is only 6000 years old, and that there are several factors which limit the upper limit of the age of the earth to a maximum of 10,000 years.
Speaking of inconsistencies; when these limiting factors are mentioned to hard core evolutionists they began to obfuscate by suggesting that maybe things were different in the past. Eh? I though uniformitarianism was the order of the day, the key to the past. If rates of erosion and deposition (or rotation and regression rates of the earth and moon, respectively), were different in the past, than how can they claim that radioactive decay rates have remained constant?
Creationists don't say that science can't be trusted as a source of truth, but, rather, when it contradicts Biblical truth, it can't be trusted.
Creationists don't say that science can't be trusted as a source of truth, but, rather, when it contradicts Biblical truth, it can't be trusted.
And the reasonable person says that if you think you see a contradiction, check your premises and you will find that one of them is wrong. As for which is wrong, I make no blanket statement, but given observable reality vs. 2,000 year old scrolls, it's pretty hard to make the case for the latter over the former, all things being equal.
Unless you're indoctrinated, of course. Or crazy.
Tim, the problem is not with the 2,000 year-old scroll – it is our modern reading of that 2,000 year old scroll. In many cases, we moderns are reading that 2,000 year-old scroll in a way the ancient author didn't actually intend.
Stephen, that's certainly a possibility, and one that no genuinely curious mind could dismiss out of hand. But… we should be cautious that we don't presuppose such a thing and do backflips in order to cram our observations into what we think "must" have been what the original authors had intended, just to maintain our world view.
Of course, most of the people around here can't even entertain the notion that the Bible might be flat out wrong in some places, so… not sure why I'm even bothering to engage, frankly. 🙂
Jean, respectfully I don't think you answered my question about your flip-flopping. Do we accept science as a form of 'truth' about the world or not? Yes or no?
I thought Jean was clear – he takes our traditional position: any human teaching that agrees with our position on what the Bible teaches is acceptable, anything that does not is false knowledge. As long as we are sure our position is correct, that is not an irrational position to hold. Once we start to doubt our position is correct, or discover it isn't, then we have a problem.
Just so I understand it. Jean isn't saying that if science and the Bible contradict, the Bible obviously trumps science. Rather, Jean is saying that if science and Jean's understanding of the Bible contradict, Jean's understanding of the Bible trumps science?
Is that right Jean?
Maybe some creation scientists claim that science "proves" that the earth is only 6000 years old. The majority of material that I've studied says merely that the evidence is consistent with an earth that is only 6000 years old, and that there are several factors which limit the upper limit of the age of the earth to a maximum of 10,000 years.
You know what's funny about this is that you're not just wrong, but you're completely wrong. There is no evidence consistent with an Earth that is only 6000 years old, and where the evidence demonstrates any ambiguity, there are several factors that set lower limits on the age of the Earth to no less than billions of years old.
This is not a trivial error on your part. It is the equivalent of believing that the distance from New York City to San Francisco is 8 yards (approximately 24 feet) despite the fact that this is demonstrably not the case. We can observe that the Earth is much, much older than 10,000 years old. Most Christians at least have the sense to recognize their error and find a way to reconcile observable reality with the words of an ancient book. It takes a, ah.. particularly "strong" mind to flat out ignore observable reality in favor of the 1st century words written by authors who had access to 1st century information, and it takes a really 'strong' mind to then argue against modern science by simply claiming that the 1st century thinkers were "inspired" and must therefore be correct somehow. It's literally like wielding the Flintstones cartoon against modern science, and it's just as hilarious.
Show me the evidence. I'm still waiting. It's all bilge and beanstalks. Why are you so committed to this bogus theory? Is it because it lets you off the hook, so that you have no accountability and can live as you please? According to one of the Huxley's (Julian, I believe) that's one of the reasons so many scientists jumped on the theory–it got rid of the "big bad God in the sky" (my words, not his).
You need to contact Dawkins. You're almost as militant as he is. He would love to have someone like you to help him evangelize the ignorant "Bible thumping fundamentalists." I have to wonder if folks like you and him are under conviction–sort of like Saul was when he went on his rampage against the church. I hope you both have a "Damascus Road" type experience.
Jean, may we have a biosketch from you? Maybe we can come to understand you better.
I laughed when I read that. Come on, Jean.
Radiometric dating is not bogus. It's real. There are a dozen different ways to do it and they all point to the same place with margins of error being between 2 and 5%. Rubidium-strontium dating, samariam-neodymium dating, potassium-argon dating, radiocarbon dating, uranium-thorium dating, iodine-xenon — the list goes on, to say nothing of helioseismic dating of the sun and corroborating radiometric dating of the Canyon Diablo meteorite, et al.
When I was Adventist and before I started asking the hard questions, people naturally used to bring it up to me as well (I've always loved debate). "What about radiometric dating, Tim?" And invariably, almost reflexively, I'd reply that "well, there's obviously something wrong with it that we just can't perceive yet." I practically blush when I think back on all the times I gave that BS answer. What profound ignorance on my part, to say nothing of the fact that it's got to be one of the biggest intellectual copouts ever.
I wish there were a loving God — I'm not sure why you guys seem to think that we atheists simply want to do away with the notion outright. A loving, all powerful God who by grace through simple faith will grant us eternal life? You'd have to be crazy to wish that weren't so. But unfortunately, given all that is observable and demonstrable about the world we live in, you'd have to be crazy to believe it.
And I've met Dawkins. Got most of his books on my bookshelf, and a few of them are signed. Sharp guy.
Tim,
You said: "What about radiometric dating, Tim?" And invariably, almost reflexively, I'd reply that "well, there's obviously something wrong with it that we just can't perceive yet." I practically blush when I think back on all the times I gave that BS answer."
It is OK Tim. I did the same thing to my shame. Now after becoming a scientist I use and teach radiotracing in modern biomedical science. I make the students to calculations using the decay constants and how much radioactive material will be left if their samples "get lost in the mail for a few years." The decay constants are remarkable in their predictive utility.
Like you I am stunned that people think that 2000 + yr old scrolls somehow are reliable with regards to documenting the age of the earth and the amount of time that resident life has existed.
I no longer know what to say to those who are comitted to their atheism. Only a spiritual tsunami has even a ghost of a chance of getting through.
The flaws in radiometric dating are well-documented. Those who are blindly committed to evolution just discount the discrepancies, and ridicule those who point them out.
The flaws in radiometric dating are well-documented. Those who are blindly committed to evolution just discount the discrepancies, and ridicule those who point them out.
You've got my full attention, Jean. To what well-documented flaws in radiometric dating are you referring?
No time tonight, but I'll get back to you on that, if not tomorrow, then maybe this weekend. They are numerous, but I have to dig out my resources.
One piece of evidence is found in Feldspar. It contains potassium-40, which decays into argon-40. It leaks out of the Feldspar slowly under normal conditions, but quite rapidly when subjected to hight heat. In a given sample it is impossible to know the conditions to which it was subjected in the past, based simply on present conditions. This leads to enormous errors in calculations of the age of a particular sample. In one sample it was found that all of the argon should have been gone within a million years (based on the current temperatures where the sample was found). But the amount of argon still present was consistent with an age of just over 5000 years.
And why is it that rock from the lava dome at Mt. St. Helens (which erupted in 1980–I know; I was there in 1980) has been dated (by the K-Ar method) at 350,000-500,000 years old, when we know it was formed 30 years ago? And how about lava flows from Mt. Ngauruho in NZ? They've been "dated" at up to 3.5 million years, but it erupted in 1949, 1954, and 1975. There are many more examples. If they can't get it rate on samples of known age, how can we be so sure they've got it right on samples of unknown age?
And why are the findings from RATE discounted? Simply because they are creationists?
I thought it was accepted long ago that melting rock does not re-set the clock to zero. So any igneous rock containing pre-existing material could appear to be older than the event that 'created' it.
My understanding is that it does re-set the clock to zero, but it is somewhat complicated. It is not unusual, when "dating" lava flows, to find that recent lava flows ages even older than the deeply buried lava flows. That would seem to call into to question the reliability of the dating methods. The K–Ar method works on the assumption that the “clock” begins to “tick” the moment that the rock hardens. That is, it assumes that no argon derived by radioactive decay was present initially, but after the lava cooled and solidified, the argon from radioactive decay was unable to escape and started to accumulate. The argon should be driven out by the intense heat; but there is too much argon present, which is why they "dated" so old. Where did it come from? Inherited from magma deep within the earth? "Parent" argon is indistinguishable from "daughter" argon, so the whole thing begins to get confused.
Jean,
To dismiss all who do not accept the YEC as "committed to atheism" is blantan prejudice for any who do not agree with your concepts; never considering that
they are committed to truth wherever it leads. It is difficult and frustrating for Creationists that scientists, unlike believers, do not adopt a permanent position but are always open to new information that might lend additional information.
This is not possible with those who are entrenched in a six-day, 6,000 year Creation. There will never be anything new that disturbs this certainty.
I agree. The thing is, the Bible itself in Romans 2 says we should also observe the world, as a source of divine law – natural law. If natural law suggests the world is not merely 6,000 years, and the Bible has possible interpretations, then as a matter of logic and reason the Bible interpretation that fits natural law is the correct one.
I submit the problem is not with the ancient writings of the Bible. The problem is with people's preconceived interpretations of the Bible. People say that they believe in Creationism because they claim the Bible says so, but if you actually study it cleary – it doesn't. Sure, 6×24 hr is one possible interpretation, but there is sufficient ambiguity that there are also other possible interpretations.
"Evolution . . is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is growing dissent from the prevailing view of Darwinism." James Gorman, "The Tortoise or the Hare?" Discover, October 1980, p. 88.
"Evolution is perhaps unique among major scientific theories in that the appeal for its acceptance is not that there is evidence of it, but that any other proposed Interpretation of the data is wholly incredible." *Charles Singer, A Short History of Science of the Nineteenth Century. 1941.
"Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation." *Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (1981), p. 19.
"Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation." *Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (1981), p. 19.
Can someone prove a negative? Neither does anyone have proof that life was the result of an act of creation.
But give it a try, we'll read your response.
I agree that there is no proof that life did not originate with special creation. Nor is there evidence that it did.
What is clear is that life did not begin 6000 years ago, and that fossils exist of ages varying from a few thousand to many millions of years ago. Each form could have been specially created in its own time and place, using similar forms as prototypes (or something).
Can someone prove a negative?
Yes Elaine you can. It happens all the time in Forensic Science and criminal Investigations. If you have a good allaby and your DNA does not match the sample taken from the Crime Scene, you can prove you didn't kill someone.
Peter, you realize that every last one of your citations is at least 29 years old, and that several are 50-70 years old, right? Do you have -any- idea how much we've learned and how much our understanding has grown in that time?
Random quotes from people expressing doubt 50 years ago about the theory of evolution aren't doing much to convince those of us who are more or less up to speed on present information, which, as Joe indicates below, is expanding so rapidly that keeping up is virtually impossible. To put it in perspective, humanity has published more scientific documents and data in the past 50 years than it has throughout all previous human history combined.
If the murderer left no DNA, it does not prove that he was not guilty. Criminals are getting smarter all the time.
" BioLogos recently invited a number of Southern Baptist biblical scholars to publish essays critical of the BioLogos perspective on the BioLogos website, in order to foster mutual understanding. Falk wrote. "We must recognize that we will never reach the point where we all see Scripture the same way. When there is division in the church, it will be difficult for the thirsty to find their way to Jesus."
I think this is great that these folks are open-minded. It's not usually the case. I can't help but notice that Wood generally stayed among his own group while Falk did not. Don't you think they were both influenced by their peers?
So, why not simply recognize that things vary across time, some things vary a lot, and others not so much. One can see what sort of evidence exists for variation regarding, essentially, any variable. "Uniformitarianism" need not be a fundamental assumption at all. If there is objective evidence for variation and some understanding of patterns and possible causes of variation, fine. Use that evidence to try to help understand things. I would say, do not make up the answers in advance and don't make unfounded assumptions. Speculation? I don't care how much you speculate or hypothesize–just be prepared to recognize evidence that could falsify your guesses. Be just as prepared to acknowledge evidence that is contrary to your hypotheses as you are to accept evidence that is supportive of your guesses. Let the evidence lead wherever it does.
"things vary across time, some things vary a lot, and others not so much. One can see what sort of evidence exists for variation," This is so true Joe. It is so true that there are hardly any adherents to the intransmutablity of species any more. So must "creationists" have let the evidence lead in this area.
This is not the issue now; the issue is more fundamental as to the 'mechanism' of said variation. Is variation pre-programmed into the computer code of life (latent in the epigenetic mechanisms of adaptation that the Creator placed in the genome), or does it arise by mutation of existing code or is it a natural vitalism that is emergent due to natural properties? The later is a philosophic mysticism and untestable. The former two are testable. Joe, you seem to think 'variation' means 'mutation' and selection. As if one proves the other. We all know that there is no research or observation of mutations producing new functional organs or organisms. As we are beginning to decode the workings of emigenetic programs for adaptation, I predict that the Pre-programming of variation will be validated more and more every year.
Variation is variation, regardless of its causes or consequences. Variation is observable. It is measurable.
No, there should be no confusion between variation and selection. I certainly do not think variation means selection.
Variation IS the raw material required for selection. Without variation there would be nothing to select.
With variation, selection can happen, but I would not say that it MUST happen.
But, where does variation originate? Yes, from replication errors (what have been called "mutations"), but many of these are now known not to simply be random "accidental" failures to replicate correctly. Many are now known to be the result of insertions, deletions, and translocations caused by mobile elements, at least some of which are fragments from retroviruses. So, there are many causes of genetic/genomic change that can produce variation.
I get it that you do not think the changes are anything other than pre-programed, and apparently you are committed to that belief. My advise is, believe it as long as you can if that makes you feel like you understand it.
The thing is, Darrel, it does not matter at all to me what you choose to believe. If you ever become willing to actually examine the current literature and status of knowledge of genomic sciences without having your mind made up ahead of time as to what you will find, you might actually learn something. And you would not need any help with that from me.
As long as you are not open to learning anything that does not fit within your inflexible cognitive matrix you will not grow or change, and since you clearly are not interested in changing your mind about anything, I'm sure you are fine with that. Me too. Believe whatever you like for as long as you can. No problem. But there is no point in discussing anything with you if you are unable to consider anything but what you are already committed to.
There is no current liturature demonstrating "horizonal gene transfer" which happens at lower levels; (you are right on this as far as I can tell.) to produce new organs or organisms. There is no current liturature demonstrating this or mutation, or simple variation producing new organs and new organism. I am not trying to be "inflexable," this is the evidence that Evolutionary theory demands, and at least in "this approach" it as been falsified.
Sorry, Darrel, you are just going to have to look at the literature yourself. You are placing an impossible criterion of new organs or new species in order to bolster your claim (not actually YOUR claim–that of those who you read and take seriously). No one makes the claim that such a thing can or would happen. I seriously doubt you, when you claim to have read all the relevant literature. I certainly haven't, and probably few people could accurately make such a statement. The words would hardly be out of their mouths before another relevant paper was published. If you really WANT to learn, you have to actually be open to learning.
who knows if the deamons seeds the origins for all sorts of evil ideals. (He's got knowlegde about the scriptures and also genetics) the fact that any of us come down with a research stating that some species have some similarities with us on their genetic structure doesn't mean anything against out HEAVENLY FATHER creation. 'cause we don't know the accurate process, But our God does. HE CREATED US IN THE SIXTH DAYS. Also take into account what it's bein revealed in acts 17: 28 'For in him we live and move and have our being.' Do you remember how the carbon 14 or 15 works? I won't say GOD never allow us to learn and disclose information
but sometimes many times we're wrong. PLEASE we shouldn't stand for science don't turn it into a god.
Nicolas, please don't take this the wrong way — I'm truly not trying to be rude or make an ad hominem attack, as I'm confident I could engage you effectively without lowering myself to that — but… have you been diagnosed with schizophrenia (or are you on medication for a related psychiatric disorder?). I ask as somebody with a modicum of psychology education.
It's not a false statement to suggest that human race is deteriorating in it's condition. When God brought the first man they used to live at least more than 800 years and you'll see along with the bible how we are nowadays living to the point of not surpassing the 90 years. 100 is an exceptional case. I think that something terrible happened before noah's flood and society at those days posses the technology to manipulate genes and make unnatural mixtures of species races and even sex gender and they've gone too far.God knows everything. I'm agreed with creationism. God created us and that's it. Now scientifical proof also support this truth. Besides science can play tricks on us as well…
*sigh*
Sad! But what can you do? How can you have a reasonable conversation with such . . .? The frightening thing is: How many of our co-religionists share Mr. Persequino's understanding?
s
It is indicative of how deceived many professed Christians have become when comments like Mr. Perseguino's are ridiculed. "God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie." II Thess. 2:11.
Dont' let them intimidate you, Nicolas.
What I take from this is that Dr. Taylor, Tim, and their "co-religionists" don't believe in much of what is written in Genesis. And they don't believe much of what Ellen White wrote. Very sad. I sigh with Tim, but for different reasons.
So Jean God is sending us "strong delusions"? How do you know? Maybe God is sending delusions to you as well as me? The biblical script is almost comical in some ways. Suggesting that God is going to intentionally confuse us. Why? Because we question? Because we do not park our skeptical intellect at the door?
Well, it's one of those instances when God is said to do that which He simply does not prevent. Those who refuse to see the light of truth in Scripture will not be sheltered from the delusions of the last days. But I don't expect the skeptics and unbelievers to believe that, of course. Those who have fortified their minds with the truths of Scripture will be able to detect the deceptions. But those who maintain that Scripture is not plain, but can be understood this way or that, will be easily deceived. To them the Bible is like shifting sand.
I haven't parked my brain at the door. I'm skeptical by nature. That's why I don't buy into the evolutionary theory. It's so full of holes that I can only conclude that those (especially professed Christians) who cling to it are bewitched.
Bewitched? Really?
Jean suggests that certain individuals — skeptics, unbelievers, and evolutionists — are "deluded" and "bewitched." Now, of course, Jean can not be "betwitched" or "deluded." Why? It is because he has seen "the light of truth in Scripture." Thus, we are to conclude that anyone who has the benefit of the "light of truth in Scripture" is not duluted or bewitched. Hmm. I recall that the most knowledgable people on earth who knew, backwards, and forward every "jot and tittle" of their Bible were the most insistant in having Jesus executed. Somehow their great knowledge of Scripture did not provide them with any great insights.
I think I can predict Jean's response. People whose religious views are not in agreement with him are "really" not benefiting from the light of truth in Scripture. Jean's arrogance is certainly in clear evidence here.
Please pardon my visceral response to the "bewitched" allegation. One of my ancestors was accused and convicted at Salem. She was fortunate to avoid execution, but her sisters were not so fortunate–both were executed. The accuser of one of her sisters (Rebecca Nurse) was her son-in-law. Now, this was not the first time, nor would it be the last, that a man accused his mother-in-law of being a witch, but few such allegations were taken as seriously.
No matter how holy you are, Jean, I would advise not tossing around accusations of witchcraft or "bewitching." I would recommend that you seek some professional help, if you are as paranoid as you seem.
I was't suggesting any involvement with witchcraft. But when the devil deludes people I think "bewitched" is an appropriate term.
I'm not sure why it would be considered paranoia to believe that the devil has fooled a lot of people. He's been doing it for 6000 years; or would that be 6,000,000 years? I guess we really can't be sure, can we? After all, the Bible is quite ambiguous on these things. We're so fortunate to have agnostic and atheistic scientists avaliable to tell us what God really meant in Genesis 1.
The level of unbelief among professed Christians (particularly Adventists) is astounding.
My best guess is that satan does not exist–that he is a human invention to personify "evil." Just to clarify, I certainly do not admire or worship the devil, no matter what you may think, Jean. But, of course, you are free to suspect that I am a lying infidel, as you likely will, in your own paranoid way.
I guess this is one thing which I might disagree a little bit–a tiny little bit– with Joe. I agree that humans invented most of the things that we attribute to a Satan figure and that the ancient Hebrews did not have a Satan figure. Also, the Adverntist master myth–the Great Controversy–needs a Satan figure to make it work. However, it would not surprise me if there is an actual, fundamental dark side to parts of reality. Does this "dark side" have some type of embodiment? I don't know. I suggest that being an agnostic on this subject has an advantage. Most evil that humans carry out needs no help from some supposed supernatural source–we do it all by ourselves. On the other hand, I wonder . . .
Evil lies in the human heart; but by giving it a name, it deflects from us to an entity outside us. The tree of knowledge of good and evil was labeled by the early writers as their explanation of the opposite of good which is in all of us.
It is no coincidence that the expression, "The devil made me do it" is often the excuse for our own wrong acts.
Jean,
Do you believe in demon/devil possession? What does bewitched mean?
Do you believe that someone can be possessed by the devil? By suggesting the possibility, would that not lead to someone being accused and requiring exorcism to remove the demon?
Do you know someone who was exorcised? I do, and for her it was a SDA pastor who put her through a 17-hr. ordeal resulting in her nervous breakdown (as would most anyone in such a horrible situation).
She was convinced by SDAs that she was demon possessed–which is the natural result that can result by such accusations. You're getting awfully close to accusations of demon possession.
There is certainly some 'unbeleif', but I would argue that often it is simply different belief, not unbelief. The person who believes that God inspired the Bible to be the foundation of Christian belief and practice, but never intended it to be taken literally in all cases, is as much a believer as the one who believes God inspired the very words of the Bible and so each must be taken literally. They simply believe different things.
We see that in the dispute over women's ordination, where both sides quote the Bible, while insisting the other side is not 'biblical', or does not 'believe the Bible'. Perhaps we will get further in understanding one another when we admit that in most cases our 'opponents' are believers and are acting on what they sincerely beleive the Bible teaches. We don't have to admit they are right, but we could stop calling each other names.
I agree. It is frustrating when people assume their interpretation of the Bible is the Bible, and any other interpretation of the Bible is somehow against the Bible.
Um Ervin, how about more charity and toleration, and less ego!!
Unbelievable…. And yet, you have seen it here.
🙂
I love this web site.
Sorry Mr. Foster and Co., I can't not look. It's fascinating.
It reminds me of the TV show in the B&W days… Art Linkletter.. Kids say the darndest things.
It cracks me up.
Cheers
And we know its origins.
When citations regarding being "delusional" are mentioned, none of us seems to apply them to ourselves….
Interesting comments I notice that there is still no answer for an objective morale code. I will assume at this time that there none and that atheists simply borrow some tenents of morality from their religious counterparts.
Stephen insinuates that Moses might have meant that the days in Genesis 1 are much longer and that the meaning of days is ambiguous. Firstly there is no biblical evidence to suggest that they are anything other than a literal morning and evening. Such intrpretation is speculative at best and can only be interpreted as such by someone with a prior adherence to evolution.
Are all interpretations equally valid? I mean seriously? Stephen insinuates that as a probability. Theistic evolution, I believe opens a pandora's box. Ervine is not sure if a literal devil exists!! I would be most interested in his Gospel paradigm!! The Bible says in the last days that most in the world would be decieved and yet we think we are enlightened. those who are in a business of doubting everything ( logically impossible) rarely actually doubt the doubting! I believe that the majority of the world is delusional and I know it may sound bigoted elitist or whatever but I am always consistent and logical within my belief system.
I sense we are entering into a sort of neo relativism and we seem to think that when the truth is revealed all will get into line. Most people will actually reject truth when it is presented to them hence the whole sending of delusions!
So Mr stephen What does the bible actully say? not my interpretation not yours what does the bible actually? how do you know that your view of Christ and the Gospel is simply not your own intepretation? shaky ground is it not?
"Stephen insinuates that Moses might have meant that the days in Genesis 1 are much longer and that the meaning of days is ambiguous. Firstly there is no biblical evidence to suggest that they are anything other than a literal morning and evening. Such intrpretation is speculative at best and can only be interpreted as such by someone with a prior adherence to evolution."
Tapiwa, if a 6 x 24 hr view is so evidence, please answer the following question (which I mentioned on Jack’s article), which must surely be very easy for you to answer, if what you say is true:
I am happy to be corrected on any of these problems. As I have said before, I am still an agnostic on the age of the earth. However, these are problems in the biblical text itself, which call into question the YEC view, let alone having to look at the scientific evidence. Do you have rational explanations for these questions, or do you just 'believe in the boosom' as Mormons teach for belief in the book of Mormon?
Most of your questions are akin to the one about how Cain got his wife. They show a lack of understanding, not only of Scripture, but unwarranted assumptions on your part. Nothing in the Genesis narrative suggests that Adam only took 24 hours to name the animals. Neither can one assume that there were "billions" of species. The richness of gene pool was most likely much greater than it is now. There needn't have been more than 1 kind of dog, or cat. The same would apply to many other "species" that we have today. The diversity within the domestic dog is a good example of the possibilities within a particular "kind." If the Chihuahua and the Great Dane were found as fossils, it would be assumed that the smaller dog was the ancestser of the larger one. As for Cain fearing persecution; no timeline is given. We don't know how old he or Abel were when he murdered him. The Scripture says that Adam begat sons and daughters. Except for Seth, it doesn't say when. The bit about yom has been explained over and over. I will not repeat it now.
Most of the rest of those questions are hardly worthy of a response. It's mere quibbling. They've been answered by others numerous times. And I need to be off to work.
Of course there were not "billions" of species, but there were surely millions, unless you seriously believe the great diversity of species is of VERY recent origin. Do you seriously think speciation occurred on a vast scale since creation or the flood? The diversity within the domestic dog is diversity within a species, the creation of breeds by artificial selection and cross breeding is not at the same level as between species within genera. There is some confusion in what you mean by "kind." Among other things…. It is just a story!
"Nothing in the Genesis narrative suggests that Adam only took 24 hours to name the animals."
Adam names all the animals before Eve was created. (Gen 2:19-22).
Both sexes, male and female, were created on the 6th day. (Gen 1:27; Gen 1:31).
That is how I read it literally? Please explain your statement, given it appears to be contrary to the plain reading of Gen 2:19-22 with Gen 1:27-31.
How long is the day when the Bible uses this phrase: "The day of the Lord,"
or Peter's statement that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years is as a day, or the prophecies in Daniel where "day" and "days" is interpreted as years? When "day" in the Bible could be 24-hr.-periods; a year; or a thousand years, and no time given for the "day of the Lord"?
There's entirely too much ambiguity and confusion to be convincing on any interpretations. But ambiguity is the playground of assumptions.
"Such intrpretation is speculative at best and can only be interpreted as such by someone with a prior adherence to evolution."
I actually think you are on the wrong side of history. Many Early Church Fathers, such as Augustine and Origen, questioned a 6 x 24hr view. Origen quite famously noted that it was absurd to think the days literal 24 hr days when the sun and moon weren't even created until day 4. You might personally disagree, but it kills your argument that only someone with a prior adherence to evolution would challenge the YEC model. Both Augustine and Origen pre-dated Charles Darwin by over a 1,000 years.
The fundamentalist way of reading Gen is actually quite a new method of the last few centuries.
"Theistic evolution, I believe opens a pandora's box."
Perhaps, but that is no proof of truth or error. The Bible is full of inconvenient truths. Jeremiah told the Jews to surrender to Babylon and Paul told Jews that circumcission was no longer required were two such truths that turned the established religion upside down.
There is no need for a 'theistic evolution' model due to the fact that evolution itself is falling apart. We have discussed in these blogs the importance of testability of a theory to determine its possible validity. The phylogenetic relationships (the trees) that adorn many textbooks are explained by mutation selection, or Intelligently Designed Front-loaded development. The trees themselves do not direct us one way or another—that job would fall on the on-going revelations of Genetics.
Well, it seems that Genetics is hacking away at the tree itself. The consistent picture that evolutionists expected for genetic studies to demonstrate the evolutionary relationships –is dead wrong. What we have instead is something of a mess, as James Degnan and Noah Rosenberg made clear in a paper published in 2009. http://www.stanford.edu/group/rosenberglab/papers/DegnanRosenberg2009-TREE.pdf
Many of the first studies to examine the conflicting signal of different genes have found considerable discordance across gene trees: studies of hominids, pines, cichlids, finches, grasshoppers and fruit flies have all detected genealogical discordance is so widespread that no single tree topology predominates.
And despite consistent attempts to portray this as something less than a crisis for evolutionary theory, the news found its way into the popular press. That same year, The Telegraph jumped on the story with an article titled, "Charles Darwin's tree of life is 'wrong and misleading,' claim scientists.” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/4312355/Charles-Darwins-tree-of-life-is-wrong-and-misleading-claim-scientists.
In the words of evolutionary biologist Eric Bapteste, "If you don't have a tree of life, what does it mean for evolutionary biology? At first it's very scary–but in the past couple of years people have begun to free their minds." According to philosopher of biology John Dupré, it's all "part of a revolutionary change in biology. Our standard model of evolution is under enormous pressure.”
The latest attempt to deal with this disconfirmation of evolution is appeal to Some will 'horizonal gene transfer'; 'it's not a tree, it's a bush!' Tangled thicket. Horizonal gene transfer is a reality at lower levels and does confer advantage of infusing 'variation' into a gene pool that might be useful, but does not expain "new organs and new organisms" appearing on the scene. My question is, when are they going to get rid of the "evolutionary trees" in our textbooks? Never! Another question is: why would we want to move toward a theistic-evolution model at the very time in history when that how project is unraveling.
If "evolution is falling apart" why has it gone unnoticed except for a few, very few
Creationists who have little or no credibility in the scientific world and end up talking only among themselves and a cadre of dedicated believers?
Jesus didn't have much credibility in the religious world in His day; but He was right and they were wrong. Throughout history the majority has usually been wrong, even among scientists. Although scientific methodology has improved, scientists are not nearly as objective as they would like us to believe. This is particularly true when it comes to the subject at hand.
You know, you have to discriminate between evidence and interpretation of and speculation about evidence. Scientists do a lot of interpreting and speculating and arguing among themselves about what evidence means. It is part of the process. Sadly, for lay people trying to understand, journalists, and even textbook authors sometimes, treat the interpretations and even the speculations as if they were facts–well, it is a fact that so-and-so makes such-and-such speculative claims, but explaining things and getting things correct are not necessarily congruent. And many evolutionary biologists write and speak as if their explanations are the only possible explanations when they are not. Some scientists are less objective than others. Some explanations are more valid than others. Many scientists learn to take these speculations with a grain or more of salt, without discarding objective evidence. Sadly, some people have a really hard time distinguishing between objective evidence and speculative explanations.
Don't expect more of science than science expects of itself.
The above citations are not ID or Creationists.
Those who expect Darwin to be omniscient or to be a prophet doom themselves to disappointment. Figuring out how evolution worked is an ongoing process, entirely open to revision on the basis of new evidence. The picture you paint, Darrel, betrays a deep ignorance of how science progresses. I think some of the people quoted above are quite correct in pointing out the need to revise some concepts that have been held too tightly.
Thank you Joe, so do you think in light of the
new genetic finding the ‘evolutionary tree’ in
textbooks are going to be removed? If not, why not?
Remember, "tree" is an analogy, based on branching and speciation, which does not show the ends of branches sometimes growing back together, as actually happens with differentiation of populations that sometimes merge back together. The tree is an analogy, and it is not a PERFECT one in every detail. At the same time, it is not rediculous either. So maybe people will still use a tree analogy and use that to also discuss, to the extent appropriate, the limitations of the analogy. Of course, on a real tree, it is not as if there is never any sort of interaction among the ends of the branches. Pollination occurs, for example.
So, I take it that inspite of the fact that the "analogy" of the evolutionary tree is invalidated, it will stay?
Invalidated? Baloney!
James Degnan and Noah Rosenberg made clear in a paper published in 2009
""Many of the first studies to examine the conflicting signal of different genes have found considerable discordance across gene trees: studies of hominids, pines, cichlids, finches, grasshoppers and fruit flies have all detected genealogical discordance is so widespread that no single tree topology predominates.""
http://www.stanford.edu/group/rosenberglab/papers/DegnanRosenberg2009-TREE.pdf
"Charles Darwin's tree of life is 'wrong and misleading,' claim scientists.” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/4312355/Charles-Darwins-tree-of-life-is-wrong-and-misleading-claim-scientists.
Darrel, you are grasping at straws. What is required in response to new evidence is revision, not discarding all existing evidence. You are too anxious to find something wrong–and use that to chuck the whole concept BECAUSE your entire goal is chucking the whole concept regardless of what is actually true. You are not searching for truth at all. You KNOW all that anyone NEEDS to know. Everyone else is a fool, right?
So, you are quick to embrace anything said by anyone if it agrees with your profound bias.
Up A Tree Without A Paddle
Kevin Peterson teamed up with Lorenzo Sempere, then a graduate student working with Ambros at Dartmouth, researched microRNAs in relatively simple invertebrates and then in more complex creatures. As they added more microRNAs, they found a clear pattern: “the farther away from the trunk of the evolutionary tree the animals were, the more microRNAs they had accumulated.” Sempere, L. F., Cole, C. N., McPeek, M. A. & Peterson, K. J. J. Exp. Zool. B Mol. Dev. Evol. 306, 575–588 (2006). They discovered “a brand new way to do phylogeny, using a set of genomic characters that no one had ever considered before,” But they realized, “It could well be the end of all our careers.” Peterson, K. J., Dietrich, M. R. & McPeek, M. A. Bioessays 31, 736–747 (2009). Heimberg, A. M., Cowper-Sal·lari, R., Sémon, M., Donoghue, P. C. J. & Peterson K. J. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 19379–19383 (2010). Why did they feel it might end their careers??? Why are the trees still in the text books even though that model has been falsified? The reason some continue to tell the story of Ellen White holding-out at arms length for hours that huge family Bible—because “our narrative” is more important than the truth. We all need to speak more honestly with each other.
Am I misunderstanding something here? Are you saying that Ellen White didn't hold up that Bible while in vision? That the story was fabricated? There were eyewitnesses.
I hate to have to tell Jean that the story of EGW holding in her outstretched arm a large Bible for an extended period of time while in one of her visionary states is almost certainly indeed a myth,, i.e., it probably never happened. The first time it is mentioned is about 45 years after the supposed event in a book by J. N. Loughborough. There is no contempoary account of it happening. The vision is related as occuring in 1845. Loughborough wrote his book in the 1890s and accepted the statements of two individuals made to him in the 1890s of something they remembered as happening in 1845. You can draw your own conclusion of whether you want to believe the story.
I have no proof; it’s what my gut tells me!
Because the explanations given for the evidence found are not yet sufficiently convincing to overturn previous understanding. Not everything happens overnight, and not every explanation is adequate. Things are not always as they may at first seem. Lots of times more thought and more evidence clarifies how new data relate to older data. So, don't hold your breath waiting for systematists to stop using cladograms or referring to "evolutionary trees."
And I should add that discordance between trees based on different measures is not so unusual. Different trees are often presented/compared in publications. All this is an attempt to understand the process. And, yes, the processes of gene flow provide interesting food for thought and opportunities to refine understanding. The thing is, there is nothing in the work you cite that suggests even slightly that evolution did not occur–only that parts of the process were not as had been expected based on previous knowledge. One could aptly say that some of Darwin's ideas about evolution have turned out not to be supported by evidence. Others sometimes defensively argue that Darwin's concepts were remarkable for their time, and I think that is true. Even so, Darwin lived long before anything was known about either population or molecular genetics. Why would we expect his ideas to be prescient? Was he a prophet? I don't think so.
So, I think honest people have some obligation to keep an open mind to emerging evidence. We need to be prepared to accept new evidence, even tentatively, as it emerges. It will not always fit neatly with what we think we know. There is great freedom in following the evidence and giving it critical consideration, rather than jumping too quickly to abandon well established concepts. Just consider the evidence on its actual merits, don't try to make everything some sort of critical componant of "The Great Controversy."
Darrel,
You are off with the fairies mate… I have just read the link about "trees" that you posted (link below) and you have totally missed thier point.
They are not saying the tree model has come to an end at all. They are discusssing how the "topology" (shape of the branch tops if you like) is being altered – not how the three is being cut down.
Note: "Here we describe how gene tree discordance (topological discordance) can be predicted under a widely used evolutionary model, the coalescent, applied to multiple species."
Now notice one small point of how they apply some of their concepts:
"What branch lengths on species trees occur in real data? For the species tree (((HC)G)O) for human, gorilla, chimpanzee and orangutan, using an estimated time from the gorilla divergence to the split between humans and chimps of 1.2 million years, and Ne/2 = 24 600 individuals (= 49 200 for the number of autosomal gene copies) and a generation time of 20 years [30], this value corresponds to 1 200 000/60 000 generations and, therefore, to 60 000/49 200 1.2 coalescent time units. A similar calculation yields
I just realized the last part of my post didn't make it in somehow. The last sentence should end thus:
"A similar calculation yields 4.2 coalescent time units separating the branch leading to orangutans from the most recent common ancestor of humans, chimpanzees and gorillas."
I suggest you read the whole thing again!
This is becoming a verbal mobius strip. How we got from there to here is a fool's guess.
Jean, about that heavy Bible Ellen held, the last time I heard it the Bible weighed at least 50 pounds, and she didn't hold it just for two hours but 10 and yes, it was a vision 😉 Remember, she went to one of the planets in vision so holding a heavy Bible was not so unusual. Have'nt you been to another planet?
“the fairies” ?
Darrel,
iow you are not thinking straight. Maybe that's an Aussie saying?
That’s OK Mate.
*Sigh*
If anyone wanted to know why I continue to call myself an agnostic on the age of the earth, trying to follow the above recent comments, with the incomprehensible scientific speak, it reason why. Evolutionary trees….? I don't understand and not sure if I would bother wanting to.
As I have repeatedly said, I am happy to leave the science to the scientists. Please someone tell me later who wins, and what science I should accept as the best explanation.
As an Australian, the comment about being off with the fairies was about the only thing I did understand.
Here is the deal. People have thought that because some animals that are not thought to be related (fish, frogs and dogs), are in fact related because of certain shared features. This is called homology. For example, fish, frogs and dog have five digits or five bones in the hands or fins. One can find the frequencies in common features and line them up accordingly. It is like connecting the dots game, except here you make a little tree (fish, frogs and dogs) could be a branch and pond slim and single celled bugs would be the trunk. This 'tree building all has to agree with the sequence actually seen in the fossil record. This is another ‘can-of-worms,’ do you say this in Oz? — ‘another problem’ for evolution and YEC is the fossil record. But at any rate, the tree of connections between “lower lever’ and ‘higher level’ creatures is the problem we are discussing here is that the genetic information of the creatures on these trees does not line-up with the trees.
An scientist in Nature, Elie Dolgin wrote: "At first, Peterson was shocked by his results. But he has spent the past year validating his tree with gene-expression libraries and genomic sequences, all of which he says support his findings." He's being extra careful, because "If we get this wrong, all faith that anyone has in microRNAs trees (phylogenetics) will be lost.”
The reactions of other scientists have been entertaining:
In fact, this is all old news really. Since the first molecular studies with proteins like cytochrome C and other molecules, reserchers have repeatedly generated trees that conflict with each other depending on the marker used. Over and over, they have had to explain away these observations. There is so much wiggle room in the methods that some have invoked epicycle-style fudge factors like "rate heterogeneity" (molecular clocks ticking at different rates) to keep the data in sync with the theory.
No one gets to just "explain away" data. "We don't know yet" from one of the reviewers strikes me as the most honest review.
Let me ask. Who says anyone, including scientists, has to know all facts or understand all data or concepts equally or completely? And if understanding is incomplete (which it almost always is), does that mean that no evidence has value? Or that any speculation or hypothesis or conjecture is pointless?
I served as an editor for two scientific journals, the American Journal of Primatology and National Geographic RESEARCH. Both were very carefully peer reviewed. It is not at all uncommon for scientific reviewers to disagree about the value or importance of someone else's work. That is part of the process of science. Remember, not many people thought continental drift was real as recently as 50 years ago. Oops!
I forgot for a moment that there are people who still regard that concept as unproven scientific fraud.
[Why are we getting everything in italics?]
Perhaps it would be helpful to some to read a brief commentary entitled "The Species Concept in Primates," published in the current issue of the American Journal of Primatology. The author is Professor Colin Groves, of Australian National University in Canberra, Australia. If you do not have access to the journal, you might want to contact Professor Groves at: colin.groves@anu.edu.au
In the brief paper, Dr. G.roves discusses various species concepts that have been (or are) in use by biologists, ranging from the "biological species concept," and the "evolutionary species concept," to the "genetic species concept," and the "phylogenetic species concept." The fact that such discussions are taking place among scientists illustrates how open and self-correcting and dynamic science is. And, clearly, there are dogmatic advocates of various styles of thinking, and individuals who are deeply invested in the hypotheses they have proposed. All this is healthy, and is not at all an indication that scientific and evolutionary concepts are so flawed that they should all be discarded–as seems to be what is often suggested by some discussants. [Note to DrF: I have an extra copy of the journal if you would like me to send it to you]
Hello Dr. Taylor
I greatly enjoy your erudition and writing. Just out of curiosity do you know why the Educate Truth site is no longer active? Has Dr. Pitman given up hsi crusade?