[_ Old Earth _] A Summary of This Year's Defeats of Evolution Theory

[lordkalvan]

I'll agree with you about the purpose of the bible and that I am likely stretching things when I look there first while trying to classify creation especially when we consider the poetic aspects. You're right about the classification of birds and bats but left out the 'unclean' flying insects mentioned together while discussing all the unclean flying creatures in Leviticus when God told Israel what to eat and what not to eat. I do find it interesting though that you should mention stars though. Early astronomers have tried to count them. Claudius Ptolemy counted 1,056 (30 more than what had been previously counted). The total number of stars visible to the naked eye is estimated today to be around 4,000, counting all that are visible from every point on earth.

But the bible says "the host of the heavens cannot be numbered" (Jer 33:22) and speaks about their number being uncountable like the number of grains of sand upon the seashore. These same multitudes (numbers of uncountable magnitudes) are also the number of offspring promised to Abraham. So, I do agree with you again, any writing that compares the numbers of stars to the number of grains of sand on the seashore to the number of offspring of a man isn't making literal 'scientific' statements about mathematics but it does point to a then unknown truth; the stars are uncountable in number.

There is also some interesting language regarding the "heavens" used when the bible speaks of God "streaching" them out. Contrary to popular opinion, Isaiah speaks of the earth being round, and the book of Job mentions it being "hung upon nothing."

You make a good point about what we should expect the bible to say though, if it were nothing more than a product of 'pre-scientific, patriarchal society ... expressed in terms that would make sense [only] to their frame of reference'.

I'm sorry I missed replying to this post, having been distracted by other things in the thread. As usual, I found it thoughtful and interesting and have little to say except thanks for giving me something to reflect on. On your last para, though, if you understood that I was asserting that the Bible could only be the product of a pre-scientific, patriarchal society', that was not my intent, only that whatever its inspiration it would be viewed through the lens of that society's understanding of the natural world.

 

[zeke]

It is not my responsibility to trawl the Internet seeking substantiation for your secondhand assertions; it is your job to support your claims, not mine to spend time finding out whether they have any merit.

Interpretation: kalvan once again does not have the required evidence - so he dances...

 

[Sparkey]

I'm sorry I missed replying to this post, having been distracted by other things in the thread. As usual, I found it thoughtful and interesting and have little to say except thanks for giving me something to reflect on. On your last para, though, if you understood that I was asserting that the Bible could only be the product of a pre-scientific, patriarchal society', that was not my intent, only that whatever its inspiration it would be viewed through the lens of that society's understanding of the natural world.

Thank you for that. There is a difference in "flavor" between what I thought you meant and the explanation here.

I've noticed a change in your writings over the years. Remember the "Dave Slayer" days? It's appreciated.

 

[lordkalvan]

Thank you for that. There is a difference in "flavor" between what I thought you meant and the explanation here.

I've noticed a change in your writings over the years. Remember the "Dave Slayer" days? It's appreciated.

Sure do. Heh-heh!

 

[pHghost]

Darwinism requires a godless, purposeless and purely naturalistic process that did not have man in mind. Contrast that pathetic error with the truth taught in Holy Writ that Man is God's crowning achievement in creation - created in the very *image of God*.

The text in bold is a biased statement made by an atheist. I see absolutely no reason why Darwinism requires a godless, purposeless and purely naturalistic process that did not have man in mind. Yes, many choose to see it as such, but all evidence (i.e. reality) shows that it DID culminate in man. Evolution, put into motion, led us here. God, all-knowing as he is, would know that very well.

Your statement is self-contradictory. God is by definition "all knowing" and the Bible was written by men inspired by the all-knowing God. God was there 'in the beginning' and therefore God knows how creation unfolded. The Bible does not even hint that God created via the godless, purposeless and purely naturalistic process presented in Darwinism - does it?

God is all-knowing, but he is aware that we as humans are not, and so he presented things in such a matter as not to confuse the people to which he was revealing them. Even Jesus, when he came, spoke in parables. If you look at it from that perspective, the Bible doesn't reveal that much about how specifically the world was created. It is clear that God is the Creator, but as to the way he made it happen, only He knows -- we can at best guess.

 

[Sparkey]

God is all-knowing, but he is aware that we as humans are not, and so he presented things in such a matter as not to confuse the people to which he was revealing them.

If evolutionary theory is true and if the big bang theory is true, and further, if what you are saying here is also true, we are left with a situation that stymies the imagination. Our heavenly Father didn't want to confuse us?? Saying that the allegory of God creating is a spiritual way to express the physical reality of God creating is just silly. Allegorical statements (like parables) show spiritual truths that are revealed through natural means.

When will we accept the fact that God has already replied to man's arrogance, "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding." - (Job 38:4 KJV)

 

[Sparkey]

Paul actually uses a word meaning "allegory" in Galatians 4:24 when he writes concerning the Two Covenants, and the first two sons of Abraham. He writes: "which things are an allegory", meaning that Ishmael/Hagar were illustrating the Old Covenant and Isaac/Sarah were illustrating the New Covenant. Seeing the allegory of the two (2) covenants is just the beginning.

Another allegory is found with King David and how his affair with Bathsheba led to the murder of her husband Uriah, and it's a classic example of allegory. The man of God, Nathan, comes to David and tells him about a rich man with many flocks who takes a poor man's only lamb to serve to his guests. Apparently David didn't see it coming, and declared out of his own mouth how that the rich man should die for his actions. That's when Nathan said to him "Thou art the man"! My son was so touched the story of the little ewe lamb that he thought and thought about it and even at the tender age of 8 understood the meaning. Are you hearing from a man of God? Have you confessed your sin against the Lord?? If so, then receive the "sure mercies of David" (Acts 13:34), and straighten up and fly right! That's the allegory!

Allegory of the Cup.

It nearly goes unnoticed in Genesis 44 when Joseph ordered that his own silver cup be "planted" in his younger brother Benjamin's sack -- no explanation is given anywhere in the Old Testament concerning why he would want to frame him and have him labeled as a thief.


The psalms tell us how "my CUP runneth over" (Psalms 23:5) so that we aren't ignorant of figurative "cups", but the allegorical clincher is when Jesus declares in the Garden of Gethsemane: "The CUP which my Father has given me--shall I not drink it"?
GOD gave Jesus the cup, just as Joseph gave the cup to Benjamin! That's the allegory!

We could go on an on but the point that I'm making (or trying to make) is that when God actually does use allegory, it isn't to talk down to ignorant folk, but rather it gives us something that we can think about and discover deeper meaning. The allegory of men from animals is simply not supported in the bible.

Yes, God created all things. Yes, there is even language in the bible that can be used to support the concept of evolution as our friend Barbarian is fond of teaching because God commanded the waters to bring forth, and commanded the land (eretz) to bring forth. But the act of creation that resulted in man was an entirely separate act. God personally formed Adam. There is no suggestion that he put a process in place that culminated (eventually, after billions of years) in man.

Is the virgin birth of Jesus an allegory that was told to us (like a 'white lie') so that we wouldn't be confused? If God created His son, Jesus, by a special act of creation, and we believe Him in that, why is it that we can not simply believe that no man was there when He created Adam and take His word for it?

 

[zeke]

The text in bold is a biased statement made by an atheist. I see absolutely no reason why Darwinism requires a godless, purposeless and purely naturalistic process that did not have man in mind.

The highlighted statement is in fact a statement of religion made by a well-respeced Darwinists slash atheist. But Darwinists have no choice but to believe in a godless, purposeless and purely naturalistic process that did not have man in mind - they have no other choice. The idea of a Creator-God is anathema to atheists. Darwinism is a philosophical world-view based on nature that can be traced back (in various forms) for thousands of years. Classical Darwinism requires atheism - it has been that way from the beginning. Classical Darwinists laugh at the notion of a theistic evolutionist - they consider the notion to be an oxymoron and I would have to agree.

Though Charles Darwin was a theist in his early life, the evidence suggests his worldview began to change after his sea voyage. As early as 1837, Darwin became an evolutionist, and in the spring of the following year he embraced a materialistic and atheistic worldview that would go with him to his grave. In the fall of 1838 Darwin formulated his theory of natural selection.

Darwin claimed to have developed his theory of natural selection without any preconceived notions, but his writings indicate that his newfound materialistic faith was foundational in its development. On finding a theory that “worked,” or at least worked better than the other theories he entertained, he then searched for the facts that supported his theory, ignoring and explaining away all contrary evidence.

Scholars such as George Grinnell, who have studied Darwin for years, are also coming to a similar conclusion: “I have done a great deal of work on Darwin and can say with some assurance that Darwin also did not derive his theory from nature but rather superimposed a certain philosophical world-view on nature and then spent 20 years trying to gather the facts to make it stick.”

The popular understanding of Darwin’s beliefs and his practices as a scientist is contrary to the facts. Darwin’s theory was never meant to be compatible with a Creator. Its purpose was to remove God from the last sphere of life He had so dominated. It was an attempt to demolish Paley’s argument from design and give atheism its own “creation” story.

~ Bill Johnson, "Is Darwinism Atheistic? An Examination of the Beliefs and Practices of Charles Darwin"​

God is all-knowing, but he is aware that we as humans are not, and so he presented things in such a matter as not to confuse the people to which he was revealing them. Even Jesus, when he came, spoke in parables. If you look at it from that perspective, the Bible doesn't reveal that much about how specifically the world was created. It is clear that God is the Creator, but as to the way he made it happen, only He knows -- we can at best guess.

You are mistaken - the Genesis account is historical narrative and it doesn't even hint at the notion that man is descended from the 'beasts of the field'. Man was created in God's image...

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him...​

There is a clear distinction made by God between man and beast. Are you a theistic evolutionist and if you are how does your version of Darwinism differ from the error preached by the Devil's Chaplain, Richard Dawkins?

 

[Barbarian]

Though Charles Darwin was a theist in his early life, the evidence suggests his worldview began to change after his sea voyage. As early as 1837, Darwin became an evolutionist, and in the spring of the following year he embraced a materialistic and atheistic worldview that would go with him to his grave. In the fall of 1838 Darwin formulated his theory of natural selection.

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved. Charles Darwin, 1872.

So we can believe Darwin himself as to his beliefs at that time, or we can buy into Bill's re-interpretation regarding what he's sure Darwin believed.

Not much of a choice, is it?



He considered his theory (as Christians still do) to be consistent with God. How could it be otherwise? Evolution is the way God does it.

 

[Sparkey]

Evolution is the way God does it.

Is that what God said? Or are those your words?

 

[Barbarian]

Scholars such as George Grinnell, who have studied Darwin for years, are also coming to a similar conclusion: “I have done a great deal of work on Darwin and can say with some assurance that Darwin also did not derive his theory from nature but rather superimposed a certain philosophical world-view on nature and then spent 20 years trying to gather the facts to make it stick.”

Grinnell has a published an article, The Rise and Fall of Darwin's First Theory of Transmutation, in which he describes Darwin's "first theory" to account for variation, and his rejection of the theory based on the evidence that led him to a second theory.

The actual words written by Grinnell:
The question is, were these three theories complementary or were they mutually exclusive? If they were complementary, then the implication is clearly in favor of the importance of the empirical data in shaping Darwin's thought, but if they were mutually exclusive, the implication is that Darwin approached the data with a prior world view which he attempted to superimpose on the data by means of various hypothetical models and mechanisms...Darwin wrote: "Hence an oceanic island at first sight seems to have been highly favourable for the production of new species, but we may thus greatly deceive ourselves. '' It was a deception which it took Darwin several years to penetrate; and it was not without great agony that he finally did so, for his first theory of evolution had proposed such a notion based on the Galapagos Islands case and it was precious to him. Its failure appears to have led him close to a nervous breakdown. Yet it is the mark of the great scientists that they can see their favorite theories destroyed by stubborn facts, and yet go on to create new ones...
George Grinnell
Department of History, McMaster University,Hamilton, Ontario
The Rise and Fall of Darwin's First Theory of Transmutation

While Grinnell supposed Darwin's philosophical inclinations led to his investigation of the evidence for "transmutation", he acknowledged Darwin's ability to discard a theory that was not supported by the data, and to develop a new one consistent with the data; this Grinnell says is the mark of a great scientist.

The popular understanding of Darwin’s beliefs and his practices as a scientist is contrary to the facts. Darwin’s theory was never meant to be compatible with a Creator.

In the sense that Newton's theory of gravitation wasn't meant to be compatible with a Creator. Newton spent no time at all considering whether the facts were relevant to God. Like Darwin, he just assumed that they would be. Turned out, both men were right.

Anyway, we have yet another case of a Zeke "quote" being doctored to give a false impression. I'm hoping you were surprised to learn it is a fake.

 

[zeke]

So we can believe Darwin himself as to his beliefs at that time, or we can buy into Bill's re-interpretation regarding what he's sure Darwin believed.

Bill Johnson makes some excellent points - none of which you have yet to refute. There is no reason to discount the conclusion that Darwin "embraced a materialistic and atheistic worldview that would go with him to his grave."

‘I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine. ~ Charles Darwin​

He considered his theory (as Christians still do) to be consistent with God. How could it be otherwise? Evolution is the way God does it.

You miss the point once again - Classical Darwinism requires atheism - it has been that way from the beginning. Classical Darwinists laugh at the notion of a theistic evolutionist - they consider the term to be an oxymoron.

 

[Barbarian]

Is that what God said? Or are those your words?

As St. Augustine wrote, the truth cannot be at odds with God. He was convinced that God would not make the world in such a way as to deceive. I agree with him.

If nature and God seem to be at odds, then we have misunderstood one or both of them. And either error is equally likely.

 

[zeke]

In the sense that Newton's theory of gravitation wasn't meant to be compatible with a Creator. Newton spent no time at all considering whether the facts were relevant to God. Like Darwin, he just assumed that they would be. Turned out, both men were right.

Compare the two quotes below from Newton and Darwin - nothing more needs to be said - right?

‘I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine. ~ Charles Darwin​

“This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of His dominion He is wont to be called Lord God.†(Newton 1687, Principia).
​

Anyway, we have yet another case of a Zeke "quote" being doctored to give a false impression. I'm hoping you were surprised to learn it is a fake.

Aren't you just 'attacking the man' once again? George Grinnell's words speak for themselves. What part do you not understand?

“I have done a great deal of work on Darwin and can say with some assurance that Darwin also did not derive his theory from nature but rather superimposed a certain philosophical world-view on nature and then spent 20 years trying to gather the facts to make it stick.†(Grinnell)​

 

[Sparkey]

I very much disagree with your conclusion He may be called a liar just because He hid things from us. The question, "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding," is unanswered and could not even have been asked if man were there to watch.

One of the rules of allegory is that the stories must agree; i.e. the symbolical tale cannot contradict the plain text.

 

[Barbarian]

Compare the two quotes below from Newton and Darwin - nothing more needs to be said - right?

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved. - Charles Darwin, last sentence of The Origin of Species.

“This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of His dominion He is wont to be called Lord God.” (Newton 1687, Principia).

Pretty much the same, although Darwin, much later, described himself as an agnostic regarding Christianity. Newton gave up Christianity much earlier, his religious writings show that he denied that Christ was God.

A manuscript he sent to John Locke in which he disputed the existence of the Trinity was never published.In a minority view, T.C. Pfizenmaier argued Newton was neither "orthodox" nor an Arian, but that, rather, Newton believed both of these groups had wandered into metaphysical speculation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton's_religious_views

Barbarian observes:
Anyway, we have yet another case of a Zeke "quote" being doctored to give a false impression. I'm hoping you were surprised to learn it is a fake.

Aren't you just 'attacking the man' once again?

I'm pointing out your "quote" was faked. I even posted what he actually wrote, including Grinnel's acknowledgement that Darwin managed to get past his assumptions,and discard his first idea for lack of evidence. Again, I'm giving you the benefit of a doubt, and I suppose you never actually read the article in question. (I have, as part of an investigation into the history of science).

George Grinnell's words speak for themselves.

Indeed. And they are quite different than the "quote" you presented.

Repeating it won't help. Nor will presenting an undocumented statement with no source, help your credibility.

 

[zeke]

Pretty much the same, although Darwin, much later, described himself as an agnostic regarding Christianity.

No even close - at the end of his life it could be argued that Darwin was an atheist. Newton was a believer until the end. The atheists do not lay claim to Newton - they do, however love Darwin. Darwinism is the driving engine for atheism today. How does that line up with your theology?

Disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but at last it was complete.
-- Charles Darwin, Autobiography (Nick Harding, How to Be a Good Atheist)​

 

[zeke]

I'm pointing out your "quote" was faked.

Nothing faked you just can't deal with the facts. There is no reason to discount the conclusion that Darwin "embraced a materialistic and atheistic worldview that would go with him to his grave." He was what he was.

 

[lordkalvan]

Nothing faked you just can't deal with the facts.

Motes and beams spring to mind again.

There is no reason to discount the conclusion that Darwin "embraced a materialistic and atheistic worldview that would go with him to his grave." He was what he was.

He could also have been a baby-eating, wife-beating, poor-box robbing misanthrope, but this still doesn't invalidate his work and make it mythology.

 

[zeke]

Motes and beams spring to mind again.

Then remove them from your eye.

He could also have been a baby-eating, wife-beating, poor-box robbing misanthrope, but this still doesn't invalidate his work and make it mythology.

And yet the fact remains - Darwin "embraced a materialistic and atheistic worldview that would go with him to his grave." Do you agree with Ruse - is evolution promoted by its practitioners as an ideology - a secular religion? Was that Darwin's original intent

‘Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.

‘… Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.’ ~ Michael Ruse, Darwinist​