Evangelist Takes On Darwin (Temple of Darwin cries blasphemy!)

CEH ^ | September 27, 2009

[GodGunsGuts]

Sept 27, 2009 — What would Darwin do? Just in time for the 150th anniversary of The Origin of Species, his magnum opus has been reprinted with an introduction not by a scientist or historian, but by a Christian evangelist. He and a Christian movie actor are trying to get their special edition to students at major universities. Talk about brashness. Darwin’s defenders are stepping on themselves to condemn this – well, blasphemy...

[christianhomeschoolmommaof3]

MY ANSWERS ARE IN CAPS BECAUSE IT WAS THE BEST WAY FOR ME TO DO THIS:

Can you name one scientific invention/discovery that evolution has inspired?
I’ll give you two.

1) Animal testing for new human drugs. If animals had nothing in common with humans, this testing wouldn’t work.

2) Disease modeling in animals. Same comment as #1.

AGAIN SAME FACTS. WE CAN USE ANIMALS TO TEST NEW DRUGS FOR HUMANS, FACT. YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THIS FACT IS THAT THEY ARE SIMILAR BECAUSE PEOPLE EVOLVED FROM ANIMALS.
MY INTERPRETATION OF THIS FACT IS THAT WE ARE SIMILAR BECAUSE WE HAVE A COMMON CREATOR. SAME FACTS, DIFFERENT CONCLUSIONS. THIS APPLIES TO 1 AND 2.

Has the evolution of one species into another ever been observed?

Then you must be able to explain the fossil record. Do you believe that fossils are simply stones that fell from the moon?

I BELIEVE IN FOSSILS. WE HAVE THE SAME FOSSILS TO STUDY AND TEST. HOWEVER, WHAT IN THE FOSSIL RECORD SHOWS EVOLUTION? IN FACT, ANIMALS FOUND IN THE FOSSIL RECORD ARE SIMILAR TO THEIR MODERN DAY COUNTERPARTS. GENETIC MUTATIONS AND NATURAL SELECTION WOULD ACCOUNT FOR THE DIFFERENCES. HOWEVER, WHAT WE SEE IS THAT A CROCODILE IS STILL A CROCODILE AND A HORSE IS STILL A HORSE. THERE IS A VAST ARRAY OF DIVERSITY IN CHARACTERISTICS WITHIN A SPECIES BUT A SPECIES TO SPECIES “JUMP” HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED.

Do the beliefs of evolution line up with what we see in the natural world?

Actually they do. It was observation of the natural world that led Christians to devise the theory of evolution.
WHAT OBSERVATIONS? CAN YOU GIVE EXAMPLES OF WHAT WE SEE IN NATURE THAT CONFIRMS EVOLUTION?

Can it be tested?

Sure it can. Find a 50 million-year-old human fossil. Find a 500 million-year-old mammal fossil. Evolution would have serious problems if this occured.
I WASN’T AWARE THAT THE FOSSILS WERE LABELLED WITH DATES. ;)
ALOT OF CIRCULAR REASONING GOING ON WITH DATING FOSSILS. DATING METHODS ARE HIGHLY QUESTIONABLE AT BEST. AGAIN, SAME FACTS AND EVIDENCE. WE BOTH HAVE FOSSILS FOUND IN ROCK LAYERS. EVOLUTION SAYS MILLIONS OF YEARS. CREATION SAYS THEY WERE DEPOSITED BY THE FLOOD. AGAIN WHICH FITS BETTER WITH THE NATURAL WORLD? WHEN AN ANIMAL DIES, IT DECAYS UNLESS THERE ARE EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES. A FLOOD WOULD EXPLAIN THIS. WENT TO A MUESEUM WITH MY KIDS AND WATCHED MONSTER OF THE DEEP MOVIE. IT WAS GREAT! THEY SAID THAT AT ONE TIME THE EARTH WAS COVERED ALMOST ENTIRELY WITH SEA AND THAT IS WHY WE SEE MARINE FOSSILS ALL OVER THE GLOBE. IT WAS A MOVIE ABOUT EVOLUTION.

While creation can’t be proven scientifically, the facts do line up with what we see in the natural world.

Since creationists remain unwilling or unable to document what they think the facts are in any scientific way, this remains an open question. Creationists have yet to tackle the questions Darwin put to them 150 years ago. Good luck with that.
AGAIN, WE OBSERVE EACH ANIMAL REPRODUCING AFTER ITS KIND AS IT WAS CREATED TO DO. WE DO NOT HOWEVER SEE ONE SPECIES TRANSFORMING INTO ANOTHER SPECIES. WHAT QUESTION ARE YOU REFERRING TO?

We all have the same facts, our worldview causes us to interpret the facts differently.

No we don’t. We don’t even have the same Bible.
THE FACTS I AM TALKING ABOUT ARE THE SCIENTIFIC DATA. WE BOTH HAVE THE FOSSILS, ROCK LAYERS ETC ETC. THEY DON’T TELL A STORY BY THEMSELVES. THE EVIDENCE HAS TO BE INTERPRETED. YOUR WORLDVIEW WILL DECIDE IN WHICH WAY YOU INTERPRET THE EVIDENCE? IF YOU CAN’T ADMIT TO THAT YOU ARE BEING DISHONEST. FOR INSTANCE, EVOLUTIONIST AND CREATIONISTS WOULD BOTH AGREE THAT SOFT TISSUE COULDN’T LAST FOR MILLIONS OF YEARS. HOWEVER, WHEN SOFT TISSUE WAS FOUND IN A DINOSAUR BONE, CREATIONIST INTERPRETED THAT EVIDENCE TO MEAN THAT THE BONE WASN’T MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD. EVOLUTIONISTS INTERPRETED THAT EVIDENCE TO MEAN THAT SOFT TISSUE COULD SURVIVE MILLIONS OF YEARS. SAME EVIDENCE DIFFERENT CONCLUSION.

[christianhomeschoolmommaof3]

So this is the ONLY instance in the OT that uses yom with a number that DOES NOT mean an ordinary day? What rules of hermeneutics did you use to decide that although it mean one thing in EVERY OTHER PASSAGE it can mean something different in this ONE passage?

[christianhomeschoolmommaof3]

Some ancient civilizations had technology that we can’t to this day figure out. I didn’t say that it was mentioned in the Bible but it is hubris in the extreme to suggest that they couldn’t measure time less than a day. Or that if they had a word that they didn’t know how to express it.
Although this doesn’t specifically mention hours or minutes, it is clear in this scripture that the heavenly bodies were a way for men to measure time.
14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years,

Our technology is based upon every discovery made up until this point. If we had to start from scratch how far along would we be?

[christianhomeschoolmommaof3]

It isn’t allegorical, it is contextual.

The phrase “In my day, working all day it still took several days to mow the lawn.

Three different meanings of the word day in that sentence. You interpret them in context.

An allegory is a story told to present a deeper meaning.

[christianhomeschoolmommaof3]

You have repeatedly not addressed the issue of Exodus 20. The phrase “six days’ is used for the amount of time a man has to complete his work AND for the amount of time God created. How can the same phrase mean two different things in the same scripture?

[Just mythoughts]

You have repeatedly not addressed the issue of Exodus 20. The phrase “six days’ is used for the amount of time a man has to complete his work AND for the amount of time God created. How can the same phrase mean two different things in the same scripture?

Peter says that 'one' day with the LORD is as a thousand years. Flesh man is NOT on the same time table as the Heavenly Father. Remember how that God cut short the time He would allow man in the flesh to live. There is no record of any flesh being living ONE day with the Lord although Methuselah did come close.

[christianhomeschoolmommaof3]

“You cannot argue for a strict literal interpretation of Scripture”

I dont argue for a strict literal interpretation. I only argue for a plain reading of scripture. We read Genesis as history because it is written as history. We read poetry as poetry and allegory as allegory. The scripture that I believe you used earlier, with God a day is like a thousand years, is not literal. It is metaphor meaning that God is outside of time. It shouldn’t be taken literally and applied to a scripture that talks about a day to say that the days of creation were each 1000 years long or that the 100o year reign of Christ will only be one day long.

[Natural Law]

"What rules of hermeneutics did you use"

I rely heavily on St. Augustine's work "De doctrinâ Christianâ libri quatuor".

The Catholic Church holds that there are two revealing authorities of Divine Revelation, the Bible and the Holy Spirit. Additionally, the Church teaches that there exists a more-than-literal meaning for understanding the Bible: a fuller sense. The fuller sense is the deeper meaning intended by God as divine author. The fuller sense of Scripture, since it is the meaning intended by God, may not have been clearly known and intended by the human author. This fuller sense must be a consequential development of what the human author of the text intended to say.

Having said that I do not accept that God chose six 24 hour days to complete creation because He could not get the job done in five days. The text doesn't address this because in the fuller sense the actual time taken is inconsequential, whether a yom in the creation process was 24 hours, 24 million years, or 24 nanoseconds. All that is important is that we accept the first 10 words of Genesis; 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.'

[christianhomeschoolmommaof3]

I am not sure what you are trying to say. That doesn’t address at all the problem with one phrase having two different meanings in the exact same scripture.
Exodus 20 says that a man shall work SIX DAYS because God created in SIX DAYS. So it means one of three things.

1. A man will work six unspecified periods of time because God created in six unspecified periods of time. OR
2.A man will work six normal days because God created in six unspecified periods of time. OR
3. A man will work six normal days because God created in six normal days.

I think a plain reading of the scripture would tell us that it is #3. If not then words have no consistent meaning in context and we have no hope of understanding what the Bible or anyone else is saying. Suppose, I tell you that in six days, I will go on a journey and that the journey will be six days long. If the language is inconsistent you wouldn’t know if I meant I was leaving in six normal days or long periods of time. You wouldn’t know if I was going to be gone for six days or six long periods of time. However language has consistent meaning in the context that it is given. Because I used the exact same phrase, the word day with a number to label it, you can know that I mean the exact same thing.

[christianhomeschoolmommaof3]

You didn’t answer the question. What rule did you use to decide that it means one thing every other time and something different in Genesis? Actually this is breaking the rules of hermaneutics.

[Natural Law]

"Actually this is breaking the rules of hermaneutics."

Actually, there is no standard set of rules governing hermaneutics. However, nearly every example presupposes that the interpreter has a knowledge of the biblical languages and of such sciences as contribute to a better understanding of scripture. My guess is that you are a little deficient in both.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

MY INTERPRETATION OF THIS FACT IS THAT WE ARE SIMILAR BECAUSE WE HAVE A COMMON CREATOR.

So you would propose using squids for pre-clinical human trials as a cost reduction?

We have different facts. You believe that any animal can be substituted in drug tests because God made them all the same. I know this isn't true. Only animals with similar systems to ours can give reliable results. These are animals with closer evolutionary ties.

WHAT IN THE FOSSIL RECORD SHOWS EVOLUTION? IN FACT, ANIMALS FOUND IN THE FOSSIL RECORD ARE SIMILAR TO THEIR MODERN DAY COUNTERPARTS.

I doubt you have an anomalocaris or a trilobite in your aquarium. And while you're looking for Rodhocetus, why don't you tell me what it is.

WHAT OBSERVATIONS? CAN YOU GIVE EXAMPLES OF WHAT WE SEE IN NATURE THAT CONFIRMS EVOLUTION?

I'll give you a link. The quick summary is that fossil animals and plants tend to get more and more different from living known species as they're found in older rock layers.

DATING METHODS ARE HIGHLY QUESTIONABLE AT BEST.

No they're not. Another situation where we have different facts.

WHAT QUESTION ARE YOU REFERRING TO?

Your question is disingenuous. Darwin's books and letters have been analyzed by creationists for 150 years. Why don't you start by explaining why organisms in the Galapagos Islands look more like South American species than they do organisms from similar ecosystems off the coast of Africa.

HOWEVER, WHEN SOFT TISSUE WAS FOUND IN A DINOSAUR BONE,...

Again we have different facts. No dinosaur soft tissue has ever been found. The authors of finds who have managed to process fossilized remains to make them pliable explained this in great detail. You are the one being dishonest.

[christianhomeschoolmommaof3]

Actually there are set standards for good biblical hermaneutics. http://www.theopedia.com/Interpretation_of_the_Bible#General_rules_of_hermeneutics “Hermeneutics is the science of interpreting what an author has written. In Christian theology, hermeneutics focuses specifically on constructing and discovering the appropriate RULES for interpreting the Bible” CAPS emphasis is mine.

http://billgothard.com/bill/teaching/hermeneutics/
This is a small readily available overview. Look closely at these few.
1.”Look up the actual meaning of each word in the original languages”
Done, yom has several meanings.

2.”Check out cross-references to see how the words are used in other contexts.”
Done by me.
However, you have failed to acknowledge that every other time yom is used with a number that it means a literal day. In fact every time it is used with the phrase evening and morning it means a literal day. In Genesis it is used with a number and with the evening morning phrase. This is where you are breaking with the rules of hermaneutics. You refuse to look at other references where these phrases are used and you are relying only on ONE definition of the word yom.

3.”Confirm an interpretation with two or three similar passages”
I have given you one in Exodus 20. I have confirmed the passages in Genesis with many others, however I won’t spend any more time posting those when you have failed to address the example already given.

“My guess is that you are a little deficient in both.”

Why resort to ad hominem attacks if your argument has any validity? Your “guess” about my deficieny in biblical languages and hermeneutics doesn’t dismiss the validity of my argument. The likes of which you have failed to refute or even address.

[Just mythoughts]

I am not sure what you are trying to say. That doesn’t address at all the problem with one phrase having two different meanings in the exact same scripture. Exodus 20 says that a man shall work SIX DAYS because God created in SIX DAYS. So it means one of three things. 1. A man will work six unspecified periods of time because God created in six unspecified periods of time. OR 2.A man will work six normal days because God created in six unspecified periods of time. OR 3. A man will work six normal days because God created in six normal days. I think a plain reading of the scripture would tell us that it is #3. If not then words have no consistent meaning in context and we have no hope of understanding what the Bible or anyone else is saying. Suppose, I tell you that in six days, I will go on a journey and that the journey will be six days long. If the language is inconsistent you wouldn’t know if I meant I was leaving in six normal days or long periods of time. You wouldn’t know if I was going to be gone for six days or six long periods of time. However language has consistent meaning in the context that it is given. Because I used the exact same phrase, the word day with a number to label it, you can know that I mean the exact same thing.

How can you possibly equate flesh beings work with the Works of the Heavenly Father. Flesh beings calendar because of the flesh is calculated on a completely different accounting of time. Which is why it was Peter said to be not ignorant of the Heavenly Father's time as in contrast to we still in flesh bodies. Those children knew that to see the Heavenly Father meant they were no longer alive in the flesh body. Now how selective are you when it comes to what else was told to those children? Those children certainly did not 'believe' they build themselves a golden calf when Moses went to get the law.

When were the souls created? No Scripture does not give us that date but they were all created at the same time at the beginning of the 'first' heaven/earth age, which Peter also addresses. And when that last soul chooses to be born of woman to enter this flesh age this flesh age will be ending.

Christ said that those who 'choose' to be born from above will have opportunity to 'see' the kingdom. Some ignore the Greek and say it says born again.

[Natural Law]

"Actually there are set standards for good biblical hermaneutics."

Well there you go, you are using National League rules and I am using American League rules. I accept the designated hitter and you reject it because you are using a different set of rules. There are actually so many published hermaneutics "standards" that the phrase hermaneutic standard is an oxymoron.

As a Catholic I believe that he Catholic Church is the official custodian and interpreter of the Bible. Catholicism's teaching concerning the Sacred Scriptures and their genuine sense must be the supreme guide. As a Catholic I am bound to adhere to the interpretation of texts which the Church has defined either expressly or implicitly. Since the same God is the author both of the Sacred Books, on Natural Law and of the doctrine committed to the Church, it is impossible that any legitimate teaching can be at variance with the latter.

Pope John Paul II said that: "A [second] conclusion is that the very nature of biblical texts means that interpreting them will require continued use of the historical-critical method, at least in its principal procedures. The Bible, in effect, does not present itself as a direct revelation of timeless truths but as the written testimony to a series of interventions in which God reveals himself in human history. He further stated "Addressing men and women, from the beginnings of the Old Testament onward, God made use of all the possibilities of human language, while at the same time accepting that his word be subject to the constraints caused by the limitations of this language. Proper respect for inspired Scripture requires undertaking all the labors necessary to gain a thorough grasp of its meaning.

I have already cited the works of St. Augustine as one of the major influences in my interpretation. Add to that St. Thomas Aquinas' works on Natural law that contribute to the fuller meaning imparted by the Holy Spirit.

I think your interpretations are flawed and incomplete. If you are confident and comfortable with them, peace be with you.

[christianhomeschoolmommaof3]

AGAIN MY ANSWERS ARE IN CAPS. I AM NOT YELLING AT YOU. ;)

“So you would propose using squids for pre-clinical human trials as a cost reduction? “
NO, I BELIEVE COMMON TRAITS POINT TO A COMMON CREATOR. THAT DOESN’T MEAN THAT HE DIDN’T CREATE SOME THINGS DIFFERENTLY. YOU MAY BE ABLE TO SEE COMMON THEMES IN ALL THE PAINTINGS BY AN ARTIST WHO PAINTS LANDSCAPES. THAT DOESN’T MEAN THAT THE ARTIST IS RESTRICTED FROM PAINTING PORTRAITS.

We have different facts. FACTS ARE FACTS. WE DON’T HAVE DIFFERENT FACTS. WE HAVE DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS OF THE FACTS.

You believe that any animal can be substituted in drug tests because God made them all the same.
I DON’T BELIEVE HE MADE THEM ALL THE SAME, BUT SOME DO SHARE COMMON CHARACTERISTICS
I know this isn’t true.
QUITE CORRECT. HE DIDN’T MAKE THEM ALL THE SAME. ESPECIALLY MAN WHO WAS MADE IN HIS OWN IMAGE.
Only animals with similar systems to ours can give reliable results. These are animals with closer evolutionary ties. AN INTERPRETATION

I doubt you have an anomalocaris or a trilobite in your aquarium. And while you’re looking for Rodhocetus, why don’t you tell me what it is.
I ALSO DON’T HAVE A SABER TOOTH TIGER AT MY LOCAL ZOO BECAUSE SOME ANIMALS GO EXTINCT.
A RODHOCETUS IS CLAIMED BY EVOLUTIONISTS TO BE AN EARLY ANCESTOR OF THE WHALE. I BELIEVE IT WAS MAMMAL THAT WENT EXTINCT. SAME EVIDENCE(A FOSSIL) DIFFERENT CONCLUSION.

I’ll give you a link. The quick summary is that fossil animals and plants tend to get more and more different from living known species as they’re found in older rock layers.
DOES IT SHOW THEM TRANSITIONING FROM ONE SPECIES TO ANOTHER? NO. THERE ARE ALOT OF DIFFERENCES IN SPECIES THAT ARE ALIVE AND LIVING TOGETHER ON EARTH TODAY. TAKE SHARKS FOR EXAMPLE. THERE ARE SOME VERY DISTINCT DIFFERENCES BUT THEY ARE ALL STILL SHARKS. NATURAL SELECTION WOULD ACCOUNT FOR THESE CHANGES. HOWEVER THERE ARE MANY EXAMPLES OF “LIVING FOSSILS” BECAUSE THEY ARE SO SIMILAR TO ANCESTORS THAT SUPPOSEDLY LIVED MILLIONS OF YEARS AGO.

DATING METHODS ARE HIGHLY QUESTIONABLE AT BEST.

No they’re not. Another situation where we have different facts. NO WE DONT HAVE DIFFERENT FACTS. IF DATING METHODS ARE SO RELIABLE WHY HAVE ROCKS THAT HAVE FORMED DURING RECENT VOLCANIC ACTIVITY BEEN DATED AT HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS TO MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD. RADIOMETRIC DATING ISN’T EXACT SCIENCE. IT HAS ALOT OF ASSUMPTIONS ATTACHED TO IT.

WHAT QUESTION ARE YOU REFERRING TO?

Your question is disingenuous. Darwin’s books and letters have been analyzed by creationists for 150 years. Why don’t you start by explaining why organisms in the Galapagos Islands look more like South American species than they do organisms from similar ecosystems off the coast of Africa.
WHY DON’T YOU EXPLAIN WHY THIS MATTERS WHEN DISCUSSING HOW ONE SPECIES OF ANIMAL EVOLVES INTO ANOTHER. I AM NOT ARGUING AGAINST NATURAL SELECTION, IT IS AN OBSERVABLE PROCESS.

HOWEVER, WHEN SOFT TISSUE WAS FOUND IN A DINOSAUR BONE,...

Again we have different facts. No dinosaur soft tissue has ever been found. The authors of finds who have managed to process fossilized remains to make them pliable explained this in great detail. You are the one being dishonest.
THINK AGAIN. THE LADY BELOW ISOLATED THE TISSUE AND IT WAS TRANSPARENT, PLIABLE AND EVEN HAD CELLS STILL PRESENT. NOTICE AT THE BOTTOM THAT THEY ASSUMED THIS COULDNT SURVIVE MILLIONS OF YEARS UNTIL THIS DISCOVERY NOW THEY ARE REEVALUATING HOW LONG IT COULD SURVIVE BUT NOT HOW OLD THE SPECIMEN IS.

“Dr. Mary Schweitzer, assistant professor of paleontology with a joint appointment at the N.C. Museum of Natural Sciences, has succeeded in isolating soft tissue from the femur of a 68-million-year-old dinosaur. Not only is the tissue largely intact, it’s still transparent and pliable, and microscopic interior structures resembling blood vessels and even cells are still present.”

Conventional wisdom among paleontologists states that when dinosaurs died and became fossilized, SOFT TISSUE DIDN’T preserve – the bones were essentially transformed into “rocks” through a gradual replacement of all organic material by minerals. New research by a North Carolina State University paleontologist, however, could literally TURN THAT THEORY INSIDE OUT.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050325100541.htm

I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT YOU WITHDRAW THE ACCUSATION THAT I HAVE BEEN DISHONEST. I HOWEVER DID NOT CALL YOU DISHONEST. I SAID IT WOULD BE DISHONEST NOT TO AGREE THAT WE HAVE THE SAME EVIDENCE TO EXAMINE AND THAT BASED ON OUR WORLDVIEW WE COME TO DIFFERENT CONCLUSION. THE ARTICLE ABOUT THE SOFT TISSUE SHOULD REPRESENT THAT POINT SUFFICIENTL

[christianhomeschoolmommaof3]

I have no idea what you are saying.

[christianhomeschoolmommaof3]

“I think your interpretations are flawed and incomplete”
You are welcome to think what you like but you haven’t refuted or even addressed my interpretations.

[christianhomeschoolmommaof3]

So please explain to me the set of rules that you are playing by.
What was incorrect according to the Catholic Church about the rules of hermaneutics that I used to interpret the passage? Do you not believe that scripture should be taken in context and interpreted by other scripture?

[christianhomeschoolmommaof3]

I am not equating the works of man with the works of God. God created in six days and rested on the seventh as an example to us. Exodus 20 makes that clear. The reason for my reference to this scripture is that it makes it clear that the six days in Genesis are six normal days and not six long ages. It has nothing to do with equating man with God.