Skip to comments.Mohler takes on 'theistic evolution'
Posted on 01/16/2011 4:09:10 PM PST by balch3
click here to read article
Giants do not exist.
The argument that Darwin is right and that evolution is how we became thinking, feeling humans is unimaginative, unproven hocum.
Young earth theory...ditto.
My Pastor believes in theistic evolution ... it seems to be a popular PCA heresy these days
“My Pastor believes in theistic evolution ... it seems to be a popular PCA heresy these days”
Chalk it up to intellectualism in the denomination.
This has the potential to be a ‘Five Figure’ thread !!!
Some helpful resources:
So we have observations of monkeys becoming people?
I don’t think so, but what has that got to do with evolution?
Sorry Ben, you’ve got to know the pedantic trap that being set here.
Stormy here will say that we didn’t come from monkeys; instead, we and monkeys come from a common ancestor.
Which for all intents and purposes was a monkey, but to the pedant it wasn’t a monkey because hey, monkeys didn’t exist yet. Some bugaboo ancestor existed that has bones lying in a tarpit somewhere waiting to be found. And it looks strangely like a monkey.
The scientific theory of evolution has shown that modern humans and monkeys share a common ancestor, it does not state that monkeys became people.
Your misrepresentation of science only makes you look foolish. Doesnt the 9th commandment say something about bearing false witness?
We have come to realize that only adult species can produce offspring of its kind. Recently scientists in England ‘discovered’ that the chicken came first - the egg just cannot appear. Biblical Christians knew that from Genesis 1 - thousands of years ago.
All scientists know the first and second Laws of Thermodynamics; thus, they realize that life CANNOT come from non-life. They also realize that things move from order to disorder not the other way around.
EXCEPT in their theory of evolution - which they have not been able to repeat in the lab. So much for science.
Also, in the Greek language there are at least three words for life - one refers to the body, one to the mind, and one to the spirit/soul of man.
Evolutionists only speak of ‘bios’ the body. They don’t even have answers as to how we acquired our minds and the ability to think abstractly. They don’t have answers to the heart (conscience or enthusiasm and vitality in life.)
I believe that takes a much bigger leap of faith to believe in evolution than it does to belive in God and special creation.
Recently scientists in England discovered that the chicken came first - the egg just cannot appear.
It only takes common sense. If the egg came first, how could it hatch without a chicken having incubated it? You don't need mythology to figure that one out.
So then there’s no observations of monkeys becoming people.
Evolution isn’t a scientific theory. Scientific theories are based around observational evidence.
Faith, however doesn’t require observational evidence. So the faith of Darwinism trumps the science of speciation.
“it seems to be a popular PCA heresy these days”
It seems to be making some inroads into the OPC also, via “Framework Theory.”
Darwinists don’t know their own history. Sad panda is sad. :(
My dear FRiend, your cartoon shows what evolutionists do. They can’t stand the notion of God creating the earth in six days and all very good. They are determined to find an alternate version of creation. They come up with the conclusion of evolution and then make up or misapply facts to support it.
“So we have observations of monkeys becoming people?”
Ah yes. And gobs of evolutionary links.
Also, we’ve observed life coming from non-life.
And beneficial mutations.
>>They cant stand the notion of God creating the earth in six days and all very good.<<
But it says in Genesis 1:2 that the earth was without form and void. If that was the first thing He did it doesnt sound like that was very good.
If A stawman is the best you have then I guess you have to go with it...nice try better luck next time.
You are incorrect the Evolutionary theory does not address the origin of life.
It is no valid objection that science as yet throws no light on the far higher problem of the essence or origin of life ~ Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species (1909), 519-520
But nice straw man good try!
Kind of hard to get past the fact that speciation has never been observed and so is not established as factual.
And I don’t know why a pastor would want to bend his beliefs merely so they will fit an antiquated proposition which is defied by the fossil record.
So say I buy the existance of an unobserved ‘common ancestor’ between all the different races of apes and men.
Can you tell me the identity of said ‘common ancestor’? It’s taxonomy?
The scientific theory of evolution has shown that modern humans and monkeys share a common ancestor...Doesnt the 9th commandment say something about bearing false witness?
No, misotheists have claimed that their interpretation of the evidence allows a statistical probability that "monkeys" and modern humans share a common ancestor. To say otherwise makes you guilty of "bearing false witness".
First year history of science class. Ought to be required reading for everyone.
We read the original Origin of Species and the Descent of Man. History of Science is a fascinating discipline, and I ended up switching over. I loved examining the process by how scientists made the discoveries that they did.
That other scientists and scientists in general are unaware of this process shows their lack of understanding of the scientific method.
Lamarckian descent is interesting to say the least.
Lifc cannot come from non-life is drawn from the First Law of Thermodynamics.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics deals with entropy and thus things go from order to disorder.
I realize that - I’m sorry I guess I did not state it clearly. What I am trying to commmunicate it that evolution has many unanswered questions including where the human mind originated (with all its complexities) and where the soul/spirit of man came from. In creation those origins are anwered.
A major evolutionary innovation has unfurled right in front of researchers' eyes. It's the first time evolution has been caught in the act of making such a rare and complex new trait.Link
Good try but your straw man will not work here.
The First Law of Thermodynamics refers to the fact that energy can neither be created, nor destroyed, but transformed from one form to another - at least until nuclear physics came along and showed that mass can be converted to actually create energy. It tells next to nothing, if not nothing, about whether life can come from non-life or not.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics, for application, requires the condition that the there exist a containment of energy within the system. The Earth, however, receives trillions of megajoules of energy from the Sun and other sources, and hence, the application of the Second Law requires careful consideration of this fact. Things can go from disorder to order, within a system (the Earth) when energy is input into the system.
[They also realize that things move from order to disorder not the other way around.]
Except in instances where one system gains order at the expense of another.
The relationship between the Earth’s Biosphere and the Sun, for example.
The question of where the soul/sprit of man came from is a religious question which is the reason that creationist attempt to answer the question, it is not a question that science can answer since it deals with the supernatural so it is still a straw man and not a vaild argument.
"Except in instances where one system gains order at the expense of another. The relationship between the Earths Biosphere and the Sun, for example."
What order does the earth's biosphere gain at what cost in order from the Sun?
Well, read the whole thing, Cynical Bear.
Genesis Chapter One
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light, and there was light.
4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light day, and the darkness he called night. And there was evening, and there was morningthe first day.
6 And God said, Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.
7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so.
8 God called the vault sky. And there was evening, and there was morningthe second day.
9 And God said, Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear. And it was so.
10 God called the dry ground land, and the gathered waters he called seas. And God saw that it was good.
11 Then God said, Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds. And it was so.
12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
13 And there was evening, and there was morningthe third day.
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years,
15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth. And it was so.
16 God made two great lightsthe greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.
17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth,
18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good.
19 And there was evening, and there was morningthe fourth day.
20 And God said, Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.
21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
22 God blessed them and said, Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.
23 And there was evening, and there was morningthe fifth day.
24 And God said, Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind. And it was so.
25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
26 Then God said, Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.
27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them and said to them, Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.
29 Then God said, I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.
30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the groundeverything that has the breath of life in itI give every green plant for food. And it was so.
31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morningthe sixth day.
All we really see is reproduction among interbreeding species or kinds. Walter ReMine's discontinuity systematics is a good start to understanding how the various species are organized as kinds
Wow, naturalists are honest brokers, eh? And SO intellectual! Just like the ones who have foisted global warming and ethanol debacles upon the citizenry. I do not believe in “young earth” creationism, but the idea that amoebas, through billions of positive random mutations, became men and women, is laughable. Bob
The fossil record PROVES evolution? All eveos are ultimately saying is thatwe know it all happened but we can’t replicate any of it! Cordially, Bob
I do believe that this specimen is a human ancestor! Grandpa once chased that hottie! Bob
Thats all fine and good. Oh, Ive read it many times. In fact studied it rather extensively. That still doesnt change the fact that the first thing He created ended up vohu a bohu, without form and void. Can you answer why the first thing you say He did was such a mess in verse 2? After all, everything He created after that was very good.
Which is a significant problem because the scientific method says that in order for it to be proven correct, it has to be replicable.
Personally, I think Biology would be liberated without Darwinism. Pitch all that overboard, start from scratch. I’d bet you’d see some real developments when you stopped assuming Darwin was right.
Painters need paint, and an easel. Arguing that the creation process is messy, is just how it works.
As to the evidence of a common ancestor here you go.
Traces of our evolutionary past are also evident at the molecular level. If you think about it, the fact that organisms have evolved successively from relatively simple ancestors implies that a record of evolutionary change is present in the cells of each of us, in our DNA. When an ancestral species gives rise to two or more descendants, those descendants will initially exhibit fairly high overall similarity in their DNA. However, as the descendants evolve independently, they will accumulate more and more differences in their DNA. Consequently, organisms that are more distantly related would be expected to accumulate a greater number of evolutionary differences, whereas two species that are more closely related should share a greater portion of their DNA.
I’m aware of DNA charts that attempt to show systematically that A is like B.
They assume that the shortest path to A is through B which is Ockham’s Razor.
However, they assume that A gradually became B, and that’s not really what we see in the fossil record. We see discontinuities. It’s not a straight gradual process like erosion, where over time one species becomes another. We see dead ends, reversions, regressions, etc. We see spikes and peaks and valleys.