Mohler takes on 'theistic evolution'

Associated Baptist Press ^ | January 13, 2011 | Bob Allen

[balch3]

LOUISVILLE, Ky. (ABP) -- A Southern Baptist seminary president and evolution opponent has turned sights on "theistic evolution," the idea that evolutionary forces are somehow guided by God. Albert Mohler

Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, wrote an article in the Winter 2011 issue of the seminary magazine labeling attempts by Christians to accommodate Darwinism "a biblical and theological disaster."

Mohler said being able to find middle ground between a young-earth creationism that believes God created the world in six 24-hour days and naturalism that regards evolution the product of random chance "would resolve a great cultural and intellectual conflict."

The problem, however, is that it is not evolutionary theory that gives way, but rather the Bible and Christian theology.

Mohler said acceptance of evolutionary theory requires reading the first two chapters of Genesis as a literary rendering and not historical fact, but it doesn't end there. It also requires rethinking the claim that sin and death entered the human race through the Fall of Adam. That in turn, Mohler contended, raises questions about New Testament passages like First Corinthians 15:22, "For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive."

"The New Testament clearly establishes the Gospel of Jesus Christ upon the foundation of the Bible's account of creation," Mohler wrote. "If there was no historical Adam and no historical Fall, the Gospel is no longer understood in biblical terms."

Mohler said that after trying to reconcile their reading of Genesis with science, proponents of theistic evolution are now publicly rejecting biblical inerrancy, the doctrine that the Bible is totally free from error.

"We now face the undeniable truth that the most basic and fundamental questions of biblical authority and Gospel integrity are at stake," Mohler concluded. "Are you ready for this debate?"

In a separate article in the same issue, Gregory Wills, professor of church history at Southern Seminary, said attempts to affirm both creation and evolution in the 19th and 20th century produced Christian liberalism, which attracted large numbers of Americans, including the clerical and academic leadership of most denominations.

After establishing the concept that Genesis is true from a religious but not a historical standpoint, Wills said, liberalism went on to apply naturalistic criteria to accounts of miracles and prophecy as well. The result, he says, was a Bible "with little functional authority."

"Liberalism in America began with the rejection of the Bible's creation account," Wills wrote. "It culminated with a broad rejection of the beliefs of historic Christianity. Yet many Christians today wish to repeat the experiment. We should not expect different results."

Mohler, who in the last year became involved in public debate about evolution with the BioLogos Foundation, a conservative evangelical group that promotes integrating faith and science, has long maintained the most natural reading of the Bible is that God created the world in six 24-hour days just a few thousand years ago.

Writing in Time magazine in 2005, Mohler rejected the idea of human "descent."

"Evangelicals must absolutely affirm the special creation of humans in God's image, with no physical evolution from any nonhuman species," he wrote. "Just as important, the Bible clearly teaches that God is involved in every aspect and moment in the life of His creation and the universe. That rules out the image of a kind of divine watchmaker."

[James C. Bennett]

Wrong.

I can understand your point of view, but consider this:

If Newton were a mass-murderer, would that background have made his laws on motion invalid?

You’re wrong about evolution depending on the survival of the “fittest”. Survival depends on lot more aspects than mere fitness. Couple that with the Principle of Reciprocity (the Golden / Silver Rule, if you will), and you have no scientific reason for genocide. Healthy societies cannot exist without this rule being operational, so where does the question of genocide even arise?

I asked you that question in my earlier comment about morality based on the religion you’ve adopted. Why is there no answer? What did David’s child die for?

[Alamo-Girl]

I'm glad you like it! And thank you for sharing your view of time, dear LomanBill.

[D-fendr]

If there is no change, that’s forever.

If there's no time, there's no such thing as forever. The clock doesn't tick, not once, not twice, not forever. Forever is a nonsense word outside of time.

[D-fendr]

Sorry html error. S/B:

If there is no change, that’s forever.

If there's no time, there's no such thing as forever. The clock doesn't tick, not once, not twice, not forever. Forever is a nonsense word outside of time.

[James C. Bennett]

If the clock (time) doesn’t tick, there is no change, either. Everything is static. That is the consequence of removing time.

[D-fendr]

, there is no change, either.

Correct. That's part of the whole argument, including First Cause. The First Cause is outside time, uncaused and unchanging. It's all interrelated. The argument is that only something with these properties can create time and the chain of causality. Else you end up with infinite regresses and other logical problems.

[James C. Bennett]

If something is unchanging, how can it suddenly create something that changes? The act of creation itself is a change from the prior situation.

[LomanBill]

>>Got a reference for that claim?

Pick any reference that explains potential energy and entropy.

The potential energy of a frozen molecule of H20 is higher on top of Mt. Everest than the same molecule in liquid state in the Indian Ocean; and if net potential energy is higher, then entropy is lower.

If you were correct, and the entropy of elevated snow and ice was higher than that of liquid water at a lower elevation, then hydroelectric generation wouldn’t work as it does at the Hoover Dam - where the majority of the water flowing through the dam and turning the turbines in the spring is melted snow and ice.

Again, simple observation makes it self-evident that you are not correct.

[TXnMA]

I believe your problem is that you are trying to perceive potential energy as a stand-alone property. It is not; potential energy is a delta.

Potential energy must always be calculated or stated with respect to some "ground" reference. In the water column I mentioned, the measured pressure was between the "head" (height) of the column and its "bottom" -- with such variables as the height of the column, G, density, etc. left unstated.

And, of course, potential is not confined to gravitational effects. In order to operate, even good old Ohm's Law ("E = IR") requires an (often unstated) "ground potential" to provide a reference for the electromotive (potential) force, "E".

I have to chuckle when I think of the Potential -to- Kinetic conversions on my Fuji-san" trek. I just realized that I had been unconsciously using as my "ground", Station 7(?) -- which we had climbed past early the night before on our climb to be at the summit for sunrise [spectacular!]. Why? It was at that station where we reached the bottom of our exhilarating "flying" descent down the (~45 degree) cinder slope -- and dumped the cinders from our (by then well-worn) boots -- before returning to the trail for the rest of the plod down to the bus station.

(My potential energy at the summit was obviously less WRT Station 7 than it was WRT the bus station -- but the former "delta " was certainly the most fun!

"Proper" "ash-slide" descent technique entails leaning back onto your "Fuji-stick" (climbing stick) and using it as stabilizer, tiller, and brake as you "skate" long "seven-league boot" steps under the (dramatically obvious) influence of gravity. As a measure of some of the expended energy, my Fuji-stick" was nearly six inches shorter when we reached Station 7 (as measured against a new one)! '-)

I "leave as an exercise for the student" the calculation of my potential energy between the summit of Fuji-san and our home on the Kanto Plain -- slightly above sea level... '-)

~~~~~~~~~~~

All this discussion of transfers and expenditures of energy brings to mind the old Japanese saying,

"He who fails to climb Fuji-san in his lifetime is a fool."

"He who climbs it twice is twice a fool..."

~~~~~~~~~~~

'-)

[TXnMA]

I'm one of those "old school Texas [B]aptists" -- and we agree. These "inerrancy types" love to castigate as "liberal" those who do not agree with the "inerrancy" of their particular (mis) interpretation (in particular, of Genesis).

As one who is comfortable with (and thrilled by) both the Genesis account and with ever-improving cosmological and genetic understanding. I guess my self-label would be, "Liberated". :-)

It's amazng how truly liberating it is to escape from having to "prove" that you have the "only" answer to things like Creation!!!

Man (particularly Mohler) is not the measure of God!

[DesertRhino]

I agree, and though most people characterize Baptists as some odd backwards narrow minded throwbacks, the Texas Baptist world i knew back then was a wondrous thing.

It was one man or woman, equipped with a Bible, and the mind God gave them. Nobody stood between the individual, and their God. They were able to read and interpret the scripture within sane reason.

There were no tin pot dictators in the seminaries or the churches, there were no official catechisms and fatwas. I felt like it was as close to the early churches as you could come in this day and age.

The saddest thing ever is for someone to equate “conservatives” trying to take over the Baptist faith, as being political conservatives. Inside the struggle for the church, liberal and conservative do not translate into modern political conservatism and liberalism.

One final thought, there have always been Baptists out there who believed in the 4000 year old earth, etc. The church gave them freedom to believe that if their study told them so. As long as they loved Jesus and accepted his death for their sins. But now, this sad move insists that everyone follow the inerrancy dogma.

[Alamo-Girl]

I'm in that "old school Texas Baptist" camp, too. In fact I'm a "bakery shop kid."

There is certainly a lineage of Baptists who value the label "Baptist" and would trace their history back to the origin of the doctrine of believer's baptism around 1600.

But Baptists are "local rule" and many of them very independent indeed in every respect, so much so they consider themselves to be non-denominational. These would relate much more closely to the home church or the spontaneous assembly of Christians in whatever number and where-ever.

Indeed, I suspect in the Dallas/Ft Worth area many of the "non-denominational" churches actually just dropped the word "baptist" from their church names.

The latter group couldn't care less about the rise of the formal doctrine of the believer's baptism. To them, the rise of the assembly is the point and the succession is Spiritual not physical.

But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. - I John 2:27

What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost [which is] in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? - I Corinthians 6:19

For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. - Colossians 3:3

Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. I am the vine, ye [are] the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. - John 15:4-5

But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. - Romans 8:9

The latter group of Baptists would relate to my testimony as I relate to theirs.

Waaay back in the 50’s, when I was in elementary school, several of us kids would meet after school in the local bakery shop while they were cleaning up. The owners would give us drinks and left-over goodies. We’d bring our Bibles, read and just talk about Jesus.

My older sister – now in heaven – was always the ring leader.

It so happened that an old retired Baptist preacher heard about the bakery shop kids and came by to meet us. He was moved by what he saw and he used his life’s savings to build a tiny little church up the street.

Naturally all the kids got the rest of their families to join them in meeting in the new church – and before you knew it we were all baptized Southern Baptist. The church grew and split and had missionary churches of it own.

If it had been someone from another Christian “label” who found the bakery shop kids, built the church and baptized us, I’d probably be wearing a different label today. LOLOL!

As it is my "letter" has always been in a Baptist church, though that point is meaningless to me because at the root, I will always be that bakery shop kid – a Christian, plain and simple.

I attend Mass more often than any Protestant service in the area because our elderly Catholic cousin is in a wheelchair and needs help. Truly, there are many doctrines in the Catholic belief which grate against my spirit, e.g. closed communion, but if God led me to become Catholic, I would.

But since I am a bakery shop kid at the root, the priest (a very nice man) can be grateful I am not. LOLOL!

Truly, man is not the measure of God.

[kosta50]

you bash someone's faith in an unproven cosmological origin hypothesis with your faith in another unproven cosmological hypothesis

What is my faith in another unproven hypothesis? If you are going to say something, then be specific.

There's actually more evidence for the former than the latter.

Such as?

[TXnMA]

Folks, you can't imagine how much I've enjoyed your little "insiders' byplay" re bvw's "reward! I literally sat here laughing out loud as I read through it. Kudos!!

However, MHGinTN, I'm gonna have to label you "one of them thar Modernist fellers".

When I was a kid in Sunday School, I had to lick my stars to get 'em to stick! LOL!!

~~~~~~~~~~

Thanks for a nice moment of "virtual fellowship"! :-)

[Alamo-Girl]

LOLOL!

[kosta50]

On your first issue concerning what constitutes "fact" I once again offer my testimony:

Your testimony, AG, is not a proof.

On your second issue concerning the beginning of space/time and multi-verse theory, I once again offer these insights:

AG, my question was how does your source know the Big Bag was the "beginning"? How does he know the Big Bag is not something that has repeated itself forever and, more importantly, how do you know what pre-existed the Big Bang? That's all.

And finally, concerning your sidebar with xzins, I say here as I have said on many threads before that Paradise/Eden and Adamic man, like the Ark of the Covenant and the Temple and the Holy Mountain, are not strictly physical

My sidebar with xzins was simply an expansion of the point I made earlier, namely that your presentations was essentially Gnostic. I also took issue with your translation of Gen 2:17 and showed you that  your translation (and erroneous conclusion based on it) is not the translation (and conclusion) of those who know ancient Hebrew.

[kosta50]

Therefore, the First Cause argument comes up short

Correct. The paradox is that the god-of-gaps crowd claims God doesn't change yet God intercedes. Logic tells us that God wasn't always creating...

[kosta50]

You do know that synesthesia is not an ordinary condition, right? It’s a problem with the brain wrongly interpreting signals that it receives from various parts of the body

bvw is making a straw man, while avoiding the question I asked him several times: what does Wisdom look like? I have yet to get the answer which study was done specifically on this subject. And now he is reaching for neurological disorders to "prove" he is right.

[Alamo-Girl]

On your first point, my testimony is not a proof. It is a statement of fact: God is not a hypothesis, He lives, His Name is I AM and I've known Him for a half century and counting.

I would not "prove" God at your request for the same reason I would not prove my brother had you suggested that he is a hypothesis or pink unicorn.

On your second point, the number of prior universes in a physical cosmology (if any) is irrelevant because:

In the absence of space, things cannot exist.

In the absence of time, events cannot occur.

Both space and time are required for physical causality, e.g. a Big Bang.

All such physical cosmologies accomplish is to move the goalpost back to a prior universe relying on the pre-existence of, but never explaining the origin of, real space, real time and real physical causality.

In sum, God whose Name is I AM or YHwH (He IS) often translated to "The Lord" cannot be denied.

Or as Physicist once put it (avoiding the obvious theological reference as scientists are wont to do) "existence exists."

On your third point, the "muwth muwth" of Genesis 2:17 is a Hebraism, an intensifying infinite absolute.

[Theophilus]

The just will rule over the insolent.

Amen!