# Bruce Waltke on Evolution



## dannyhyde

Bruce Waltke and Evolution


----------



## mvdm

Excellent article.


----------



## sastark

Yes, an excellent article. Doesn't Waltke teach at RTS?


----------



## SemperEruditio

Ah come on! I just bought Waltke's _Hebrew Syntax_...now I gotta return it?!?!?


----------



## Soonerborn

I am confused and don't know anything about this controversy with Waltke. In his "Statement of Clarification" Waltke states:


1.Adam and Eve are historical figures from whom all humans are descended; they are uniquely created in the image of God and as such are not in continuum with animals.

Pardon my ignorance, but how is this statement not orthodox, and how does it support evolution?


----------



## chbrooking

Waltke clarified his own position in the article linked via the OP, labeled 'here'. I've copied it for convenience.



> Dr. Bruce Waltke’s Statement of Clarification:
> “I had not seen the video before it was distributed. Having seen it, I realize its deficiency and wish to put my comments in a fuller theological context:
> 
> Adam and Eve are historical figures from whom all humans are descended; they are uniquely created in the image of God and as such are not in continuum with animals.
> 
> Adam is the federal and historical head of the fallen human race just as Jesus Christ is the federal and historical head of the Church.
> 
> I am not a scientist, but I have familiarized myself with attempts to harmonize Genesis 1-3 with science, and I believe that creation by the process of evolution is a tenable Biblical position, and, as represented by BioLogos, the best Christian apologetic to defend Genesis 1-3 against its critics.
> 
> I apologize for giving the impression that others who seek to harmonize the two differently are not credible. I honor all who contend for the Christian faith.
> 
> Evolution as a process must be clearly distinguished from evolutionism as a philosophy. The latter is incompatible with orthodox Christian theology.
> 
> Science is fallible and subject to revision. As a human and social enterprise, science will always be in flux. My first commitment is to the infallibility (as to its authority) and inerrancy (as to its Source) of Scripture.
> 
> God could have created the Garden of Eden with apparent age or miraculously, even as Christ instantly turned water into wine, but the statement that God “caused the trees to grow” argues against these notions.
> 
> I believe that the Triune God is Maker and Sustainer of heaven and earth and that biblical Adam is the historical head of the human race.
> 
> Theological comments made here are mostly a digest of my chapters on Genesis 1-3 in An Old Testament Theology (Zondervan, 2007).”


----------



## jwright82

Well I have no respect for Francis Collins, he is basically a sell out. I have often sat in confusion about christians who feel like we should even be threatened by the theory of evolution, I mean the generic Darwinian defenition (descent from common ancestry). I am not threatened by a theory that has to resort to logical fallacies and bullying to get itself accepted. Here are few questions that I ask evolutionists and to this date I have never recieved an answer:

1. Since microevolution (changes in a species) is the go too for proving macreoevolution (descent from common ancestry) I often press evolutionists on this issue, how does microevolution prove macreoevolution? Or to put it another way, how does dogs evolving into dogs prove that they can evolve into anything other than a dog, like a cat?
By the way when they claim that evolution is proven they always are talking about microevolution, but they mix the meanings of the words to give the apearence that the whole thing is proven, this changeing of the meaning of a word midargument is the fallacy of equivication.

2. The fossil record proves nothing other than that one bone is lower in the ground than another, that is it. You cannot make an outragious claim that because some bones are lower in the ground than others that they must be related in time. That is ridiculous! Also they are commiting circular reasoning when they bring their own interpretation of the fossil record to the data and then interpret the data through that lens and then claim that this interpreted data proves their original interpretation, it doesn't work that way.

3. Adaptive mutation is the most hotly debated issue in evolutionary theory, basically as I understand it how and why our genes mutate to adapt. I ask them how they know that when the dust settles and an answer is found it will not show that there is a definant limit on mutation such that descent from common ancestry is impossible? Or that when we have an answer will this answer show that mutation can only be taken so far, and not outside the limit of the species?

4. They almost always resort to ad hominem attacks, or attacks on people or points of views. Any position that resorts to ridicule to prove their point probally is just trying to disguise the fact that they are standing on shaky ground already. When this happens simply remind them that personal attacks prove nothing and that if their theory was so right as they claim than they would not need to resort to this dirty tactic, the facts would speak for themselves.

5. Chimps and human DNA being like 97-98% the same prove nothing other than that our DNAs are 97-98% the same. Again they commit circular reasoning when they preinterpret the data and then try to say that this proves their interpretation.

These 5 examples show clearly, at least to me, that their so called proof is not so proven after all. The added bonus of asking them these questions is that it is not the usual aproech of like where is the missing links, so they are not prepared for them. I hope these help anyone who is dealing with this.


----------



## DMcFadden

Excellent article! Remember that Charles Hodge didn't not establish a great precedent for Reformed thinkers when he argued that if science "facts" conflict with a prior interpretation of the Bible, we are obligated to accept the scientific view and reinterpret the Bible. Yikes!


----------



## sastark

Hodge said that? Are you sure it wasn't Warfield?


----------



## chbrooking

There's no such thing as a 'fact' that is not interpreted. However, science does inform our reading of the Bible. General revelation is not opposed to special revelation, since the same God is revealing both. We have nothing to fear from science, so long as it is not put on a par with the Bible. But God doesn't have us check our brains at the door. When science -- and I mean true science -- teaches us something, we don't just chuck it because our interpretation of the Bible doesn't agree. We check our interpretation. Perhaps we've misunderstood the text. Perhaps we haven't, but science does impact our interpretation -- even if it confirms it. Science, really, when properly done, is a redeemed mind investigating God's world. It submits its interpretation to the word of God, but good interpretation avails itself of all the evidence, not fearing the impossible. It is impossible that the scriptures are untrue. But it is quite possible that we misunderstand them. If science is interested in nothing more than justifying our current understanding of the Bible, then it is worse than useless (as a distinct discipline). That is, in that case, there is no difference between science and hermeneutics. And in that case, there's a denial of the reliability of general revelation altogether.


----------



## py3ak

What does science, in the current sense of the word, have to do with general revelation?


----------



## Steve Curtis

DMcFadden said:


> Excellent article! Remember that Charles Hodge didn't not establish a great precedent for Reformed thinkers when he argued that if science "facts" conflict with a prior interpretation of the Bible, we are obligated to accept the scientific view and reinterpret the Bible. Yikes!


 
With Seth, I think that sounds more like Warfield. However, I may be wrong! I'd love a reference on Hodge if you have it, but I will look through my copy tonight (assuming the reference came from his ST).


----------



## chbrooking

py3ak said:


> What does science, in the current sense of the word, have to do with general revelation?


 
You'll notice that I (nontechnically) defined it in my remarks, so I'm not sure what you mean by "in the current sense of the word." Are you suggesting that Christians cannot do science? One of the great benefits of the Reformation was that desecularization of lay professions. Science should be all about general revelation. Of course, it isn't always (or often, sadly) pursued properly. It is too often pursued as though it were independent. But that doesn't make science itself bad. It only points out that many scientists are bad. I'm not willing to throw off science, however, just because some claim its name for the pursuit of vanity. Nor am I willing to ignore the observations of bad scientists. I'll challenge their interpretations. I'll even be suspicious of their data, knowing that even their observations are interpreted when conveyed. But even the bad scientist is looking at general revelation. He just suppresses that truth.


----------



## TimV

Clark, you do believe theistic evolution is wrong, right?


----------



## chbrooking

Wouldn't you consider pharmacology a form of science? What about the study of radiation for the eradication of a cancer? What about the study of genetics for the agricultural industry? Science, in the current sense of the word, is very much about general revelation. Can the word 'science' be used improperly? Sure.

---------- Post added at 07:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:17 PM ----------




TimV said:


> Clark, you do believe theistic evolution is wrong, right?


 
I do, for exegetical, theological and apologetic reasons. However, I'm frustrated by the nature of the 'conversation'. I see a lot of platitudes and dodges, and no genuine clash in the debate. That saddens me. I might expect the atheist to ignore our 'big picture'/foundational questions. But I would expect Christians to deal more responsibly with the data that is observed. One example of what I don't appreciate is found in one of the posts above, where the stratification of fossils was dismissed as insignificant. I have yet to see a biblically committed and relatively comprehensive treatment of the fossil record. That's not responsible. A biblical worldview is NOT afraid of the data, and IS committed to explaining it -- not explaining it away or redirecting the discussion to philosophy, but explaining it.


----------



## py3ak

If science should be all about general revelation, then aren't you considering science to simply be another name for natural theology? But strictly speaking physics or chemistry is a distinct discipline from theology.


----------



## chbrooking

You see, this is the problem with labels -- and what terrified me about ordination. I was ordained 10 years after seminary, and was just sure I was going to walk into some word-trap. I really don't know where the term "Natural Theology" has been, and am therefore reluctant to put it in my mouth.

I made my point clear, though, I think. All of creation declares the glory of God. The scientist, who is true to his field, will examine the world in the light of scripture, and will in the process, of course, learn something of the God who created it. That is not to say that his science will not serve a utilitarian purpose. He can fulfill the cultural mandate while still learning something of the wonder of our creator. Is what I'm describing "Natural Theology"? I don't think so, not if that term is meant to carry all sorts of pagan connotations. Is it the response of a redeemed mind as he examines the world God gave us to subdue? Yes.


----------



## MW

chbrooking said:


> I have yet to see a biblically committed and relatively comprehensive treatment of the fossil record. That's not responsible. A biblical worldview is NOT afraid of the data, and IS committed to explaining it -- not explaining it away or redirecting the discussion to philosophy, but explaining it.


 
So-called "creation scientists" would claim that they have provided "biblically committed" treatment of the fossil record by the use of catastrophism to explain it.

I'm not sure how a theory can be "biblically committed" and still function within the restricted domain of "general revelation." Perhaps that needs to be clarified.

The problem with this kind of conversation is that it tends to be conducted along "philosophical" lines while the "philosophy" itself is kept hidden from view.


----------



## chbrooking

I'm not sure that physics or chemistry is any different really? Don't they both reveal order and providence? Sure, the chemist can either label the incomprehensible something that holds an atom together "strong force" or he can acknowledge Jesus in it as he submits his field to Col. 1:17. But that's precisely what I'm talking about. A scientist can be faithful or unfaithful. But science is the study of the world God has given us.

---------- Post added at 10:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:37 PM ----------




armourbearer said:


> So-called "creation scientists" would claim that they have provided "biblically committed" treatment of the fossil record by the use of catastrophism to explain it.



Yes, but they keep it at just that level. They haven't explained the global pattern of distribution. They haven't treated the types of rock and the layers and the consistency or lack thereof around the world. They never quite get to the nitty gritty evidence itself. You can disagree with me all you like, but I am one who IS biblically committed and CONVINCED that God created all this. I'm just DYING to see an explanation -- I'm already favorably disposed to one, should it ever come down the pike, but I haven't seen it yet. And I've looked for it. Perhaps you can point me in the right direction 



armourbearer said:


> I'm not sure how a theory can be "biblically committed" and still function within the restricted domain of "general revelation." Perhaps that needs to be clarified.



I think I have done that. It is done through observation, not exegesis. Nevertheless, observations are submitted to biblical authority. It recognizes that our observations are tainted by sin. It recognizes the priority of special revelation. But it also recognizes that God is revealed in both general and special revelation. Is that clear enough? 



armourbearer said:


> The problem with this kind of conversation is that it tends to be conducted along "philosophical" lines while the "philosophy" itself is kept hidden from view.


 
No, the problem with this kind of conversation is the evidence is never dealt with. Are you accusing me of holding an unbiblical philosophy Rev. Winzer?


----------



## py3ak

> *theologia naturalis*: _natural theology;_ viz., the knowledge of God that is available to reason through the light of nature. _Theologia naturalis_ can know of God as the highest good (_summum bonum_), q.v.), and it can know of the end of man in God on the basis of perfect obedience to the natural law (_lex naturalis,_ q.v.). It is therefore insufficient to save man but sufficient to leave him without excuse in his sins. The Protestant orthodox include virtually no natural theology in their systems and never view natural theology, human reason, or the light of nature as a foundation upon which revealed theology can build.


(Richard Muller, _Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms_)

I think the vital point is that it is a knowledge of God; not of how to manipulate the world in certain ways, but of the world's Creator. The quotes below might address some of the other issues you mention. It sounds like you agree with me when you say that science is the study of the world God gave us: and an unbelieving scientist can come to true and accurate conclusions about that piece of the world that falls into his purview. But my understanding is that general revelation is concerned with revealing God, not with revealing, e.g., how amino acids interact.

On the entry under _revelatio generalis/revelatio specialis_ Dr Muller notes that "_revelation generalis_ and the _theologia naturalis_ resulting from it contain only a nonsaving truth, known only partially and imperfectly by the sinful intellect." Again, in the entry on _theologia naturalis regenitorum_ he says, "Beza is usually credited with the formal statement of a natural theology of the regenerate, a sense of the divine work in creation, useful to Christian theology, but possible only in the context of a prior saving knowledge of God."


----------



## MW

chbrooking said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> So-called "creation scientists" would claim that they have provided "biblically committed" treatment of the fossil record by the use of catastrophism to explain it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but they keep it at just that level. They haven't explained the global pattern of distribution. They haven't treated the types of rock and the layers and the consistency or lack thereof around the world. They never quite get to the nitty gritty evidence itself. You can disagree with me all you like, but I am one who IS biblically committed and CONVINCED that God created all this.
Click to expand...


I wasn't disagreeing with you, just stating what they would claim to have provided.



chbrooking said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure how a theory can be "biblically committed" and still function within the restricted domain of "general revelation." Perhaps that needs to be clarified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think I have done that. It is done through observation, not exegesis. Nevertheless, observations are submitted to biblical authority. It recognizes that our observations are tainted by sin. It recognizes the priority of special revelation. But it also recognizes that God is revealed in both general and special revelation. Is that clear enough?
Click to expand...


This seems counter-productive. Observation cannot be conducted on its own and then submitted to biblical authority. The observation itself will be conducted according to principles which are either biblical or not. As you stated earlier, facts are interpretations. The interpretation either seeks to think God's thoughts after Him or it refuses to do so. There can be no neutrality.



chbrooking said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with this kind of conversation is that it tends to be conducted along "philosophical" lines while the "philosophy" itself is kept hidden from view.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the problem with this kind of conversation is the evidence is never dealt with. Are you accusing me of holding an unbiblical philosophy Rev. Winzer?
Click to expand...

 
My statement made no reference to you. It pertained to the conversation. E.g., a "creation-scientist" maintains a philosophy seeking to produce a science which only aims at vindicating creation. A materialistic scientist does much the same in terms of vindicating a material creation. There are underlying philosophies which are not brought out into the open and made a focal point of discussion, and so there is no real conversation taking place.


----------



## chbrooking

We seem to be in agreement. I just don't think the "creation-scientists" have done a very good job of explaining the data. Admittedly, neither has the other side -- nor could it, as it does not operate from a biblical worldview. But we do, and ought to be able to move the conversation to the data. Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## DMcFadden

sastark said:


> Hodge said that? Are you sure it wasn't Warfield?


 
Seth, o thou of little faith in my accuracy! OUCH! 

‘It is of course admitted that, taking this account [Genesis] by itself, it would be most natural to understand the word [day] in its ordinary sense; but if that sense brings the Mosaic account into conflict with facts, [millions of years] and another sense avoids such conflict, then it is obligatory on us to adopt that other.’

Reference: Hodge, C., _Systematic Theology_, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, MI, pp. 570–571, 1997.

Hodge was a diehard ANTI-Darwinist. That did not, however, lead him to embrace a YEC position. The hermeneutics of the case are interesting. Nature becomes the 67th book of the Bible and we have every right to interpret the Bible in terms of the assured "facts" of science. I disagree (respectfully) with the great Hodge here.


----------



## sastark

DMcFadden said:


> sastark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hodge said that? Are you sure it wasn't Warfield?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seth, o thou of little faith in my accuracy! OUCH!
> 
> ‘It is of course admitted that, taking this account [Genesis] by itself, it would be most natural to understand the word [day] in its ordinary sense; but if that sense brings the Mosaic account into conflict with facts, [millions of years] and another sense avoids such conflict, then it is obligatory on us to adopt that other.’
> 
> Reference: Hodge, C., _Systematic Theology_, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, MI, pp. 570–571, 1997.
> 
> Hodge was a diehard ANTI-Darwinist. That did not, however, lead him to embrace a YEC position. The hermeneutics of the case are interesting. Nature becomes the 67th book of the Bible and we have every right to interpret the Bible in terms of the assured "facts" of science. I disagree (respectfully) with the great Hodge here.
Click to expand...

 
As do I, Dennis. Thank you for bringing that quote to my attention. I repent for having doubted your encyclopedic knowledge of the great Princeton theologian! 

It is sad that Hodge views "facts" as being able to exist outside the interpretive filter of Scripture. But, this does help to explain why his son was so accepting of an old earth.


----------



## tcalbrecht

chbrooking said:


> Wouldn't you consider pharmacology a form of science? What about the study of radiation for the eradication of a cancer? What about the study of genetics for the agricultural industry? Science, in the current sense of the word, is very much about general revelation. Can the word 'science' be used improperly? Sure.
> 
> ---------- Post added at 07:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:17 PM ----------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TimV said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clark, you do believe theistic evolution is wrong, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do, for exegetical, theological and apologetic reasons. However, I'm frustrated by the nature of the 'conversation'. I see a lot of platitudes and dodges, and no genuine clash in the debate. That saddens me. I might expect the atheist to ignore our 'big picture'/foundational questions. But I would expect Christians to deal more responsibly with the data that is observed. One example of what I don't appreciate is found in one of the posts above, where the stratification of fossils was dismissed as insignificant. I have yet to see a biblically committed and relatively comprehensive treatment of the fossil record. That's not responsible. A biblical worldview is NOT afraid of the data, and IS committed to explaining it -- not explaining it away or redirecting the discussion to philosophy, but explaining it.
Click to expand...

 
What does the “raw data” regarding, for example, stratification of fossils tell you wrt creation? The interpretation of the data requires a particular view of reality. Or, as Bahnsen explained it:



> Van Til realizes that there is no natural theology, if we mean that according to Romans 1 the created realm simply provides uninterpreted raw data which merely makes possible, provided men rationally reflect upon it correctly, a natural knowledge of God as the eventual conclusion of their reasoning. From the epistemological side, there is no uninterpreted sense data ("no brute facts"); and from the metaphysical side, there is no logic free of commitment to some view of reality ("no neutrality"). Theologically, men do not naturally interpret their experience of nature in such a way as to reach and affirm correct conclusions about God. About the natural man, who "cannot know" the things of God's Spirit (1 Cor 2:14), Paul said "there is none who seeks after God" (Rom 3:11). In that case we should not really speak of natural theology, but rather of a "natural atheology." Until men are driven to abandon their intellectual autonomy and to think in terms of the truth of God as their point of reference, they will never read the evidence properly for God's existence, but Van Til adds, neither will they be able to make sense of any area of their experience. The theistic proofs should not, therefore, cater to man's pretended autonomy. It is important to stress the "basic difference between a theistic proof that presupposes God and one that presupposes man as ultimate." (Greg Bahnsen, Pressing Toward The Mark: Machen, Van Til, and the Apologetical Tradition of the OPC)



The creationist will never be able to give an explanation of the “raw data” that satisfies the darkened mind of an avowed evolutionist. So what do you propose would be a satisfactory explanation of the data from the creationist perspective?


----------



## chbrooking

I don't recall using the term "raw data". If you thoughtfully read what I said at all, you would recognize that. By putting "raw data" in quotes like this in your response to me, you seem to be attributing to me some acceptance of brute fact. I'm far too van Tilian for that, I asure you. Nevertheless, there is data. A fossil is a datum. No datum is uninterpreted. It is not primarily interpreted by either the pagan or the Christian. It receives its principal and true interpretation in the mind of the Creator. Nevertheless, we do encounter the world. And we must interpret what we encounter. Hopefully we'll interpret in accord with the creator who gave it its true meaning. But whether the darwinist or the YEC digs up the specimen, it (the specimen) is now in the public square. 

Your response is typical of everything I've run into that frustrates me. Why don't you guys understand this ... WE AGREE ON THE EPISTEMOLOGICAL ISSUE. Now let's get down to brass tacks. GIVEN OUR EPISTEMOLOGY, how do we explain the things that have been uncovered? Forget those who disagree with us philosophically/theologically for a bit. What about the ewe in the pew who has a biology class next semester? Are we to tell her, "Don't take it."? Are we to tell her, "Take it, but don't believe anything you read."? I guess I'm just asking for too much. It's too much for us to use the brains God redeemed for anything beyond philosophy. God didn't redeem scientific inquiry, only philosophical speculation. We should just leave science to the pagans, and we'll argue from afar without respect to observations, that their conclusions are wrong. NO!

The fact that there's no such thing as 'raw data', doesn't mean that there is no data at all. I think that's my frustration. We're dodging the data. INTERPRET it.



tcalbrecht said:


> chbrooking said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't you consider pharmacology a form of science? What about the study of radiation for the eradication of a cancer? What about the study of genetics for the agricultural industry? Science, in the current sense of the word, is very much about general revelation. Can the word 'science' be used improperly? Sure.
> 
> ---------- Post added at 07:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:17 PM ----------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TimV said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clark, you do believe theistic evolution is wrong, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do, for exegetical, theological and apologetic reasons. However, I'm frustrated by the nature of the 'conversation'. I see a lot of platitudes and dodges, and no genuine clash in the debate. That saddens me. I might expect the atheist to ignore our 'big picture'/foundational questions. But I would expect Christians to deal more responsibly with the data that is observed. One example of what I don't appreciate is found in one of the posts above, where the stratification of fossils was dismissed as insignificant. I have yet to see a biblically committed and relatively comprehensive treatment of the fossil record. That's not responsible. A biblical worldview is NOT afraid of the data, and IS committed to explaining it -- not explaining it away or redirecting the discussion to philosophy, but explaining it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does the “raw data” regarding, for example, stratification of fossils tell you wrt creation? The interpretation of the data requires a particular view of reality. Or, as Bahnsen explained it:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Van Til realizes that there is no natural theology, if we mean that according to Romans 1 the created realm simply provides uninterpreted raw data which merely makes possible, provided men rationally reflect upon it correctly, a natural knowledge of God as the eventual conclusion of their reasoning. From the epistemological side, there is no uninterpreted sense data ("no brute facts"); and from the metaphysical side, there is no logic free of commitment to some view of reality ("no neutrality"). Theologically, men do not naturally interpret their experience of nature in such a way as to reach and affirm correct conclusions about God. About the natural man, who "cannot know" the things of God's Spirit (1 Cor 2:14), Paul said "there is none who seeks after God" (Rom 3:11). In that case we should not really speak of natural theology, but rather of a "natural atheology." Until men are driven to abandon their intellectual autonomy and to think in terms of the truth of God as their point of reference, they will never read the evidence properly for God's existence, but Van Til adds, neither will they be able to make sense of any area of their experience. The theistic proofs should not, therefore, cater to man's pretended autonomy. It is important to stress the "basic difference between a theistic proof that presupposes God and one that presupposes man as ultimate." (Greg Bahnsen, Pressing Toward The Mark: Machen, Van Til, and the Apologetical Tradition of the OPC)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The creationist will never be able to give an explanation of the “raw data” that satisfies the darkened mind of an avowed evolutionist. So what do you propose would be a satisfactory explanation of the data from the creationist perspective?
Click to expand...


----------



## ChristianTrader

Or you can understand that some problems are just hard even with the right theological understanding.

Or you can realize that there are at least three peer reviewed YEC Journals that publish stuff continually concerning technical science, philosophy etc.

Books like this: Earth's Catastrophic Past - Answers Bookstore

CT


chbrooking said:


> I don't recall using the term "raw data". If you thoughtfully read what I said at all, you would recognize that. By putting "raw data" in quotes like this in your response to me, you seem to be attributing to me some acceptance of brute fact. I'm far too van Tilian for that, I asure you. Nevertheless, there is data. A fossil is a datum. No datum is uninterpreted. It is not primarily interpreted by either the pagan or the Christian. It receives its principal and true interpretation in the mind of the Creator. Nevertheless, we do encounter the world. And we must interpret what we encounter. Hopefully we'll interpret in accord with the creator who gave it its true meaning. But whether the darwinist or the YEC digs up the specimen, it (the specimen) is now in the public square.
> 
> Your response is typical of everything I've run into that frustrates me. Why don't you guys understand this ... WE AGREE ON THE EPISTEMOLOGICAL ISSUE. Now let's get down to brass tacks. GIVEN OUR EPISTEMOLOGY, how do we explain the things that have been uncovered? Forget those who disagree with us philosophically/theologically for a bit. What about the ewe in the pew who has a biology class next semester? Are we to tell her, "Don't take it."? Are we to tell her, "Take it, but don't believe anything you read."? I guess I'm just asking for too much. It's too much for us to use the brains God redeemed for anything beyond philosophy. God didn't redeem scientific inquiry, only philosophical speculation. We should just leave science to the pagans, and we'll argue from afar without respect to observations, that their conclusions are wrong. NO!
> 
> The fact that there's no such thing as 'raw data', doesn't mean that there is no data at all. I think that's my frustration. We're dodging the data. INTERPRET it.
> 
> 
> 
> tcalbrecht said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chbrooking said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't you consider pharmacology a form of science? What about the study of radiation for the eradication of a cancer? What about the study of genetics for the agricultural industry? Science, in the current sense of the word, is very much about general revelation. Can the word 'science' be used improperly? Sure.
> 
> ---------- Post added at 07:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:17 PM ----------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TimV said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clark, you do believe theistic evolution is wrong, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do, for exegetical, theological and apologetic reasons. However, I'm frustrated by the nature of the 'conversation'. I see a lot of platitudes and dodges, and no genuine clash in the debate. That saddens me. I might expect the atheist to ignore our 'big picture'/foundational questions. But I would expect Christians to deal more responsibly with the data that is observed. One example of what I don't appreciate is found in one of the posts above, where the stratification of fossils was dismissed as insignificant. I have yet to see a biblically committed and relatively comprehensive treatment of the fossil record. That's not responsible. A biblical worldview is NOT afraid of the data, and IS committed to explaining it -- not explaining it away or redirecting the discussion to philosophy, but explaining it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does the “raw data” regarding, for example, stratification of fossils tell you wrt creation? The interpretation of the data requires a particular view of reality. Or, as Bahnsen explained it:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Van Til realizes that there is no natural theology, if we mean that according to Romans 1 the created realm simply provides uninterpreted raw data which merely makes possible, provided men rationally reflect upon it correctly, a natural knowledge of God as the eventual conclusion of their reasoning. From the epistemological side, there is no uninterpreted sense data ("no brute facts"); and from the metaphysical side, there is no logic free of commitment to some view of reality ("no neutrality"). Theologically, men do not naturally interpret their experience of nature in such a way as to reach and affirm correct conclusions about God. About the natural man, who "cannot know" the things of God's Spirit (1 Cor 2:14), Paul said "there is none who seeks after God" (Rom 3:11). In that case we should not really speak of natural theology, but rather of a "natural atheology." Until men are driven to abandon their intellectual autonomy and to think in terms of the truth of God as their point of reference, they will never read the evidence properly for God's existence, but Van Til adds, neither will they be able to make sense of any area of their experience. The theistic proofs should not, therefore, cater to man's pretended autonomy. It is important to stress the "basic difference between a theistic proof that presupposes God and one that presupposes man as ultimate." (Greg Bahnsen, Pressing Toward The Mark: Machen, Van Til, and the Apologetical Tradition of the OPC)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The creationist will never be able to give an explanation of the “raw data” that satisfies the darkened mind of an avowed evolutionist. So what do you propose would be a satisfactory explanation of the data from the creationist perspective?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Peairtach

The natural world may be slower, in God's providence, to give up its secrets to science than we imagine, especially when so many scientists are working from a naturalistic philosophy.

Look how slow archaeology was to find Ur, the Hittites, Caiaphas's Ossuary, Herod the Great's Sarcophagus, etc. We accept the biblical testimony whether or not current archaeology, paleontology, etc. "supports" God's Word.

Is science at a relatively early stage? Are any of the options of YEC, OEC, Theistic Evolution totally intellectually satisfying? I believe _from Scripture_ that God created the heavens and the earth and then took Six Ordinary Days to fill them. He created days on Day One. The science is still in progress.

There is also the problem that if God formed and filled the Earth and Universe in Six Days as I believe Scripture teaches, scientists that ignore that testimony will have the added confusion of a universe that appears - at least sometimes or often - to be older than it actually is.

The same problem would have been faced by scientists who studied the wine at Cana and refused the testimony of the servants. And there would have been scientific and philosophical and maybe theological problems for scientists that accepted the testimony of the servants (i.e. like the Creationists who accept God's Word on Six Days) too, as they analysed the wine.


----------



## MW

chbrooking said:


> We should just leave science to the pagans, and we'll argue from afar without respect to observations, that their conclusions are wrong. NO!


 
"No" is the correct response. I do not suggest that "science" should be left to the "pagans." They are obviously left to their unproven (and repeatedly disproven) hypotheses, which they unhappily call "science." But so far as genuine observation is concerned I believe there is much Christian activity taking place, quite to the displeasure of the "pagan scientist."

I am finding it difficult to pinpoint what is your actual criticism. You obviously reject the kind of Christian work which is going on in scientific fields today. You also seem discontent with the kind of philosophical confrontation in which Christians engage non-Christians over "facts of science." What, exactly, would you like to see happen?


----------



## TimV

> Now let's get down to brass tacks. GIVEN OUR EPISTEMOLOGY, how do we explain the things that have been uncovered?



What things? I do a short course in beekeeping at the local university, so I stay brushed up on several disciplines. I also cringe at much of the (largely) fundy baptist YEC type science floating around. I'd be interested in a couple examples of what you're getting at.


----------



## chbrooking

teats on a boar
a snake born with legs
stratification in the fossil record
the L-gulano-γ-lactone oxidase gene
dinosaurs (and their relation to the ark, their extinction, etc.)
Wow, there are really just so many things I'd like to see explained, but let's give that a go first. Remember, I'm inclined to accept your explanation from the outset. Just make it a reasonable explanation.


----------



## Nate

Tim, maybe some of the things Pastor Brooking is referring to include the following: 

The mitochondrial genomes of Neanderthals and humans differ significantly. This does, in fact pose a problem for individuals who argue that Neanderthals were just anti-social/less developed/diseased/a specific race of humans. If Neanderthals were humans, their mitochondrial DNA should match that of humans.

There is also the issue of human chromosome 2. The issue is that apes have 48 chromosomes, while humans have 46 chromosomes.... However, human chromosome 2 has double the normal amount of centromeres (part of the chromosome joining sister chromatids) and telomeres (ends of the chromosomes), with half of the telomeres beign buried inside the chromosome. It turns out that human chromosome 2 seems to be a fusion of two ape chromosomes - the sequences work out perfectly. It is really sort of astounding to look at these sequences.

Another example is the observation that viral DNA is able to integrate into host DNA, leaving chunks of viral DNA interspersed throughout our genomes. Apes and humans have chunks of the exact same viral DNA integrated into their genomes at the exact same locations. This also holds for other species that are thought to have evolved from common ancestors.

There are a myriad of other examples, including the back-and-forth evolution of toxins and counter-toxins in predator/prey relationships, as well as the identification of non-essential traits that are dragged along for the evolutionary ride due to the fact that they share the same genomic location or regulation that the trait being selected for has.

Organizations such as Answers in Genesis do address some of these issues. Unfortunately, their arguments are often built out of armies of straw men or are just scientific word salads tossed together to sound impressive but completely lack any real substance. Sadly, they end up sowing much confusion in the Christian world.


----------



## MW

NateLanning said:


> Organizations such as Answers in Genesis do address some of these issues. Unfortunately, their arguments are often built out of armies of straw men or are just scientific word salads tossed together to sound impressive but completely lack any real substance. Sadly, they end up sowing much confusion in the Christian world.


 
I am as skeptical of "creation-science" as any; but may I ask, as a believer in the Bible and its testimony concerning the creation of man in the image of God, how do you respond to the findings you have put forward? For myself, I have numerous questions which I would like to ask in order to test the assumptions being presented. I would like to know, as a fellow believer in the testimony of the Bible, whether or not you think there are valid questions to ask of the "science" at this point.


----------



## chbrooking

NateLanning said:


> Tim, maybe some of the things Pastor Brooking is referring to include the following:
> 
> The mitochondrial genomes of Neanderthals and humans differ significantly. This does, in fact pose a problem for individuals who argue that Neanderthals were just anti-social/less developed/diseased/a specific race of humans. If Neanderthals were humans, their mitochondrial DNA should match that of humans.
> 
> There is also the issue of human chromosome 2. The issue is that apes have 48 chromosomes, while humans have 46 chromosomes.... However, human chromosome 2 has double the normal amount of centromeres (part of the chromosome joining sister chromatids) and telomeres (ends of the chromosomes), with half of the telomeres beign buried inside the chromosome. It turns out that human chromosome 2 seems to be a fusion of two ape chromosomes - the sequences work out perfectly. It is really sort of astounding to look at these sequences.
> 
> Another example is the observation that viral DNA is able to integrate into host DNA, leaving chunks of viral DNA interspersed throughout our genomes. Apes and humans have chunks of the exact same viral DNA integrated into their genomes at the exact same locations. This also holds for other species that are thought to have evolved from common ancestors.
> 
> There are a myriad of other examples, including the back-and-forth evolution of toxins and counter-toxins in predator/prey relationships, as well as the identification of non-essential traits that are dragged along for the evolutionary ride due to the fact that they share the same genomic location or regulation that the trait being selected for has.
> 
> Organizations such as Answers in Genesis do address some of these issues. Unfortunately, their arguments are often built out of armies of straw men or are just scientific word salads tossed together to sound impressive but completely lack any real substance. Sadly, they end up sowing much confusion in the Christian world.


 
I wish I could say that my questions included these things. To be honest, I didn't even understand your examples. But that plays to my point -- and the last one that you made. You presented data. Now, we know that this data is not uninterpreted. We know it conforms with the biblical revelation of God and his creation. Nevertheless, we do need to wrestle with how it fits. Undoubtedly, Rev. Winzer's point that follows your post is valid, too. But we know that the assumptions will be different when it comes to explaining the data. What I want to see is a WAY to fit the data into our biblical worldview. 

With all due respect, Rev. Winzer, however important it is to challenge the unbeliever's presuppositions in his scientific endeavor, it is just as important to present a positive answer. All destruction and no construction seems irresponsible and fruitless. It doesn't help the confused sheep whose job or studies, for instance, brings him face to face with such information. I think we must do more than just hammer home the confession. We must do that, but we must also try to help him navigate the data storm. Surely we don't want to create in his mind either a dualism where he has 6-day truth and sabbath truth. Nor do we want to tell him to ignore the data. So what do we tell him? Now I'm not suggesting that a pastor must master the intricacies of the genome or nanophysics, but somebody should do a better job of it than what I see on Answers in Genesis. 

Thanks Nate. If you don't mind, I'll let you take the heat for a while. You seem better equipped to provide specifics, anyway.  And I'm sleepy.


----------



## MW

chbrooking said:


> With all due respect, Rev. Winzer, however important it is to challenge the unbeliever's presuppositions in his scientific endeavor, it is just as important to present a positive answer.


 
A positive answer to what? Proverbs 13:16, "Every prudent man dealeth with knowledge: but a fool layeth open his folly." The kinds of "observations" we are dealing with are a mass of conjecture built upon the flimsy foundation of a few relics with no unformitarian conditions to substantiate anything. A wise man, in this scenario, is one who waits until he hears testimony and evaluates evidence which can lead to a substantial conclusion.


----------



## chbrooking

NateLanning said:


> Organizations such as Answers in Genesis do address some of these issues. Unfortunately, their arguments are often built out of armies of straw men or are just scientific word salads tossed together to sound impressive but completely lack any real substance.


 
versus



armourbearer said:


> The kinds of "observations" we are dealing with are a mass of conjecture built upon the flimsy foundation of a few relics with no unformitarian conditions to substantiate anything.


 
Since both sides accuse the other of straw men and conjectures (and not entirely without warrant), I'm issuing a desideratum. That's all my posts have been about -- the plea for believers to do a better job of dealing with the data. I don't want us to adopt unbiblical assumptions. But neither do I want us to ignore things we see just because they don't fit our current understanding. Let's either find how they actually do fit, or further our understanding.


----------



## sastark

Amazon.com: Faith, Form, and Time: What the Bible Teaches and Science Confirms about Creation and the Age of the Universe (9780805424621): Kurt Wise: Books

I don't agree with everything Dr. Wise has to say; however, he does present some thoughts on what a biblical, young earth, research program should look like. Maybe this book can help with some of your issues/questions, Pastor Brooking.


----------



## Nate

armourbearer said:


> I am as skeptical of "creation-science" as any; but may I ask, as a believer in the Bible and its testimony concerning the creation of man in the image of God, how do you respond to the findings you have put forward?


I don't have any good scientific responses to these examples. However, I believe that Genesis tells us that God created the heavens, the earth and all that is in them in six 24 hour days a few thousand years ago. Therefore, my ultimate answer to these findings is that they cannot be evidence supporting human evolution over millions of years because, through Genesis, God tells us that this just isn't so. Although, I do believe that the mechanism of evolution is sound and is taking place in every organism on this planet... and so I believe that organisms (and humans) are able to acquire new traits due to the mechanisms of evolution.



> For myself, I have numerous questions which I would like to ask in order to test the assumptions being presented. I would like to know, as a fellow believer in the testimony of the Bible, whether or not you think there are valid questions to ask of the "science" at this point.



Yes, there are always valid questions to ask of all "science" whether it is purporting to support evolutionary theory or not. In these cases, I use the same scientific techniques every day that brought about these observations, and I can assure you that the science is sound. Obviously, I also believe that the widely held pro-evolutionary interpretations of the observations are not sound. There are many, many examples where I don't believe the scientific methods are sound, and even more examples where I disagree with the pro-evolutionary interpretations of the data.

In any case, please do continue to question the "science" itself every time you run across these findings.


----------



## ChristianTrader

chbrooking said:


> With all due respect, Rev. Winzer, however important it is to challenge the unbeliever's presuppositions in his scientific endeavor, it is just as important to present a positive answer.


 
Why do you think this is the case? What if we just do not have a good answer to various problems for the next 50+ years? Should the person in the pew become an atheist or doubt their Bible etc.?

I think part of the problem of bad answers is the misguided need to be able to explain every piece of data at all times. An "I do not know" is not death. 

CT


----------



## Nate

chbrooking said:


> NateLanning said:
> 
> 
> 
> Organizations such as Answers in Genesis do address some of these issues. Unfortunately, their arguments are often built out of armies of straw men or are just scientific word salads tossed together to sound impressive but completely lack any real substance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> versus
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The kinds of "observations" we are dealing with are a mass of conjecture built upon the flimsy foundation of a few relics with no unformitarian conditions to substantiate anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since both sides accuse the other of straw men and conjectures (and not entirely without warrant), I'm issuing a desideratum. That's all my posts have been about -- the plea for believers to do a better job of dealing with the data. I don't want us to adopt unbiblical assumptions. But neither do I want us to ignore things we see just because they don't fit our current understanding. Let's either find how they actually do fit, or further our understanding.
Click to expand...

 
Please note that I do not take the side of the creation _or_ evolutionary scientists... I agree that there needs to be a higher level of discussion amongst Christians on this topic.


----------



## ChristianTrader

News: The Video That Ended a Career - Inside Higher Ed


----------



## chbrooking

NateLanning said:


> Please note that I do not take the side of the creation _or_ evolutionary scientists... I agree that there needs to be a higher level of discussion amongst Christians on this topic.


 
No doubt. I didn't mean to indicate that you did. But if an atheist were to make this remark, we might miss something by attacking the animus behind it. But no, EVEN WE BELIEVERS can often see how ridiculous some of the AiG and similar stuff is. It's not very helpful to thoughtful Christians.

Hermonta,
I agree that, "I don't know" is often the best we can do. But so often the same approach that gives us fluff and straw purporting to be serious science (a statement that could be applied to both sides, but I meant it on the AiG side) --, the same approach that gives us fluff and straw also all-too-often comes off condescending and haughty, as though it DID have all the answers, and that it's just the obstinacy of the unbeliever that keeps him from seeing how it all fits together. All I'm asking for is less fluff, less straw, more gentleness, more respect. Ask the underlying philosophical questions, but don't avoid the data just because you don't have an answer. SAY, "I don't know". Admit it. Then the jump to the philosophical would be more palatable. But to dodge the data by darting to the philosophical comes off as disingenuous, silly, or disrespectful.

Thanks guys.


----------



## Bookworm

Hi Clark,

You wrote:



chbrooking said:


> Yes, but they keep it at just that level. They haven't explained the global pattern of distribution. They haven't treated the types of rock and the layers and the consistency or lack thereof around the world. They never quite get to the nitty gritty evidence itself. You can disagree with me all you like, but I am one who IS biblically committed and CONVINCED that God created all this. I'm just DYING to see an explanation -- I'm already favorably disposed to one, should it ever come down the pike, but I haven't seen it yet. And I've looked for it. Perhaps you can point me in the right direction



I agree with much of what you've said about the lack of well worked out creationist explanations of, for example, the stratigraphic succession of fossils. There has been a tendency in creationism to attack evolutionary explanations while neglecting the development of biblically and scientifically rigorous alternatives. Nevertheless, some creationists have been making a start on these things, such as Kurt Wise's attempts to reconstruct pre-Flood environments (hydrothermal biome, floating forest biome) based on the fossil data. The task of developing creationist theories is much harder than just poking holes in evolution, and won't bear fruit overnight. It's a longer term objective, but worth doing because it's ultimately more intellectually satisfying. My book, _The New Creationism_, focuses on this more positive area of creationist research and, although written for the layman, contains extensive end-notes that refer to the primary literature. Other books that I particularly recommend are Kurt Wise's _Faith, Form and Time_, Todd Wood's _Understanding the Pattern of Life_, and Leonard Brand's _Faith, Reason and Earth History_ (second edition now available). (Note: Leonard Brand is a Seventh-Day Adventist but his book is a very scholarly attempt to show what a creationist approach to earth history might look like).


----------



## Bookworm

Hi Nate,

Just a brief comment on one point you raised:



NateLanning said:


> The mitochondrial genomes of Neanderthals and humans differ significantly.



Correct.



NateLanning said:


> This does, in fact pose a problem for individuals who argue that Neanderthals were just anti-social/less developed/diseased/a specific race of humans. If Neanderthals were humans, their mitochondrial DNA should match that of humans.



I agree that it poses a problem for those who want to argue that Neanderthals are just diseased modern humans, but that's only one possible (and, in my view, incorrect) creationist interpretation. Personally I see no biblical or theological problem in recognising that there are humans in the fossil record (e.g. _Homo erectus_, _Homo floresiensis_, _Homo neanderthalensis_) that fall outside the range of variation of modern populations.


----------



## VanDood

I agree with the need for Christians to work at science, but we also need to be aware that much of technology and science are playing into the devil's hand. The pervasiveness of media have joined together with atheistic "science" to usher in an new era of unbelief. (Not to mention the unprecedented accessibility of filth.) Unfortunately, we can only expect "science" to get more convincing with time.


----------



## Nate

Bookworm said:


> Hi Nate,
> 
> Just a brief comment on one point you raised:
> 
> 
> 
> NateLanning said:
> 
> 
> 
> The mitochondrial genomes of Neanderthals and humans differ significantly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct.
> 
> 
> 
> NateLanning said:
> 
> 
> 
> This does, in fact pose a problem for individuals who argue that Neanderthals were just anti-social/less developed/diseased/a specific race of humans. If Neanderthals were humans, their mitochondrial DNA should match that of humans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree that it poses a problem for those who want to argue that Neanderthals are just diseased modern humans, but that's only one possible (and, in my view, incorrect) creationist interpretation. Personally I see no biblical or theological problem in recognising that there are humans in the fossil record (e.g. _Homo erectus_, _Homo floresiensis_, _Homo neanderthalensis_) that fall outside the range of variation of modern populations.
Click to expand...

 
Interesting. Could you elaborate on how you think these variations may have evolved? Or, do you think modern populations have evolved away from these more ancient populations?

---------- Post added at 08:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:50 PM ----------




VanDood said:


> I agree with the need for Christians to work at science, but we also need to be aware that much of technology and science are playing into the devil's hand.



I'd be grateful if you could offer some specifics.


----------



## TimV

Teats on male mammals isn't a good example since evolutionary scientists don't defend them on the basis of evolution; quite the contrary if you look into it. Male bees never have stingers since a male bee only has half the chromosomes as a female bee. If they did, I'm sure there's be stingers not fully formed, like nipples in male mammals. I'll draw this out if you like.

Any reptile enthusiast will tell you some snakes have leg like appendages. With perhaps a million allelic variations who's to say that a hormone that represses the full development normally if absent wouldn't allow the formation of two back legs (do I assume correctly that the snake you're talking about had two back legs?)

Dinosaurs are also easy. Reptiles often grow until something kills them, like parasites. 1000 years is plenty of time to produce untold millions of reptiles. Even humans, which don't breed even at a fraction of the geometric rate of reptiles have gone from an estimated 250,000,000 to 67,000,000,000 in the last thousand years. A thousand years would be more than enough to fill the world with reptiles, and with the right conditions some would get huge.

PS, you're doing a great job defending your point and not being pushed to an extreme while defending it. Congrads.


----------



## chbrooking

TimV said:


> Dinosaurs are also easy. Reptiles often grow until something kills them, like parasites. 1000 years is plenty of time to produce untold millions of reptiles. Even humans, which don't breed even at a fraction of the geometric rate of reptiles have gone from an estimated 250,000,000 to 67,000,000,000 in the last thousand years. A thousand years would be more than enough to fill the world with reptiles, and with the right conditions some would get huge.


 
Thanks, your reply is helpful. On the dinosaurs ... would the YEC argue that they became extinct before the flood, and therefore were not brought aboard the ark?

Another question would have to do with uranium and its half-life. I believe this has been one of the things used to attempt to date the earth. I don't have a problem, necessarily, with God creating a mature earth -- though Kline's "Because it Had Not Rained" should be addressed. But how does the appearance of antiquity square with God who does not lie? 

Thanks for the vote of confidence. I'm honestly not being obstinate. I'm just like many, many Christians out there who earnestly want to square certain observations with the biblical account. Unlike Josh, I do believe that our interpretations can sometimes be wrong, and might need to be adjusted based upon observation. We actually do this all the time, when some archaeological discovery sheds light on the meaning of a verse of scripture (e.g., the lime encrusted water pipes bringing water into Laodicea). Observations can be mistaken. Sin taints us through and through. But God gave us senses to help us. Sure, I may question what I saw. But I may also question my understanding of what I've read. The scriptures are my preeminent authority. But my ability to interpret them is just as much subject to sinful twisting as is my ability to see straight. Perhaps not "just as", since the Holy Spirit assists me in understanding them. But nobody here would claim to be an infallible interpreter, would they?


----------



## TimV

> On the dinosaurs ... would the YEC argue that they became extinct before the flood, and therefore were not brought aboard the ark?



No, they'd just be smaller. Like the 80 foot fossil pythons, 30 foot fossil crocodiles, etc...they look the same, just bigger, and that could very easily be accounted for by environment. An 8 foot python pair could reproduce. And if I'd been the project manager of loading the Arc, I'd have picked a 5 foot male and a 6 foot female to have ridden on the Arc.



> Another question would have to do with uranium and its half-life. I believe this has been one of the things used to attempt to date the earth. I don't have a problem, necessarily, with God creating a mature earth -- though Kline's "Because it Had Not Rained" should be addressed. But how does the appearance of antiquity square with God who does not lie?



I'm open. As I've said before, if someone presented me with tree ring evidence, I'd feel morally obligated to change my views. I've had a little ritual for years; when we cut down a tree (I'm a licensed tree surgeon) we guess how old the tree is, then check by the rings. Really cool!

My personal view of Klein is that if he had a degree in any of the living sciences, he wouldn't have made the embarrassing logical mistakes he did, and I'll draw them out as well if anyone wants.


----------



## chbrooking

TimV said:


> My personal view of Klein is that if he had a degree in any of the living sciences, he wouldn't have made the embarrassing logical mistakes he did, and I'll draw them out as well if anyone wants.


 
I'd like that. As long as the conversation is irenic and intellectually respectable, I'm all for it. I'd like to see Kline engaged. Thanks.


----------



## Bookworm

NateLanning said:


> Interesting. Could you elaborate on how you think these variations may have evolved? Or, do you think modern populations have evolved away from these more ancient populations?



Creation biologists think that each created kind was endowed at creation with the potential for diversification into new varieties, subspecies and species. Much of that genetic potential was latent and only 'accessed' later in history, particularly after the global Flood as creatures reproduced, dispersed, and repopulated the world. This seems also to have been true of the human kind, which diversified into many groups, some of which are no longer extant. (The accumulation of mutations has also contributed to diversity within the kinds, although we don't see that as the primary mechanism by which new varieties, species, etc., arose.)

You'll find more interesting stuff on related themes on the Creation Biology Study Group website, including a paper entitled 'The Flores Skeleton and Human Baraminology' which is especially relevant.


----------



## DavidinKnoxville

chbrooking said:


> TimV said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dinosaurs are also easy. Reptiles often grow until something kills them, like parasites. 1000 years is plenty of time to produce untold millions of reptiles. Even humans, which don't breed even at a fraction of the geometric rate of reptiles have gone from an estimated 250,000,000 to 67,000,000,000 in the last thousand years. A thousand years would be more than enough to fill the world with reptiles, and with the right conditions some would get huge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, your reply is helpful. On the dinosaurs ... would the YEC argue that they became extinct before the flood, and therefore were not brought aboard the ark?
> 
> Another question would have to do with uranium and its half-life. I believe this has been one of the things used to attempt to date the earth. I don't have a problem, necessarily, with God creating a mature earth -- though Kline's "Because it Had Not Rained" should be addressed. But how does the appearance of antiquity square with God who does not lie?
Click to expand...

 
Because God never hid it from man how he made the earth. He revealed in scripture how He did it. He spoke it into existence in six days. How would it be a matter of God lying? The scriptures tell us that God created a man, Adam and a woman, Eve. Is God lying because Adam and Eve did not go through the gestational process but instead "appeared" to be older than what they really were? No.


----------



## Steve Curtis

To bring the thread full circle (back to Waltke), what of RTS's decision to dismiss him? The Internet is abuzz with derisive comments about those silly, narrow-minded Christians and their pseudo-educational institutions. Could this be seen as a clarifying moment in the debate, where the lines of demarcation are more fully defined? (RTS allows for creation views other than YEC, but says that Waltke went too far.) Or is this just another scholar "going rogue"?


----------



## TimV

Steve, while people even in Reformed circles are so pathetically eagar to look sophisticated that they call Francis Collins a Christian we're not anywhere near a clarifying moment. Just the other day a man in our Bible study, who's the son of a PCA minister talked the guys into reading something by Tim Keller, where Keller came right out and said he thought we'd gotten here by evolution.



> A Tyrannosaurus rex fossil has yielded what appear to be the only preserved soft tissues ever recovered from a dinosaur. Taken from a 70-million-year-old thighbone, the structures look like the blood vessels, cells, and proteins involved in bone formation.



T. Rex Soft Tissue Found Preserved

Yes, from National Geographic. Yeh, right. 70,000,000 years and there is still soft tissue.


----------



## chbrooking

David, I think you've missed the point of my question. General and special revelation are both revelation. They are not at odds with one another. God does not speak with forked tongue. They are not coterminus in what they reveal, but where they are correlative, they agree. If we find something that indicates great antiquity, we have to either 1) explain (in an intellectually responsible way) how it actually indicates precisely what we would expect from our reading of the text, or 2) we have to adjust our understanding of the text, or 3) we have to say, "I don't know." I'm not opposed to "I don't know". But I am willing to revisit the text to see if I've misunderstood something, in light of what the data is. That does not mean that I begin with 'observations' and then submit them to the text. As Rev. Winzer pointed out above, even the observation must be done from a faithful heart and biblical worldview. But surely our understanding is not static. Surely we are spiraling upward in our understanding. Otherwise, why would we have the PB debates? It would be irresponsible to change your views, since your current understanding of what the Bible teaches would govern everything, including the interpretation of the Bible itself. You would be caught in theological and exegetical stasis.


----------



## Hebrew Student

Hey Everyone!

Wow, I had no idea this had happened. Dr. Waltke is someone from whom I have greatly benifited, expecially his advanced Hebrew grammar, and his commentary on Proverbs.

However, I am concerned that his statements, no matter how much he was misunderstood, will be used to flame the anti-creationism, anti-intelligent design bigotry that exists in academia. One article quotes him as saying this:



> If the data is overwhelmingly in favor of evolution, to deny that reality will make us a cult ... some odd group that is not really interacting with the world. And rightly so, because we are not using our gifts and trusting God's Providence that brought us to this point of our awareness...



That is disconcerting, especially from someone who taught at the very same school that Cornelius Van Til did. Evolution is not science; it is philosophy. That is why Darwinians like Euginie Scott have tried to develop distinctions such as philosophical naturalism and methodological naturalism in order to avoid the battering ram of philosophy.

In fact, I was reading an article recently that was discussing the similarities between different specimens in the fossil record, and the author argued that the similarities really do not prove evolution at all. He said that one should expect that a good engineer would reuse his models simply because they are good designs. How much more so the God who created the entire universe! Hence, the similarities in the fossil record were actually taken as evidence for design!

The issue is not the data, but the interpretation of the data. Are you going to read it with the presuppositions of design, or the presuppositions of random mutation and natural selection? That is what disturbs me about what Waltke is saying here.

I am appriciative of Waltke's attempt to clarify, but I am disturbed that people view evolution as "science," when it is clearly philosophy, and that people will say that you are being unscientific if you deny it. I am concerned that the above statement simply fuels this flame in that direction even more.

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## ChristianTrader

chbrooking said:


> David, I think you've missed the point of my question. General and special revelation are both revelation. They are not at odds with one another. God does not speak with forked tongue. They are not coterminus in what they reveal, but where they are correlative, they agree. If we find something that indicates great antiquity, we have to either 1) explain (in an intellectually responsible way) how it actually indicates precisely what we would expect from our reading of the text, or 2) we have to adjust our understanding of the text, or 3) we have to say, "I don't know." I'm not opposed to "I don't know". But I am willing to revisit the text to see if I've misunderstood something, in light of what the data is. That does not mean that I begin with 'observations' and then submit them to the text. As Rev. Winzer pointed out above, even the observation must be done from a faithful heart and biblical worldview. But surely our understanding is not static. Surely we are spiraling upward in our understanding. Otherwise, why would we have the PB debates? It would be irresponsible to change your views, since your current understanding of what the Bible teaches would govern everything, including the interpretation of the Bible itself. You would be caught in theological and exegetical stasis.


 
In 3) Make sure you include in I do not know yet : how the "something" is really not of great antiquity.

Also remember that a number of folks hold to the original Westminster confession or even the 1689 LBCF as written, so these people do not have an issue with a great deal of theological stasis.

CT


----------



## DeborahtheJudge

I find that many evangelicals have a very arrogant, dismissive attitude towards the sciences. See, they would never be so dismissive of a medical doctor's expertise in coronary disease or an engineer's bridge construction. Sometimes I think this perception is impacted on the fact that some sciences are seen as "periphery" or "less important". But imagine what the modern biotechnology and pharmacology era would have come to without basic science expeditions, sometimes coinciding with "evolutionary" science. 

The situation is analogous to the climate change. Disputes within the scientific field are constantly evolving, so when a politician or a religious leader demands an answer or wants to make huge decisions based on science and they don't see a "yes" or "no" answer they (and this includes scientists sometimes as well) either go "Aha! See, what failures! What a pitiless, pointless exercise! Foisting their lies upon us!" or "See! Look at where this data is headed... we need to act NOW. We need to shape all of human life on this information NOW." 

That's part of what attracted me the Reformed faith. We don't have disregard evidences (biblical and scientific) but we also don't have to be ashamed of the Gospel or pretend to know everything. Theres something so honest and humble about that. For that reason, I'm also willing to say "I believe that everything in God's Word is true, but I don't understand everything in it."

That being said, I think Waltke screwed up. He should have known how sensitive (and relatively uninformed) the evangelical community is about the matter. I don't know if that warrants him getting fired, but thats why I'm a lay-person not a leader. And much of evangelicalism is cultish anyway, no?  And we are a cult, no? But I guess negative modern definitions have since claimed that word.


----------



## Peairtach

*Quote from TimV*


> Teats on male mammals isn't a good example since evolutionary scientists don't defend them on the basis of evolution; quite the contrary if you look into it. Male bees never have stingers since a male bee only has half the chromosomes as a female bee. If they did, I'm sure there's be stingers not fully formed, like nipples in male mammals. I'll draw this out if you like.
> 
> Any reptile enthusiast will tell you some snakes have leg like appendages. With perhaps a million allelic variations who's to say that a hormone that represses the full development normally if absent wouldn't allow the formation of two back legs (do I assume correctly that the snake you're talking about had two back legs?)



What are the different explanations between creationists and evolutionists on these subjects. I believe that nipples in the male human being are issued fairly standardly these days. Maybe they're for decoration? Maybe men would look funny without them?

I read the "Origin of Species" - out of interest - recently. Darwin mentions nipples and snakes, and also goes into great detail about bees. He makes a naturalistic leap of faith from "micro-evolution" to "macro-evolution" and to "common descent"

---------- Post added at 03:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:52 PM ----------

*Quote from Clark*


> If we find something that indicates great antiquity, we have to either 1) explain (in an intellectually responsible way) how it actually indicates precisely what we would expect from our reading of the text, or 2) we have to adjust our understanding of the text, or 3) we have to say, "I don't know." I'm not opposed to "I don't know".



This is what Christians have been doing. That is why we have YECs, OECs and even "theistic evolutuionists". Take your pick; although I would advise against "theistic evolution" and YEC with a gap of some time in Genesis 1:1-2 is my choice because I believe it's more biblical.


You'll find that none of the options: YEC,OEC, theistic evolution, or atheistic/agnostic evolution is completely intellectually satisfying or answers all your Qs.


----------



## TimV

Evolutionists say that just because nipples in some male mammals are seemingly useless, you can't blame evolution for not selecting against them. And even if certain cancers kill some of those mammals you still can't blame evolution for not selecting against them. So a horse may not have them and a pig has them but it's not because of evolution.


----------



## Beoga

I am aware that Waltke came out with a Genesis Commentary a while back, does this mean he is going to have to come out with a Second/Next edition?


----------



## DMcFadden

An April 9 _Chrisitanity Today_ online piece had the following:



> At issue: the March 24 release of a BioLogos interview in 2009 where Waltke states:
> “...if the data is overwhelmingly in favor of evolution, to deny that reality will make us a cult…some odd group that is not really interacting with the world. And rightly so, because we are not using our gifts and trusting God’s Providence that brought us to this point of our awareness.”
> 
> Reformed Theological Seminary asked Waltke to have the video removed. Waltke's resignation was announced April 6.
> 
> Waltke clarified his comments in the video, specifically his belief in a historical Adam and Eve and his support for those who hold creationist views. He also issued a joint statement with BioLogos president Darrel Falk regarding the importance of this debate within higher education.
> 
> JR Daniel Kirk notes that another big OT name, Tremper Longman III, was disinvited from RTS for expressing doubt over the historicity of Adam in
> September 2009. Reformation21 is making allusions to the Peter Enns controversy at Westminster Theological Seminary in 2008.



We need to be in prayer. Waltke was a giant in the field of OT. I am heartbroken to hear of this turn of events. It is also frustrating (as a Westmont alum) to see Longman, Robert H. Gundry Professor of Biblicdal Studies at Westmont, mentioned in the same piece.


----------



## ChristianTrader

DMcFadden said:


> An April 9 _Chrisitanity Today_ online piece had the following:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At issue: the March 24 release of a BioLogos interview in 2009 where Waltke states:
> “...if the data is overwhelmingly in favor of evolution, to deny that reality will make us a cult…some odd group that is not really interacting with the world. And rightly so, because we are not using our gifts and trusting God’s Providence that brought us to this point of our awareness.”
> 
> Reformed Theological Seminary asked Waltke to have the video removed. Waltke's resignation was announced April 6.
> 
> Waltke clarified his comments in the video, specifically his belief in a historical Adam and Eve and his support for those who hold creationist views. He also issued a joint statement with BioLogos president Darrel Falk regarding the importance of this debate within higher education.
> 
> JR Daniel Kirk notes that another big OT name, Tremper Longman III, was disinvited from RTS for expressing doubt over the historicity of Adam in
> September 2009. Reformation21 is making allusions to the Peter Enns controversy at Westminster Theological Seminary in 2008.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We need to be in prayer. Waltke was a giant in the field of OT. I am heartbroken to hear of this turn of events. It is also frustrating (as a Westmont alum) to see Longman, Robert H. Gundry Professor of Biblicdal Studies at Westmont, mentioned in the same piece.
Click to expand...

 
He IS a giant in the field of OT. This is why the internet is abuzz about the closed-minded Reformed seminaries and why they are supposedly proving their irrelevance etc. This is also why he was picked up by Knox Seminary almost as soon as the ink was dry on his resignation.

CT


----------



## DMcFadden

I was not expressing support for his position, merely acknowledging that the "resignation" will be used to make conservative Christians look like idiots.


----------



## TimV

OT Professor Bruce Waltke resigns from RTS Orlando Faculty amid historical Adam and Eve controversy

So let's get this straight. Evolutionist/feminist Tim Keller helps organise a workshop to convince key Christian leaders to accept evolution. Some guy from Reformed Theological Seminary shows up and says we're all a bunch of cultists if we disagree. He ends up leaving RTS and James Kennedy's old church, now run by a hip grandson of Billy Graham, makes him an offer he can't refuse on condition he spreads his teaching at the seminary Kennedy founded.

Is that right?


----------



## Marrow Man

In the Aquila Report link (posted by TimV above), Waltke states two things that I am having trouble reconciling:



> Adam and Eve are historical figures from whom all humans are descended; they are uniquely created in the image of God and as such are not in continuum with animals.
> 
> ... I believe that creation by the process of evolution is a tenable Biblical position, and, as represented by BioLogos, the best Christian apologetic to defend Genesis 1-3 against its critics.



I do not understand how one can hold to Adam and Eve as being historical persons while also holding to the theory evolution (or "creation by the process of evolution"). It would seem that he is saying either 1) the process of evolution was used to "create" the unique and real human beings named Adam and Eve or 2) the animals evolved but humans were unique special creations apart from evolution. I doubt it is the second one; what about the first? Or am I completely missing something here? How would Waltke reconcile the two statements?


----------



## DMcFadden

The fact that Kennedy was such a stalwart against evolution makes this MORE than a little ironic.

For Ken Ham's take on the controversy, see Evangelical Scholar Leaves Seminary over Evolution | Around the World with Ken Ham

Part of the problem relates to Walke's evident support for Francis Collins. Up until now, conservative evangelicals attempting to harmonize Genesis and science have tended to use either a Kline or Hugh Ross approach. Denying the historicity of Adam (e.g., Longman) or embracing the "hands off" theistic evolution of Collins has been beyond the pale. Evidently no more, at least at Knox.


----------



## TimV

> I do not understand how one can hold to Adam and Eve as being historical persons while also holding to the theory evolution


People like NT Wright come out and say that at some point a proto human like Neanderthal had a divine revelation, and thus became the first human while at the same time was the product of evolution. The others believe this, but won't quite come out and say it, although it doesn't exactly take a genius to know people like Keller believe this.


----------



## Peairtach

Well maybe some (more) "evangelicals" will become evolutionists, just as its being challenged in new ways by biochemistry and microbiology etc.

What TV programmes, literature, magazines do they feed their minds on? National Geographic.

If I fed my soul on e.g. Liberal Theology, maybe I'd become a Liberal Theologian? If I fed my soul on evolution/theistic evolution, maybe I'd become an evolutionist? Even although I'm converted!

Look at Solomon who was a true believer in God. He fed his soul on (presumably) pretty ladies and ended up as an idolater. _Ecclesiates _was presumably written when he was restored. 

We have to guard our hearts as evangelicals and Reformed against the idolatry of finite, fallible and fallen human reason.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Evangelical Scholar Believes in Evolution? - ABC News


----------



## DMcFadden

Thanks for posting! I missed the broadcast and appreciate hearing and seeing the piece. Peter Enns is a "Sr. Fellow" at the "Biologos Foundation"???


----------

