# RE: National Geographic Article and Agnostic Friend



## caddy (Jul 13, 2009)

*I have an agnostic friend that I have been talking with for over 2 years. This is his latest email. I am posting it in its entirety. Appreciate in advance your responses of which he will be able to see. For the record, I categorically deny T.O.E but refuse to let that be a stumbling block for others who need to work through that, much like Colson does here with Collins:

BreakPoint: A Religious Scientist?, 7/13/09 - 7/13/2009 12:45:33 PM.

My friends email:
*
Hi Caddy,
I recently read a very interesting feature in National Geographic about Darwin, I thought you might find it interesting so I found the on-line version, and I was wondering what your Puritan Board friends would think about this. 

The first article talks about how Darwin came to consider the idea of evolution:
Darwin's First Clues — National Geographic Magazine

The follow-up article talks about the state of evolution science today and how it differs from what Darwin considered:
Modern Darwins — National Geographic Magazine

What I found fascination is that while "Darwinism" is often portrayed as stemming from the pursuit of a godless agenda, it seems to have really stemmed purely from looking carefully at the world and at various animal species, and from noticing the similarities between species. The leading scientific view at the time was that God created a series of successive "batches" of animals, but Darwin started thinking that these various species may have been interrelated, and this article talks about what he saw that made him reach that conclusion. Very interesting.

The second article talks about something that Darwin had no clue about: genetics. It's interesting how something that was discovered much later about the inner workings of life tied into Darwin thought based on observing the shapes of animals.

You seem to be of the opinion that belief in evolution is "blind", that there's really not that much compelling evidence for it. But while I was reading it, without evolution there is absolutely no way anyone can answer questions like "why does the male peacock have beautiful colorful feathers"? Without evolution the answer is simply "because God wanted it so", and we'll never know why. If evolution is true, we can know why, along with the answers to many MANY other such questions. 

You said to me "keep evolution, deal with the man Jesus". I offer that back to you, I say you can keep evolution AND your beliefs. You can have your moral beliefs and still have the satisfaction of knowing the "why" for so many questions about nature, like the peacock's feathers. Who says you can't have both?


----------



## Marrow Man (Jul 13, 2009)

What is more amazing that neo-Darwinism is the fact that Kantian philosophy still has such a hold on folks. He seems to have bought into the "religion is good for morality, but science is where the real knowledge lies" mindset completely, and that is affecting his presuppositions.

The NG articles also betray a certain bias. Darwin was, in part, led astray by bad theology. He was troubled by the bloodshed he saw among the animal species and did not believe it could be a direct part of God's creation. In short, I'm not sure he actually had any consideration of original sin and the consequences upon the created world. You may wish to point this out to your friend.


----------



## caddy (Jul 13, 2009)

Thanks Tim

I have "pointed" many things out to my friend over the years. I have told him it is a wonderfully freeing thing to know that I am NOT responsible for His belief, but he has been persistent. I DO NOT want to be released from the burden I have for Him and His family. I realized long ago that this is a matter of truly loving people and wanting them to "know truth" because we as believers deserved NONE ourselves before we were drawn to believe. This is as much a thing of prayer as it is a battle for the mind. I have given him the link to this thread. He will be able to read all that is written here.


----------



## toddpedlar (Jul 13, 2009)

What exactly does evolution tell us about why male peacocks have such beautiful feathers? I'm not sure the answer is any better than his complaint about our answer.


----------



## caddy (Jul 13, 2009)

Thanks Caddy, I will follow the thread. My only fear is that people there are so used to evolution being considered obviously wrong in their circles that they will consider reading the article and commenting on it a waste of time. Also, I don't consider this article to be anti-God or that it should stop people (like myself) from being Christian, I consider the issue of evolution to be orthgonal to that.

I would hope that you take the time to read the NG articles, and not because I think it will somehow change your mind but because it is actually interesting. Even if evolution is false, the story of how Darwin came to form his theory is still a true story and and interesting one. For one I think it demonstrates that one does not need to have an atheistic agenda: the theory of evolution simply arises from observation.

Also, the fact that the field of genetics independently points to common ancestry is compelling to me: there's an infinity of different ways to arrange the genetic code of mice and birds if these two creatures are created independently. But if they have common ancestry, there is only ONE way: the same genes that perform a function in birds should perform the same function in humans. Why is this ONE way how it is, and not one of the infinie other way that would have made evolution less likely to be true? As scientists learn more about life, more and more clues fit with this common ancestry. And as I said, it answers a tremendous number of questions about life that non-evolution does not.

In the "age of the universe" thread at least one poster questioned why God would want to place misleading cues in nature, i.e. why would he try to be deceptive. I see the same problem with evolution, why would God want to mislead people by placing clues that make evolution seem so compelling (to most)?

I've also seen evolution referred to in that thread as "illogical". I'd like to hear someone expand on why they think it's illogical.


----------



## dr_parsley (Jul 13, 2009)

Sheesh, where to start?

1) National Geographic is hardly an unbiased source and I would in no way trust it on an issue like this. I was interested to see a documentary about Darwin a couple of months ago when I was on sabbatical, made by an ardent atheist working for the (atheist) BBC and he made it quite clear that Darwin set out right from the beginning to disprove religion and worked for years with that express aim. That was actually news to me, but everything makes more sense now I know it.

2) Evolution cannot tell you the 'why' of anything. As with any part of science, it aims and hopes to tell you 'how', but never 'why'. Only theology (or philosophy to some extent if you accept that) can tell you 'why'.

3) Your friend needs to stop thinking and talking about "moral beliefs". The phrase indicates no awareness of the real issues. He might be able to keep evolution and deal with Jesus, but he won't be able to keep his ideas about "moral beliefs". Jesus chucks them out the window and replaces it with something far superior.


----------



## caddy (Jul 13, 2009)

Agnostic Friend: Actually, all that's required is that we find bones of people that predate Adam & Eve, no? And that's already been done. If you don't like some of the really old homonid skeletons, here are some other ones that have been dated using the same methods as the dead sea scrolls:
Chinchorro mummies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## louis_jp (Jul 13, 2009)

Darwinism may or may not have a Godless agenda, but it certainly has a Godless worldview. Whether or not they are pushing for Godless conclusions, they are starting with Godless presuppositions. That in turn influences their reading of the "evidence."


----------



## caddy (Jul 13, 2009)

Man is the autonomous ruler of himself, able to define right and wrong and frame statues according to whatever he defines as just. Or else man is created and sustained by a Holy and Just God who declares on matters of right and wrong in the form of law. ~ Herman Schollsberg~

God's law does not place a premium upon inwardness and attitudes of the heart _at the expense _of overt obedience to His requirements. When it comes to obeying the Lord, it is _not simply _"the thought that counts."

Obedience must be from the heart, and yet that obedience must not be restricted to the heart. God, obviously from the example from Esau & Jacob, does not give the same thing to one as He does to the other. God gives some a love for His law and some He gives nothing. The yardstick of ethics said Bahnsen _would be found within man or his community. Bishop Butler located it in man's conscience, Kant in man's reason, and Hegel in the Absolute state._


----------



## Zenas (Jul 13, 2009)

I wish to point out something that may or may not have been pointed out. I'm being horrible and posting briefly from work so I didn't take the time to read over the thread. I fear that if I don't post immediately, however, my mind will consume whatever initial throughts I had and I'll forget about it completely. 

In the interest of helping your friend and bringing to light things he may not have considered or overlooked, as I often do:

Considering his statements regarding the peacock's feathers, one cannot conclude from evolution "why" the peacock has colorful feathers, only the "how". This is the same answer that creationism gives, albeit a decidedly different answer. 

Evolution fails to answer "why" any better than creationism does. Where one says "because God determined it", the other says "because nature determined it". One may hypothesize under either system that the reason it was determined was to give the peacock a defensive/mating mechanism, but the theories themselves do not give that answer, it is independently verified from general revelation. 

Indeed, it is just as easy for God to have determined peacock to defend themself and attact mates using their feathers as it would be for Him to do so via other means. Why he chose this particular vehicle is unknown, but it is no more known under the evolutionary system than under creationism. Evolution offers no answer to "why" other than "because those that developed colored feathers were able to survive longer/mate more." This is hardly a "why", but a "how".

In the end, you're still left with the same dillemmas.


----------



## John Weathersby (Jul 13, 2009)

caddy said:


> Agnostic Friend: Actually, all that's required is that we find bones of people that predate Adam & Eve, no? And that's already been done. If you don't like some of the really old homonid skeletons, here are some other ones that have been dated using the same methods as the dead sea scrolls:
> Chinchorro mummies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Hello Agnostic Friend of "caddy", 

I'd like to point you to two articles of interest relative to dating and age testing:

Dating in conflict
Radioactive 'dating' in conflict!

Then ask, with the dating in question; why allow it as deterministic proof?

-----Added 7/13/2009 at 04:43:55 EST-----



caddy said:


> Thanks Caddy, I will follow the thread. My only fear is that people there are so used to evolution being considered obviously wrong in their circles that they will consider reading the article and commenting on it a waste of time. Also, I don't consider this article to be anti-God or that it should stop people (like myself) from being Christian, I consider the issue of evolution to be orthgonal to that.
> 
> I would hope that you take the time to read the NG articles, and not because I think it will somehow change your mind but because it is actually interesting. Even if evolution is false, the story of how Darwin came to form his theory is still a true story and and interesting one. For one I think it demonstrates that one does not need to have an atheistic agenda: the theory of evolution simply arises from observation.
> 
> ...



Hello, 

I would also note that the theory that the earth flat also came from observation and from a different world view I may look at creation and say, wow that was created. In fact, that’s what Romans 1:19&20 say, For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. “For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made.” Because humans are a fallen creation, they don’t properly perceive Gods work.

It is projected onto God, as quoted above, that He is ‘trying to be’(if God wanted to trick us, wouldn’t he, God trying just seems to be a misnomer) misleading. I interject that he would create things mature because he can. Would we expect he would build a tiny world and have it grow? Would Adam and Eve be created as infants? I would suppose not. Again, things can seem compelling because we are fallen into original sin and have a sin nature. Further, we are in a fallen creation.

I did not refer to evolution as illogical in this thread, however I think it is. I see evidence which demonstrates that we become more and more prone to disease and genetic mutation. If things were evolving would we not see less and less disease? Just in our life time we’ve seen at least two NEW epidemics, Aids and Bird Flu, why if the gene pool is improving would we see these things?

Atheist friend I would encourage you to read through a book study Romans with your friend ‘caddy’ you don’t have to understand everything about God for him to be real. In fact, you never will understand everything of the plans of a infinite God while you’re finite. Even though you don’t and won’t understand everything you can understand what God HAS chosen to reveal which is quite a lot in scripture. 

You can look to the law and know you’re a sinner and know that God is a perfect and holy God who’s presence you cannot be in. However you can receive an alien righteousness as planned from the foundations of the earth Rev 13:8, “and all who dwell on earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain”. 2 Cor 6:2, “Behold, now is the favorable time; behold, now is the day of salvation”.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 13, 2009)

Moderation.

I plan to close this thread, and the reason is:
We are not an appropriate forum to dialog with folks who are offsite--be they believers, or atheist, or agnostic, non-Christian religious, non-reformed, etc.--indeed who in all likelihood would not be able to join the board due to the rules for participation.

There are abundant places on the internet for direct dialog with people of a different mind, and a direct dialog is far preferable than a mediated one.

Even in this brief space, one can already see that the questions are more than surface handling of evidence--evidence that only exists in the present, and cannot inform us _by direct, observational science,_ about the past.

Forensics and the evaluation of testimonials, basic assumptions about how the world works, and a working philosophy of reality are all prerequisites for an anterior projection about explaining a past we cannot directly observe.


This is not a web-board equipped with "experts" who can judge the various evidences put forth, or the quality of the science employed. You can see above links to alleged "proof" for either side.

Nonsense. We have no "proof" for *either* side, because evidence simply "IS". It exists NOW, in the present; maybe replicable; or possibly as testimony of previous existence, or as that which was observed.

Evidence belongs to NO ONE and EVERYONE at once, and is evaluated according to pre-standing rules AND whichever philosophy (consistent or not) that runs through each person.


A naturalistic philosophy (a priori, the universe itself can explain everything inside the universe, given enough intellectual penetration) is at variance with a supernaturalistic philosophy, that says, a priori: the universe is insufficient to adequately explain itself, or its workings, without recourse to some kind of metaphysic.

We are ready to defend a Christian metaphysic, or rather to equip Christians to defend it in other venues.

Thank you for your contributions.


----------

