Bruce Waltke on Evolution

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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

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.

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]

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:

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:

The mitochondrial genomes of Neanderthals and humans differ significantly.

Correct.

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]

Hi Nate,

Just a brief comment on one point you raised:

The mitochondrial genomes of Neanderthals and humans differ significantly.

Correct.

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.

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 ----------

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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.