 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Sudsy Member Joined Sep 23, 2003 2833 posts |
 Latest Battles With Evolution |
Posted Nov 24, 2009; 4:34 pm |
|
I was wondering what the opinions were of forum readers regarding the latest attempt to set evolutionists straight headed by Ray Comfort. Some 200,000 or so copies of Darwin's - 'on the Origin of Species' is being given away free at many universities across Canada and the U.S.. The book has not been altered except it has a Special Introduction of some 50 pages by Ray that contests Darwin's theory and supports a Creationist view. This has some atheists and of course, Richard Dawkins quite angered.
Last Sunday, we had a sermon presented to us in our MB church presenting the Creationist 24/7 view as the view the is necessary to having a foundational belief in the scriptures. It was presented as an opinion of the lay speaker that we could accept or not. But I have trouble believing that I am rejecting scripture entirely if I am puzzled by interpretations such as the world being created in 6 literal days or whether scriptures really indicate eternal torment will occur for unbelievers.
Anyway, are there any opinions on this latest action by Comfort and company. Is this what Christianity is meant to be about ? Is this worth putting effort into ? Are we to be striving to make converts to a creationist view or to becoming a follower of Christ ? Is it that important to believe the world was created in 6, 24 hour days ? These are some of my puzzlements. Your thoughts ? |
|
|
|
| Marshall Member Joined Feb 7, 2002 1191 posts Location: Langley, BC |
| |
Posted Nov 24, 2009; 6:08 pm |
|
I think Ray Comfort is trying to run a bit of a sideshow. And, it's even worse than you described. The rest of the book is edited, and in particular, a couple of chapters are cut out entirely. It also turned out that the biography that begins the introduction (which seemed remarkably balanced compared to the rest of the introduction) was plagiarized from another biography about Darwin that is still under copyright. The rest of the introduction contains poor argumentation and repeated misrepresentation of scientists. This is, after all, the person who argued for special creation on the basis of how well designed the banana is. (That argument has quite fairly received widespread ridicule from atheists, partly because the banana and its handy attributes only exist due to human cultivation and selective breeding, and partly because the argument is easily countered with a single word: "pineapple".) The introduction may fool some people, but the one demographic most likely to see right through it is the demographic it is targeted towards: university students studying science.
I realize Mr. Comfort views Origin of Species as a "bible" of sorts for scientists. I don't think many scientists view it the same way, and most are quite willing to accept that we've come a lot further in the last 150 years in understanding biology, while still recognizing the contributions Darwin and Wallace made. But, even if it was elevated to that level, how would we feel if something similar was done to us? How would we like New Testaments being given out at campuses (though missing Luke and Romans), with a "special introduction" arguing against the resurrection and listing Bible contradictions? Would it be at all surprising if a few vocal Christians spoke up against such a thing, or suggested tearing out the introduction and keeping the rest?
No, I do not think efforts like this are what Christianity is meant to be about. Rather than convincing students that in order to be a Christian they have to reject science, I think it would be better to show how Christians integrate all aspects of reality that are uncovered into their worldview. Show them that faith is about taking a step further than the evidence, rather than a giant leap in the opposite direction. |
|
|
|
| westcoast frame of mind Moderator |
| |
Posted Nov 24, 2009; 8:38 pm |
|
| Quote: | | Last Sunday, we had a sermon presented to us in our MB church presenting the Creationist 24/7 view as the view the is necessary to having a foundational belief in the scriptures. It was presented as an opinion of the lay speaker that we could accept or not. But I have trouble believing that I am rejecting scripture entirely if I am puzzled by interpretations such as the world being created in 6 literal days or whether scriptures really indicate eternal torment will occur for unbelievers. |
I don’t know anything about Ray Comfort (but I’ve heard of Darwin  ) It seems that Marshall’s post quite adequately dealt with the book distribution.
Sudsy I don’t quite understand your sentence I’ve underlined. It seems to contradict the bolded sentence? Perhaps, the speaker says his/her view is necessary to a foundation belief in the Bible – but the audience can accept it or not? Anyway, I didn’t quite get what u mean. But basically, it sounded like a fairly hardcore presentation.
To the concept: that the creationist 24-hour/7-day view is necessary to having a foundational belief of the Bible. That view appears quite foundational and is a signal of the view-holder’s hermeneutic and where s/he will come out on a number of issues.
I would say that believing Yahweh is Creator is critical to having a biblical worldview. But having said that, I for one, do not expect to be able to walk up to Adam / Eve in the eschaton and shake their hands – because I don’t think they were ‘real’ people in the sense that you and I are real.
It seems to me that some things like belief in a world-wide flood, a literal approach to Genesis and so forth as well as terms like inerrant are used as signals. People use them in order to send messages that they are orthodox.
| Quote: | | Anyway, are there any opinions on this latest action by Comfort and company. Is this what Christianity is meant to be about ? Is this worth putting effort into ? Are we to be striving to make converts to a creationist view or to becoming a follower of Christ ? Is it that important to believe the world was created in 6, 24 hour days ? These are some of my puzzlements. Your thoughts ? |
I think it is worth putting lots of effort into marshalling arguments as to why we believe Jesus died and rose from the dead; and why it matters. |
|
|
|
| Sudsy Member Joined Sep 23, 2003 2833 posts |
| |
Posted Nov 24, 2009; 8:51 pm |
|
| Quote: | | The rest of the book is edited, and in particular, a couple of chapters are cut out entirely. |
Here is what Ray says -
Question - Are you defacing Darwin’s work?
Answer - Not at all. We have published his entire book. Nothing has been removed. The book that we will be giving to students is the complete edition. Please Note: When laying out the book for the first print (30,000 copies), we found that it was over 400 pages and was too expensive to be a free book. We therefore randomly removed four chapters and Darwin's Introduction, saying within the book that they could be freely downloaded at www.originextra.com But for the second print (175,000 copies) we dropped the text-size, and that reduced the entire book to 304 pages, making it affordable as a giveaway.
I obtained this from this site which he answers other related questions -
http://www.livingwaters.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=346&catid=33&Itemid=74/ |
|
|
|
| Sudsy Member Joined Sep 23, 2003 2833 posts |
| |
Posted Nov 24, 2009; 9:14 pm |
|
| Quote: | | Sudsy I don’t quite understand your sentence I’ve underlined. It seems to contradict the bolded sentence? Perhaps, the speaker says his/her view is necessary to a foundation belief in the Bible – but the audience can accept it or not? Anyway, I didn’t quite get what u mean. But basically, it sounded like a fairly hardcore presentation. |
According to the speaker, it was a hardcore truth that should be embraced and foundational to a belief in scripture. Yet it was presented as his view to be accepted or not. I took this to mean it was not an official view of MBs. It can be heard at this link - http://www.meadowbrookfellowship.com/meadowbrookfellowship/myweb.php?hls=10086
The Nov 22, 2009 audio sermon. |
|
|
|
| Marshall Member Joined Feb 7, 2002 1191 posts Location: Langley, BC |
| Audio message |
Posted Nov 25, 2009; 11:28 am |
|
Mr. Comfort had presented the book as unabridged from the beginning, but in a public written debate he got caught by an atheist who showed he had cut out some chapters. It was only then that he said a second printing would include those chapters.
I listened to the first few minutes of that audio message from your church. A few thoughts:
 "As a matter of fact in the creation, God specifies each day at its conclusion that it was evening and morning which consisted of a day." Evening and morning would be an unusual way of referring to a whole 24-hour day; it seems to instead refer to the night (see, for example, Exodus 27:21, Leviticus 24:3, Numbers 9:21). Further, the statements are joined with "and" so that they appear to be sequential. God does his creative work, and there was evening, and there was morning. In other words, the creative work takes place between morning and evening, and from evening to morning there are no recorded events. This appears to be portraying God's creative work as analogous to a human labourer (which ties in with how the account is used in Exodus).
Rather than the restated refrain being a reason to take the days literally, it actually moves the account quite far from other more historical accounts. You won't find repeated refrains of "and there was evening, and there was morning, the ___ day" in the week leading up to Jesus' crucifixion, for instance. The only other place in Scripture we find something like this is in Revelation with the sets of seven seals, trumpets and bowls. Like Genesis' seven days, the nature of these items is often said to be figurative. God's wrath isn't really a liquid that can be poured into seven bowls, but those bowls serve as a template to describe something real. So too with the days in Genesis 1: they are a template for us to follow, not a literal description of how God works.
[Regarding Exodus 20:11] "These words were actually written by the very finger of God on tablets of stone." That's hard to support, since a recounting of the ten commandments in Deuteronomy 5 does not include that verse, and substitutes a different reason for the Sabbath command. After proclaiming the Decalogue with no mention of six days or creation, the author writes, "These words the Lord spoke with a loud voice to your whole assembly at the mountain, out of the fire, the cloud, and the thick darkness, and he added no more. He wrote them on two stone tablets, and gave them to me" (Deuteronomy 5:22, NRSV). An easy way of reconciling the two accounts is to say that both interpretations of the Sabbath command are inspired commentary, but not part of the actual commandment, and not actually written by God's finger into stone.
"If we have a figurative day in the creation account then the fourth commandment does not make any sense." That's like saying if communion is figuratively Jesus' body and blood (rather than literally), the ordinance does not make any sense. Or if Jesus is only figuratively the true vine, then our attachment to him and need to bear fruit does not make any sense. Or, that if creation took place over literal days, then the seven-year Sabbath for the land makes no sense. For those who do not dismiss symbolic or figurative language as useless, all these things continue to make a lot of sense.
"In the book of Mark, Jesus actually says he made them male and female from the beginning. That doesn't make any sense if the beginning is billions of years before he made them male and female." If that verse means that humans existed from the beginning of the universe, does John 15:27 mean the disciples also existed from the beginning of the universe? Mark 10:5-6 is actually a bit more specific and says "from the beginning of creation". If creation took six days, then which day would be the beginning of creation? The first day or the last day? Do you see the danger in forcing the text to say more than it intends to say? Jesus uses the reference to make a point about divorce, not the literalness of the Genesis 1.
"Starting around the late 1700s, that's where you see people wondering about how long the day is." A blatantly false claim. Augustine thought the six days together represented an instant, and Augustine lived long before the 18th century. Philo, a 1st-century Jew, said about the six days, "we must understand that he is speaking not of a number of days, but that he takes six as a perfect number" (Allegorical Interpretation, Part 1, II). There are many other examples. The interpretation of the days was debated long before there were any scientific reasons to do so.
I stopped there. In general, the speaker seems to be assuming his audience will not be very familiar with the Bible (or with history) and so will accept his statements uncritically. Hopefully that assumption will not prove true. Hopefully people will test what he said before accepting it as true. |
|
|
|
| Marshall Member Joined Feb 7, 2002 1191 posts Location: Langley, BC |
| |
Posted Nov 25, 2009; 11:44 am |
|
Oh, I just listened a bit further and found out that a different speaker takes over after the video. If anything, it looks like the speaker is even worse. His description of the big bang is such a caricature that anyone who remembers even high school-level science will be able to see through it. It isn't merely that he rejects the big bang, but he apparently doesn't know what it is. It isn't an explosion where chunks fly out and form stars. It's easy to reject the theory when it is presented in those terms, but those terms bear little resemblance to what scientists are actually talking about.
It's really sad that many people think you have to stoop to this level of ignorance to accept Christianity, and it's too bad there's many Christians eager to agree with them that Christianity all hinges on accepting their peculiar view of science. |
|
|
|
| gay lynn voth Member Joined Jan 25, 2005 693 posts |
| |
Posted Nov 25, 2009; 12:20 pm |
|
I have appreciated Marshall's contribution to this dicussion 
My quick response is this - I think by limiting God's creative work to a rigid paradigm of 7, 24 hour days of creation is unnecessarily limiting the mystery of how God brought the universe into being.
Evolution is a closed system and does not, in and of itself, make a statement about the 'God-particle' that brought the first light (or creative energy) into being.
I agree with Marshall that it makes no sense to limit the work of science to one reified interpretation of the complex creative work of God. Science explores what has been brought into being and puts forward tentative working hypothesis (i.e. the Big Bang). These theories should be critiqued on their own merit and by the criteria and methods of science.
Biblical theology gives the ultimate credit for all creation to God and does not claim for itself a scientific paradigm or scientific parameters. God, as super-natural Spirit 'Beingness', needs a discussion that is open to God's ongoing creative work of relationship with us. We explore the world through science affirming the Origin/ator of 'all that is material' to be God. But we do not need to prescribe the limits of scientific discovery or discussion of the material world in order to do so.
We simply need to affirm that we believe that God is the Source of all that is - regardless of how science tries to explain 'what is'. God is Creative and Mysterious and Powerful enough to use any means at God's disposal - including a closed evolutionary process. I, for one, do not limit God to the process. I believe that God precedes the process, rendering the problem "Did God create the world even if evolutionary process is in place?" to be a meaningless one. |
|
|
|
| gay lynn voth Member Joined Jan 25, 2005 693 posts |
| |
Posted Nov 25, 2009; 12:28 pm |
|
I would encourage anyone interested in this topic to read carefully and slowly the first chapter of Genesis . Notice the number of times the word "Let" is used.
For example - "Let the land produce vegetation ..." God gave the 'land' the ability to produce vegetation.
"Let the land produce living creatures according to their kind ..." God 'let' the 'land' produce living creatures.
I think we all understand the concept of 'land' producing vegetation but I wonder if we have thought about the biblical concept of 'land' producing living creatures - of all kinds.?   |
|
|
|
| Sudsy Member Joined Sep 23, 2003 2833 posts |
| |
Posted Nov 25, 2009; 12:50 pm |
|
Thanks Marshall. I recall quite a while back we got into this subject and you provided much to consider in alternative view(s). Yes, the first part of this sermon was a video and then the lay speaker gave his extended view. I sat there wondering how the various ages of Christians were responding. I looked over at the teens and early twenties group and sure would like to know what was going on in their thoughts. I could see older folk seemingly agreeing as they nodded their heads and I wondered how extensive their study was on the subject.
As for me, I really don't see that it matters whether I believe in a literal 6 day 24 hour day creation. We have a local Christian talk show host that is constantly presenting new evidence in support of a literal young earth creation view and yesterday it was about the findings of salt water sea turtle remains in the Kansas city area that proves the Great Flood also was a universal occurrence.
I view these arguments something like the argument in the story of the rich man that went to hell and thought his brothers would listen to someone who returned from the dead about what hell was like. Jesus said they had the law and the prophets and since they didn't listen to them, they wouldn't listen to someone returning from hell. To me, it is not even an eye witness account (if that were possible regarding creation) or a view that best coincides with current science that will change people's thinking and remove the stumbling block(s) in their thinking but rather it is the miraculous work of the Holy Spirit that convicts us that we are sinners in need of a Saviour. The work of the Holy Spirit, as far as I can see in the NT, is not to make everyone believe in a 6 literal day creation.
This local radio host is quite an intellectual and able to rationalize his beliefs with most anyone but it seems to me, and I may be wrong, but the need to out debate other views is more of an ego thing and a reluctance to accept that some will always consider Christianity to be 'weak minded'. Sometimes I think that some attempts to argue cause some to even think more that Christianity is based on foolish ideas. |
|
|
|
| Sudsy Member Joined Sep 23, 2003 2833 posts |
| |
Posted Nov 25, 2009; 12:54 pm |
|
GayLynn posted - | Quote: | | We simply need to affirm that we believe that God is the Source of all that is - regardless of how science tries to explain 'what is'. God is Creative and Mysterious and Powerful enough to use any means at God's disposal - including a closed evolutionary process. |
I give my 'Amen' to this. |
|
|
|
| Marshall Member Joined Feb 7, 2002 1191 posts Location: Langley, BC |
| |
Posted Nov 25, 2009; 1:18 pm |
|
| Sudsy wrote: | | We have a local Christian talk show host that is constantly presenting new evidence in support of a literal young earth creation view and yesterday it was about the findings of salt water sea turtle remains in the Kansas city area that proves the Great Flood also was a universal occurrence. |
In the cretaceous era, much of western Kansas was covered by seas (source). That is the mainstream view; that is what geologists have discovered based on much more evidence than a fossilized turtle. Finding a sea creature in Kansas may strike us as odd, but that is because we aren't geologists. It doesn't contradict mainstream geology, and as such, it does nothing to favour a global flood. The only view it doesn't fit with is the idea that Kansas has always been a dry wasteland, yet that is not a view held by geologists. It is, however, probably what the talk show host wants his audience to assume is the mainstream view.
Just like the way the speaker at your church spoke about the big bang, this isn't merely about disagreeing with mainstream science, but about misrepresenting that science in order to disagree with it. I think that's dishonest, and I don't think Christians should take part in that. |
|
|
|
| Sudsy Member Joined Sep 23, 2003 2833 posts |
|
|
|
| thursday Member Joined May 6, 2009 94 posts |
| |
Posted Nov 26, 2009; 5:55 pm |
|
Interesting discussion so far.
I really value Marshall's knowledge of evolutionary theory.
I also liked Gay Lynn's encouragement to actually look at the first few chapters of Genesis and see what we find there. There is a part of me that gets frustrated by this debate since I think there is a clear understanding that Christians should agree on and Gay Lynn already spelled this out:
| Quote: | | We simply need to affirm that we believe that God is the Source of all that is - regardless of how science tries to explain 'what is'. God is Creative and Mysterious and Powerful enough to use any means at God's disposal - including a closed evolutionary process. |
I'll add my "amen" to Sudsy's.
I think that many well-meaning creation-scientists grossly misuse Genesis by applying it to science. This mistake proves to be very costly on a theological level. IMO the primeval material in Genesis 1-11 is not intended to contain eye-witness material--rather it is trying to make theological statements about the nature of the cosmos. This is particularly obvious when one compares the Biblical material to other Ancient Near Eastern creation myths and primeval histories. The Enuma Elish and Gilgamesh epic are just a few examples. What can be observed from these accounts of Israel's neighbours is a much different-looking cosmos:
-The world is created out of the carcass of a slain God
-the world is created out of violence
-the world is not inherently good
-the world is mostly chaotic
compare with the Biblical account:
-God created with his spoken word (ex nihlo)
-the world is inherently good
-out of the chaotic waters God has brought order.
IMO this is how we should be using the Biblical texts re: the nature of the cosmos. Genesis was probably originally indented to correct theological errors re: the nature of the cosmos and can continue to be used in a similar way today. Thus even Christian-evolutionists will disagree with the views some have about evolution: e.g. the world is the result of random events. It can be used to correct mistakes in the past: e.g. Platonic worldviews which see matter as fallen. The Biblical material can be used to correct deistic perspectives which view God as a watchmaker: i.e. God created the word (wound the watch) and has since left it alone. |
|
|
|
| Marshall Member Joined Feb 7, 2002 1191 posts Location: Langley, BC |
| Randomness |
Posted Nov 26, 2009; 6:47 pm |
|
Hi Thursday. I agree with most of what you wrote, but I'd like to pick out one sentence for comment:
| thursday wrote: | | Thus even Christian-evolutionists will disagree with the views some have about evolution: e.g. the world is the result of random events. |
I don't have a problem with randomness because I don't see it as indicating purposelessness. Which sperm joins an egg is, to the best of our knowledge, random. Yet, we're still created by God partly through those processes that seem random to us, and there is still a purpose to existence -- even to our existence.
God used random processes to divide the promised land, to finger a lawbreaker, to appoint an apostle. The Urim and Thummim were based on randomness. Often, randomness was used as a way of getting humans out of the picture so God could speak, if he chose to. Chance processes are no impediment to God, and chance is not a competitor to God. |
|
|
|
|
|
