Young Earth or Old Earth? Here is where to post your thoughts!

In general, I think you are correct with most of what you state. The exceptions are documented below. It seems to me (with no disrespect intended) that you have made a serious logic error or jumped to a quick unjustified conclusion in some of the below statements.  The key cause for this is your assumption that God cannot design using natural processes. i.e. that theistic evolution doesn't permit control over the outcome.

That would be correct in some of the versions of theistic evolution expressed by Collins and Miller. Their version would be better defined as deistic evolution since contingency plays a major part; it seems to me that their process doesn't include interaction from God in his Creation after the Big Bang and it doesn't have a predictable outcome. 

Darwinism as presently defined by the atheists would also have this shortcoming since each of these processes rely on random chance for the genetic mutation and luck in natural events driving selection. Of course there is no role for God if this were the actual process.  

Here are two key questions for Christians to ask themselves. Why would God create procreation or birth, mutation and theistic selection for diversification and multiplication for each species then not use it for for creating new species or mankind?  Was God incapable of creating natural processes to generate the species that He wanted? Of course not! It makes no sense to me and many other people that He would abandon this perfectly capable common descent process and pop new animals out of thin air as some Christians believe.  I think people are afraid of common descent and selection because they believe it takes God out of the design loop. As described by some groups as a natural process exclusively, that concern would be valid. This fear has spilled over in to all other processes that have any relationship to common descent over long time periods.  However, there are other processes that include design and leave God in control. These processes are totally compatible with the natural laws and an old earth.    

My version of theistic evolution is different than exclusive natural only versions and permits divine design.  Instead of random chance, deterministic laws of nature are utilized in the process.  The outcome can be predefined when deterministic laws are used. If the mutations can be preknown, then the lineage can be predefined, controlled, and designed. If they can be designed through these deterministic natural laws then common descent can be used to produce a series of designed subhuman men eventually leading to one called Adam starting from an ape. This first man would have had just the capabilities that God wanted (His spiritual image) using the same natural processes that the Trinity used to create other species.

This terse description may have been a little hard to follow so permit me to spell it out in a clear example that has a predefined outcome using the natural laws: superlotto.   Almost everyone would initially tell you that the winner is based on random luck. Yet there are many participants who pray prior to the drawing. Often the winner will yell out in exuberance 'Thank you God'. Now the process can't be both random and controlled by Creator. We must choose!  Pretend that you won for the moment. Do you believe that God knew you would win in advance?   Do you believe that God controlled the bouncing ball process and your pseudo random selection of the numbers and wanted and planned for you to win? I think most of our Christian viewers would say yes. If yes was your answer, this outcome was the result of deterministic laws and God's plan. If no was your answer, then you believe on a contingent universe and unpredictable set of future events, no prophecy allowed. But if you said 'yes' then you must also believe that new species could also be generated in the biological lotto called Darwinism because the same natural laws govern each biological procreation game. God would have preplanned the outcome for every new creature born or reproduced thus permitting evolution of a diverse biological world full of designed creatures.  

[Stu] Jesus "Deity lineage" is God (Lk 1:35; Col 1:19), but His human lineage is Adam (Lk 3:23-38; Mt 1:1-16). There are no chimpanzee cousins in Jesus' lineage. 

It seems to me that you are reading and interpreting more into these passages than it actually states.   Of course there were no chimps in the lineage since Adam, but if you go back far enough before man existed there actually are apes and less suitable biological organisms further back in time.  Jesus was a biological descendent of Mary and as Mary descended from Adam. Prior to Adam, all the land animals were brought into existance by the earth without a specific process mentioned except for birth.    There is no mention of the process used to create Adam in Genesis 1, Mathew 1 or in Luke other than normal birth.   These passages don't say anything about changing the process that God used for bringing forth the animals each after there kind (parents having children). They just say let us make man in our image.  

The Bible lists just those descendents from Jesus to Adam. Luke also lists God in Jesus' lineage prior to Adam.  It seems to me that Luke does this to acknowledge Jesus' virgin birth and that his Father was God. Not that biological procreation didn't exist before  Adam; especially since the earth and waters were bringing forth so many  forms of life.  

Here is the difference between mankind and other life forms.  Since God is a spiritual being, man was designed with an additional spiritual aspect that the other animals did'nt have. The spiritual aspect is also non-material and beyond our natural physical laws. Please recall that man is body and spirit, not just body. That means that man has a component beyond the normal physical laws that is needed for our existance in the eternal world as we leave the body and physical world behind us at physical death. This strongly suggests to me that the eternal world is informationally based and so is our spiritual aspect; things like our character, knowledge, understanding, and imagination that God is interested in.  The physical body is an important vessel for this world only since it disappears as we enter Heaven and it was used to develop our spiritual character in this life. It's importance in form, function, and similarity to other animals pales in light of our true spiritual nature that lasts for eternity.
 
It seems to me that any method God chooses to create us should be okay with us as long as we have a way of being with Him for eternity. Also if monkeys and insects were used along the way, we should be proud to have them in our lineage.   

Our arrogance as a species is not a flattering characteristic, we need to think more about honoring the role that God gave us and praising the system God made to create us. God wants us to be servants to each other and thoughtful ruler of all the other creatures of this world. Many of those creatures share a lot with us, they were our forebearers earlier in our planets long history and we share a lot of the same biological processes.  A wonderful system is in place that was designed by God to pop out the exact individuals and critters He wants. It is called mutation, cell division, and birth. Nothing more is needed by God to build the world He wants than Theistic evolution.  
  
Everyone needs to remember that our genetic code is closest to the ape (~1% difference) and our designs are very similar but not identical. If we were intended to be a new creation based solely on God's image and popped into existance out of dust, thin air or whatever, why is our genetic code so similar to the apes?   We also are an improved species with biological capabilities that apes don't have and a spiritual aspect that the ape doesn't have. Let's not get carried away and invent a whole new non-physical creating system here just for mankind just because he doesn't feel right or mentally offended about descending from the monkey and earlier forms of life.  God built you up from these forms of life; He didn't make you the same as them.  You are an improved species better than the earlier life forms. There is no insult as the information in your genes improves with time and generations as the species ascend (descend) under God's modification and selection.    

[Stu]  It makes a mockery of the human Jesus to have him a descendant of anything less than the man who was specially created in the image of God (Adam).

Nobody has made this claim, Jesus was human, all descendents of Adam were. Just because Adam descended from an ape doesn't mean that Jesus was less than human. God improved Adam's genetic code over ages through many species in mankind's lineage beyond the limits of apedom and made him a special creation with a spiritual component expanding on the apes ability to think and reason. This wonderful system designed by God makes no mockery of His son in any way. It is one that humans should praise instead of attacking.   

[Stu]  Evolution would have man created by impersonal forces and place him in a created order a little higher than the chimpanzee.

I think you meant to say Darwinism instead of evolution, they are not the same. Even then I would have to disagree, even Darwinism is guided by natural forces that God created and helped to shape human physical appearance. These laws were personally created to accomplish His will and deterministic to accomplish His plan.  

Theistic evolution is guided control of the evolution process putting man ahead of the ape just the right amount to rule over and manage the other creatures of the earth and to accomplish God's will.  This process does   not elevate mankind to an undeserved omnipotent or omniscient level to fuel mankind's insatiable ego or feel disconnected from the rest of God's creations.  Mankind needs to come back to earth a little closer and observe his similarities to the rest of nature; not try to claim a whole new design process for himself.

    [Stu] Adam and Eve were to multiply and fill the earth with human offspring to rule over the other species (kinds). These too were not part of some tree of common ancestry (Gen 1:11, 20-25). 

My comments above address common ancestry showing how design can be achieved by an omniscient being and show that our biology is extremely similar especially to the ape showing commonality. We are similar both anatomically and genetically.  God addresses mankind separately from the other animals in the next verse. 
 
Gen 1:26Then God said, "Let us make humankind in our image, after our likeness, so they may rule over....(the other plants and animals).

So we are a special creation from a certain perspective meaning we are a little different than the other animals in that the Trinity added a divine component to mankind (the ability to reason, act on knowledge, think abstractly, and imagine) so that we could rule the other animals. These are mankind's unique qualities over other animals.  God made humans a little different from the ape (not a lot ~1% gene coding) by increasing our ability for abstract thinking and improved reasoning that is needed for ruling. It's not like the genetic code needed to begin anew. We have one less chromosome and if you look at it carefully you could see that it is the combination of two ape chromosomes with rather slight changes. But these changes were unique and significant in functionality and they allowed mankind to invent tools and dominate the other animals.

So in summary, several points that were made in your post about common descent aren't clearly justified from either a Biblical basis, by your comments or on a natural law basis:  evolution insults Jesus lineage, no common descent of animals, mankind created by impersonal forces, and no chimpanzees cousins in Jesus lineage.   If you have a convincing argument to the contrary where the Bible states clearly that natural means were not used to create men and women please present it. Otherwise I will have to conclude that natural means are the only valid way and the only methodology described in the Bible. 

The closest passage that I could find that is different than normal procreation is Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.  However, this still does not tell how it was done biologically and is more metaphoric or symbolic than the real way it was done.  As everyone knows, all of Gods' creatures consist of the same atoms that exist in the dust of the ground. How is the breath of life  breathed into nostrils of dust? 

These passages in Genesis 2 seem to refer more to the symbolic spiritual beginning of life in mankind ('became a living soul') rather than his biological beginning. If you disagree or have other better examples please let me know.    

Brother Lee     

This was written as a doctrinal Bible Study, not a thesis. Please read the Scriptures directly and let God's words deliver the message, not mine.

I am sorry if the directness of this post offends anyone, but I am fearful for those who pursue this path -- and especially those who lead others astray, particularly our children.

CREATION

The first non-negotiable of the Christian faith is the fact that God is the Creator and Owner of all things (Ps 24:1).

The source of authority on all matters is the Bible -- God's inerrant record of His creation and how it is to operate (2 Tim 3:15-17, 2 Pet 1:20-21). The creation declares the glory of God (Ps 19:1), but by its very position is a secondary source of revelation. The created is subservient to the Creator. It doesn't override what the Creator says -- in fact "woe to the one" who thinks otherwise (Is 45:9).

Jesus Christ is God incarnate. As the 2nd Person of the Trinity, Jesus created all things (Jn 1:1-4, 14; Col 1:16, 17).

God created Adam directly and fully formed -- he did not evolve. Adam did not have a mother (Gen 1:26-28). God directly breathed life (soul/spirit) into Adam (Gen 2:7). Soon after, God created Eve directly (Gen 2:18). Likewise she did not have a mother and did not evolve (1 Tim 2:13, 1 Cor 11:9).

Man is not just a collection of matter and energy as evolutionary theory would have us believe. In addition to material (even information), man more importantly possesses soul and spirit (Zech 12:1; Mk 12:30). Evolutionary theory has nothing to contribute here except to reject God's Word, denying the existence of the soul and spirit.

In Adam and Eve, God instituted the sanctity of marriage of the male and female. He instituted the structure of the family unit. It not evolve from speciation and natural selection (Gen 2:18-25; Mt 19:3-6; Eph 5:22-33; Col 3:18-20).

Having created the human species directly in His image, God initiated sexual reproduction between Adam and Eve which started the biblical "tree of life" of children and the family (Gen 1:27, 28; Mt 9:4-6). There was no prior evolutionary species or biological common ancestry.

That the human generations did not start with Atom or Ape then evolve is clear from the explicit genealogies given (Gen 5:1). Adam was the son of God (Lk 3:38). Adam then through sexual reproduction with Eve started the genealogy of the human race with Seth (Gen 5:3).

Jesus "Deity lineage" is God (Lk 1:35; Col 1:19), but His human lineage is Adam (Lk 3:23-38; Mt 1:1-16). There are no chimpanzee cousins in Jesus' lineage.

Adam and Eve were to multiply and fill the earth with human offspring to rule over the other species (kinds). These too were not part of some tree of common ancestry (Gen 1:11, 20-25). What the limits are to scientific evolution (adaptation) is yet to be discovered.

Of all the species (kinds) directly created, man is God's special creation made in His image (Imago Dei) to bring glory to His name (Ps 8; Is 43:7). The Imago Dei is the fundamental basis on which Christians stands for pro-life and pro-family. Man is morally accountable to God. No animal or evolutionary ancestor ever spent a moment in prayer, or had the ability to reason and think logically. No animal possesses creativity and the technological inventiveness of the man made in God's image (evolutionists try to finesse this issue but fail).

FALL AND REDEMPTION

Even worse, theistic evolution makes a mockery of Christian theology and reduces the Bible to myth at best and a fairy tale at worst. Without a literal Adam there is no literal sin and no literal redemption for sin. There is no literal incarnation of Jesus Christ and no literal 2nd coming as those doctrines also refer to the "fleshly body" directly made by God.

One can say the words for personal salvation, but without believing what the words mean, i.e., what God meant by them and not what we want them to say, there can be no salvation. One can co-opt Christian terminology and make up their own religion, but that is a path of destruction. Mt 7:13-23 are very somber words and should make any person shudder before attempting this.

Sin entered the world because the one specially created man (Adam) disobeyed God (Gen 2:16, 17). Spiritual death for all mankind was the result. But through the One literal Jesus, mankind could be made righteous (Rms 5:12-19; 1 Cor 15:45-47).

In the incarnation, Jesus the eternal Son of God, comes to earth taking on a literal Adam body (Jn 1:14). Jesus is the literal descendent of Adam and David "according to the flesh." He is not related to any other species, evolved or otherwise (Rom 1:3). Jesus came in the literal "likeness of man" (Phil 2:7), and in the literal "likeness of a sinful flesh" to be the human sacrifice for sin which God condemned (Rms 8:3).

Jesus Christ redeemed humankind from the curse of the law having become the curse for all mankind (Gal 3:13). He offered His human body for our sins -- one sacrifice for all time (Heb 10:10, 11).

Jesus Christ remains in His glorified human body (Acts 1:9-11) and currently intercedes for believers as our High Priest (Heb 4:14, 15). He will soon return in a glorified human body as the reigning King and will judge unbelieving human beings and establish His literal Kingdom (Acts 1:9-11; Mt 24:30). It makes a mockery of the human Jesus to have him a descendant of anything less than the man who was specially created in the image of God (Adam).

Evolution would have man created by impersonal forces and place him in a created order a little higher than the chimpanzee. The Bible tells us, however, that God made man a special creature and placed him in a noble position in the universe:

I hope everyone can see from this failed attempt by a few politically and financially motivated scientists that were trying to sell global warming to the world, that maintaining a conspiracy in science is impossible. The truth in the end prevails as some scientists always crosscheck the others and surface the anomalies in any particular theory. Can we get on with the debate please and leave the credentials of individuals behind us? We need to debate the facts not someone's count of advanced degrees! i. e. Bret or someone, please document the irrefutable scientific evidence for believing in a young earth and that descent with modification followed by natural/theistic selection doesn't explain speciation. Otherwise I'll be forced to conclude that nothing of substance was presented at the rally.

Brother Lee

:roll: that's a good one Bret. It even made me go select a smilely!

How sad -- here we are trying to uphold the integrity of science in our blog and what we see in so many dark corners is "science gone wild" -- or should I politically correct.

I'm trying VERY VERY hard right now ...
NOT to be too sarcastic about posting
some links to something that I'm sure
you've ALL heard about recently!

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/24/hiding-evidence-of-global-cooling/

The only good news that I can glean
from this is ... that (so far) none of
these TRASH Scientists have been found
self promoting themselves on the
Marquis Who's Who listings!
(Sorry Stu! ... I couldn't resist)


Bret*

Brother Bret,

The purpose of this site is to critically review our ideas and sources among a discerning peer group. It is not to post opinions without substantiation. That means we have voluntarily subjected ourselves to a critical evaluation by our peers of "what we think we know" as well as "how we know it." Hopefully we are only "critical" of the content and not of the person.

You posted a strong opinion about the conference you attended -- that the debate is over. Lee asked you to post what you now know to support your conclusion, but so far all you have only offered up are the credentials of Dr. Jerry Bergman -- "Don't take my word for it ... Ask this guy!"

I'm sure you read about an author before you buy a book; check out the resume before you hire the new employee; and get references before you would allow a surgeon to operate on you. That's good critical thinking. On his CV Dr. Bergman says that he taught at the Medical College of Ohio and that he is listed in the Marquis Who's Who in Medicine, so I checked it out with a couple of clicks. It was disconcerting to find out that the Marquis Who's Who appears to be no more that a paid marketing listing posing as an academic credential. Yes, it could just be a "faux pas" as you suggest, or it could be something more. But whatever, it takes the polish off his otherwise fine accomplishments and makes me question his discernment. After all, if my surgeon put that on his CV I would want a second opinion. It's more than "academic & literary accomplishments" to which we must subject any alleged source of authority. Wisdom and discernment are vital too -- especially for biblical Christians.

The reason I passed on the Chronicle of Higher Education blog is to show the need among young tenured-tracking professors for mentoring about the ways of the world. As a "featured speaker on many college campuses throughout the United States and Europe" Dr. Bergman is placed on a pedestal. In these young professors eyes this self-promoting information would tarnish and not advance Dr. Bergman's record of otherwise excellent accomplishments.

Stu

Stu ...

I'm HONESTLY at a loss here?
There's NO WAY that I can possibly believe
that you're even remotely implying that because
Dr. Bergman has seemingly committed a faux pas
by listing some meaningless info at the end of his
CV ... that this somehow nullifies his academic &
literary accomplishments!
So ... what is your point?


Bret*

Hi Bret -- I'm glad you enjoyed your conference and am always looking for credible information and sources which support any of our positions.

I just checked out your recommended source Dr. Jerry Bergman. He sounds like a very accomplished fellow. I wanted to check the references he listed on Marquis' Who's Who in America, so I went to the Chronicle of Higher Education. You may wish to take into account the discussion posted there.

Stu

http://chronicle.com/forums/index.php?action=printpage;topic=47825.0

Before Lee and I (and others I hope) get down to the best part of the theistic evolution debate -- the theology -- I just learned something that is VERY COOL -- "God don't make no junk!"

This mystique of 99% similarity between me and the chimp only pertains to that small portion of the DNA (perhaps 5%) that codes for proteins. In the other 95% of the DNA (the non-coding portion) the similarity between species is radically different. That's like someone claiming they own 99% of something but in reality it is only 99% of 5% of the something.

For years the 95% has been sloughed off as "Junk DNA," but now we are discovering that it is this portion of the genome that directs the top level design of the species and governs the development of its body plan and parts. In other words, coding DNA is not the full answer to the genome design as we've been led to think. In fact, it may turn out to be less than 5% of the answer!

Bret, I am glad you enjoyed the show and are on an intellectual high from your experience with other YEs. I am surprised that you are declaring the debate as over though! It seems to me that a rally for YEs supported by ICR employees and other pro-YE organizations at one of the local churches doesn't quite end the debate. I am sure you and others heard some very interesting points by these speakers. However, you must realize that these points are not mainstream views and highly contentious with others in similar fields of study as the conference speakers. To the others, the views you heard are fringe at best and not worthy of even discussing by the general community of scientists. They believe the debate is over also but with the opposite view confirmed by the scientific data: old earth and Darwinism running rampant throughout nature. So for Heaven's sake come back to reality and let's continue the debate. Please show the rest of us some of the things you learned that undeniably prove your view is correct. I can't promise this but, I and others may have a challenge or two for some of the views expressed.

Brother Lee

The 2-Day, 12-hour FREE Conference & Webcast
that featured 7-Ph.D.'s speaking about where
Darwin went Wrong ... in their respective fields
of Expertise was ALL that anybody should need
to hear to understand that REAL Science knows
NOTHING about Evolution .......
Because it NEVER happened !!!
Don't take my word for it ... Ask this guy!

http://www.slaughterofthedissidents.com/template/index/BERGMAN_PROFILE_110208.pdf

Yeah ... He was one of the Speakers !!!
I'm sure that ALL of the open-minded bloggers
here watched EVERY single minute ... like I did !!!


Bret*

Thanks Stu for the compliments, I don't usually get them from earth bound minds. I can't wait to read how God pops bunnies and squirrels into existance using the fixed laws of heaven and earth just like he brought all of the energy into this universe with the same fixed laws. I would think there might be a problem with cooling the bunny before it vaporizes using the known laws of thermodynamics and energy conservation. Also, what happens to the anti-bunny (the one made of anti matter) where did it go? Is there a nearby anti-matter planet where he is safe?

I am playing with you here of course. I don't believe you can answer any of these questions so I am sure that you will claim that during their import into this world from other dimension, God made everything just right and they just appeared and soon began to eat the veggies that also miraculously appeared a couple of 'days' earlier. From this description, I hope everyone realizes that this description of how things come into being is no better than a mystic's description. There is no rational reasoning or understanding of how it was done conveyed here. This is not worthy of anyone's time or the memory in some computer out there somewhere in this world. God made nature understandable to mankind and I believe he expects more from us than to say only that he did it by a miracle. Why do Christian Creationists love ther miracles so when a perfectly good natural based design argument is at hand? Soon I hope that all will see that God is the maker of information in this universe and that we are part of it because He desired us. We are a causal result of His plan conceived before the Creation and executed into existance by the fixed laws of heaven and earth. No miracles necessary; just good planning by an omniscent God and interaction by a caring Father at the right times in it's history.

Although some say that no one can prove or disprove God exists. I think it is fairly obvious to most of the inhabitants of this world that the organization of information (the structure of the universe, the diverse biology on earth that is supported by it, and the ability of mankind to understand it) is a fairly strong argument in favor of God's existance unless one believes in absurd longshots that it happened randomly out of an almost infinite number of universes. Thank scientists for discovering much of the evidence glorifying our maker!

Brother Lee

Brother Lee -- good point you make about "out of thin air" versus a natural mechanism -- and very politely stated I might add.

At some point in our discussion we will get to a singularity at the boundary of the Bible and science -- and it will labeled that dreaded word in scientific circles - "miracle." But as I said in my HNSWL email "something out of nothing" (a naturalistic presupposition) is a "miracle" even if scientists refuse to label it at such. At least the creationists are honest enough to call it what it is.

Take your presupposition that "God exists." What scientific mechanism do you propose to conclude that? At least the atheistic evolutionists take their materialism to its logical conclusion -- "God does not exist."

Good dialoging with you Lee. I sent an email to Lucien to check in on your response to his proposition.

Stu

It is great to have you back Stu. Bret and I were getting lonely and missing the participation of others. At times I felt that I was the only one debating and I still am waiting for some serious thoughtful counter-arguments to my views posted. I have spent an enormous amount of time evluating my views from a Biblical perspective and that is why my perhaps unique view is presented here. I would like to challenge everyone to put in the equivalent effort to resolve these seemingly irresolvable differences between the Bible and nature. Since you believe that I have made an error in my thinking, I will look forward to your reply and the correction of any faulty thoughts I might have had. While waiting I want to address one of Lucien's comments:

[Lucien] Theistic evolution is just as bad, if not worse. Because it portrays God as a god of 99%+ extinction for the fittest to survive, over millions of years of creatures dying and getting fossilised, until God somehow turned an ape into a human being and built a garden on many layers of fossils (dead things) and called everything very good and then wrote that death came into the world at the Curse, AFTER humans joined the scene.

I do not agree with his judgement that 99+% of all lifeforms being dead through evolution in any way diminishes the term 'very good' relating to God's self assessment of His Creation at that moment. This is like the clay telling the potter that it doesn't like the work He's done. Who are we to judge God's work?

This misconception about God's wonderful work seems to stem from the faulty premise that spiritual death is the equivalent to the death of organic life. This is not the case! When we die our spiritual existance continues even though the material body dies and decays. The fall addresses spiritual death, not biological death. So the natural processes that related to biological life and death were not impacted by the 'Fall'. Predatory animals ate other animals, Herbivores ate plants, bacteria ate viruses and other bacteria before and after the 'Fall' of humans into spiritual death.

Would you please let Lucien know this in case he doesn't view our blog?

I also wanted to address the issues you have raised about common descent. I agree with your view that the similarity could and is design related. Your response implies that my version of Creation isn't designed. Somehow I have failed to convey to you my main point about a deterministic physical laws; they are required to permit design by our Creator. Through initial conditions and deterministic laws, God designed the universe, spoke it into existance (set the initial conditions and activated it), causality unfolded it throughout time into it's present designed state. God' s other interactions throughout history were already preplanned and consistent with the preplanned result to conquer evil. I hope this is clear to you now.

The other issue is the lack of a natural mechanism to materialize the new designs. There is a natural mechanism to perform this task, it is called mutation and birth. Whereas, the materialization out of thin air for the millions of species in our world leaves us scientists breathless and wondering if the the people promoting this alternative are rational beings. If you have an alternative of how these creatures were brought into existance by God other than natural birth means and similar to the method which I have proposed, please explain it to me. Otherwise, I have to conclude that there are a large number of Christian Creationists that believe God brings creatures into existance out of thin air, while violating the 'fixed' natural laws momentarily for each creature that He creates. I hope you will address your proposed alternate creation method in your response as I have received no rational methodology proposed thus far as an alternative to mine for creation during discussions with the YEs.

Lee

Dear Brother Lee,

I have to commend you for the depth of your research and for your critical thinking on the matter. And more importantly, for clinging to God as the originator of the physical laws that govern the evolutionary process. You are sincere about theistic evolution, but I think you are sincerely wrong.

I will start my postings shortly that show that evangelical Christians are committing intellectual suicide by buying into theistic evolution, whether it is deterministic like yours, contingent like Gould's, or out of the BioLogos school like Collins. I hope you will dig into the biblical data with the same zeal you have for the scientific data. You say that Christian belief is being eroded by lack of intellectual prowess. I challenge you then to use your excellent intellectual capacities to research and understand the Scriptures to the level I will challenge you. Trusting the Bible is what will lead people out of the darkness (intellectual and otherwise) and into the light.

Regarding your present analysis, I have to say your common ancestry argumentation can be used just as easily as evidence for common design, which is compatible with the biblical view. The chimp and I may have 99% the same DNA but what does that prove? I have 100% the same morphology -- two arms, two legs, 1 body segment and 1 head. All it proves is that we have the same design. Even more so I have 100% the same atomic particles in my body as the chimp -- protons, electrons and neutrons. All that proves is that we both are made of atoms. So God designed us out of the same materials to live on the same planet under the same physical laws.

Where I think you go wrong is by assuming that "common ancestry" (as defined by the evolutionary biologists) is a proven fact -- and it isn't. We have yet to argue the evidence -- but we will after we get the biblical data sorted out first. Without common ancestry, evolution collapses and there is no need for your deterministic theistic evolutionary hypothesis to save the day for Christianity. Christianity is saved by the proper understanding of God's Word. Stay tuned for my thesis.

Your Brother,
Stu

KJV Genesis 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. 21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

Virtally all modern plants and animals that we are familiar with are multicellular life forms.  These animals and plants consist of eukaryotic cells containing a very close common set of genetic code per individual and the same types of amino acids in their proteins as well the same constituents in their RNA and DNA.  For instance all humans do not vary by more than .1% in their genetic code sequence which is about 3 million nucleotides of difference maximum.  Between man and chimp there is thirteen times that difference (40 million nucleotides) but still only a ~1% difference. Even photosynthetic eukaryote bacteria (algae)  are 30% the same as human DNA in their nucleotide sequences of similar genes after splitting off from a common ancestor over a billion years ago. This shows us that life has a lot in common and that good functional DNA was reused many times and improved upon. 
These are facts discovered by examining DNA sequences of existing species and are indisputable. 
What is open to question is how all these variants got here? Were they developed naturally as Darwin claims, generation upon generation and slowly diverging over time due to mutations in the genetic code with the improvements selected by nature?  Were the species predetermined by God and His physical laws as some theistic evolutionists claim?  Did each animal species pop into existance as God spoke them into existance over two days of His Creation week as the YEs believe?  The response below supports the theistic evolution view at the expense of other views. 

The variations in the genetic code per individual are a result of copying modifications and mutations from various other causes.  The differences between all life forms results from these genetic code changes and the structures and processes generated by the individual's genetic code.  Information is also contained in the structure and organization of the cell that houses the DNA as a result of gene expression, it's controlled by proteins and RNA and the external environment of the cell.   

Darwinists claim that the changes in genetic code are a result of random chance or contingency.  I believe the changes to be the result of a predetermined series of events that resulted from fore knowledge of the universe at every moment throughout time and a purpose driven outcome. Also that each creature was preplanned to come into and out of existance at just the right moment.  This process would therefore be almost indistinguishable from the presently popular Darwinistic viewpoint except for the random chance being the driver for speciation and its perceived inability to account for the almost miraculous appearances of new life forms and irreducibly complex functions. This is my own personal interpretation of the not so popular theistic evolution with predetermination and God's interaction woven in. In this view God can manipulate the likelyhood of events as He sees fit at any moment in time to produce each new species or eliminate individuals. He would also interact as necessary during conception and mitosis to 'knit' each creature 'together in their mother's womb' figuritively as the genetic code is joined and copied. I personally don't believe that He had to meddle individually in each organism's DNA during procreation since God foreknew the outcome before the universe started and spoke it into existance. He planned it and his creation carried it out based on the deterministic physical laws. Any meddling in specific procreation events were also preplanned and spoken into existance at the proper moment of history.   

According to the natural history record,  on the fifth day, multiple cellular life forms made their appearance starting from modified single cell organisms. Earlier in history, these single cell organisms had prepared the earth for the vast diversity of life to follow by changing the chemistry of atmosphere, oceans, and lithosphere; a necessary stage in modifying the primordial condition of the earth for animal life. 
  
Ediacaran fauna are macroscopic, soft-bodied organisms of the Vendian Period (last part of the Proterozoic). Although some colonies of eukaryotes were known to exist prior to Ediacaran fauna, they are identified as the oldest multicellular life forms living about 600 million years ago.   

Soon after, in the oceans there was a virtual explosion in diversified life forms called the Cambrian Explosion around 540 million years ago in the Precambrian period. Stephen Jay Gould in his book Wonderful Life documents these inhabitants of our ancient world beautifully.   All of the modern phyla of animals except the bryozoans (~500 ma ago) appeared almost simultaneously within a few million years (<20) per the fossil record between ~545 to ~530 ma ago after a long period of global glaciation that prepared the oceans with nutrients for so many new forms of life. 

Because of the large diversification of biota at that time, none of the Darwinists have a clear compelling explanation, only vague notions, about how the proper DNA sequences rapidly appeared. The Darwinian community struggles to explain how random chance and natural selection could produce such highly successful body structures within this short period. As a result a number of ideas are hypothesized to explain away or undermine the miraculous features of the biological explosion.  Did control of Hox genes originate at this time? These genes control whether new body parts are expressed or not during development.  The widely held view is that a few simple changes to enhance or inhibit gene expression could radically change body architecture. Was there new environmental diversification or predatory pressure at work at this time to drive evolution faster? Were the genetic differences prexisting in earlier biota but not expressed until the 'explosion'?  No one really knows but each is a hot topic of research. At present we don't know enough to either disprove or prove any of these hypotheses, however, it is also a dangerous tact to claim God did it and find out a decade from now that science was able to displace another God-of-the-gaps miracle further eroding Christian belief.    

However, this uncertainty calls into question the validity that Darwin's process alone can account for the earth's biological diversification history.  Yet, Darwinism, remains unchallengeable in education and many powerful technical institutions throughout the world. This is also a sad commentary on Christian engagement in intellectual pursuits in this world for allowing so much power and control to be taken by non-believers pushing atheism and other non-Christian views based on random chance and contingency. 
 
The large amount of information difference in the genetic code between the various phyla shouts out that more than Darwin's simple slow moving process was necessary.  At least other design alternatives should be seriously considered. Unfortunately, design arguments are not permitted in scientific circles these days.  

Genetic drift rate analyses estimates a much longer period of 500 million to a billion years depending on the specific gene or protein analyzed. But none of these supposed critters remains have been found in the layers preceeding the PreCambrian Explosion.    

Yet, overall the phyla have a large amount of closely matching genetic code.  A slightly smaller amount of genetic code matches that of single cell eukaryotes (the predecessor to multiple cellular life. Prokaryote bacteria have less similarity than eukaryotes but still a significant amount.   Chimpanzee DNA is 99% the same as human.   Other species in different phyla have substantially less similarity  This strongly implies common descent to the Darwinists and many others  that are not Darwinists.  I believe that common descent with occassional lateral genetic code transfer or symbiotic combination is a fact proven by genomic analysis. It's time for YEs to get use to this fact of life and adjust arguments appropriately. Fighting this lends incredulity to Christianity.  

Stephen Gould speculated a bit further and claimed that all of these body forms are based on contingency, which from a Christian perspective can't be compatible with design, determinism and prophecy.  This contingency view is also held by Kenneth Miller, and Francis Collins who profess the Catholic Christian faith. I can't find a way to logically reconcile this contingent view of the world with Biblical phrases relating to foreknowledge of exactly what people say or the fulfilling of detailed prophecies such as Jesus being born in Bethlehem and prophesied hundreds of years earlier.  Consequently, the uncertainty of random events is incompatible with foreknowledge. Deterministic physical laws however are compatible with common descent and divine foreknowledge of seemingly miraculous phylum branching during the Cambrian Explosion. All of the components could be preassembled through deterministic laws and initial conditions to precipitate the 'explosion' at that precise period in history with God's divine knowledge of the universe.

A strict contingency view of the world's biota does not properly take into account the strong constraints imposed by the natural laws: gravity and chemistry. Structural shapes and sizes of biota must be compatible with natural forces in the environment otherwise death of the organism would quickly ensue. Only those changes in the genetic code that met strict criteria enforced by natural laws could exist. As these criteria were slowly met over long periods of time, the information grew in the DNA for each of the diverse forms of life.   I believe God used His laws to precisely guide the development of all life forms on our planet: size, shape, weight, functionallity, and all other characteristics.  More on this topic when we discuss theistic mutation and selection.

From the Chordata phyla came whales and fowl hundreds of millions of years later as each generation continued to be modified and selected as the waters and earth brought them forth under God's direction as referenced in Genesis 1.  From the other 34 animal phyla came some of other moving creatures that also move within the seas. Now the stage is set for the next step of development in a forthcoming post: land animals and mankind.

Brother Lee        

Dear Friends,

I am posting a reply from our Bonny Brother in Scotland, Lucien Tuinstra who was responding to my HNSWL email "Christianity is a Fairy Tale."

The subject title above sets the stage for my coming post -- a Bible Study I think will prove the point.
------------------------------------

Hi Stuart.

Thanks for sharing, sad indeed.

One thing that will bother me though, is that evolution has led this boy away from God.
But Christians keep on hammering that atheistic evolution does that and should be banned.
Not so.
Theistic evolution is just as bad, if not worse. Because it portrays God as a god of 99%+ extinction for the fittest to survive, over millions of years of creatures dying and getting fossilised, until God somehow turned an ape into a human being and built a garden on many layers of fossils (dead things) and called everything very good and then wrote that death came into the world at the Curse, AFTER humans joined the scene.
No, theisitic evolution is bad. An atheistic evolutionist at least their story is (more or less) consistent with what they believe.

To the point now.
You mention that this lad now thinkgs "there is no need for God". I presume you are referring to the idea he can now (supposedly) explain the world/universe without God (he can't really, but that's another story).
I am convinced though that this boy has a conscience (God gave him one). And to show him there is indeed a need for God, one should hold the 10-Commandments-mirror in front of him.
Somebody close could do that with him, or you can send him the link 'needgod.com'. This will go straight to the matter of being guilty, and having to seek out a legal transaction (in the form of Jesus of course, who paid our fine) to be set free.

Hope this helps. Might be that this has been tried, then prayer would indeed be a good idea...


Lucien

ATTENTION ALL !!!

A FREE "Conference" is coming to O.C. !!!
"DARWIN was WRONG!"

Friday Night ... & all day Saturday!
(Nov. 13th & 14th)

Link for MORE info ... http://www.logosresearchassociates.org/coming_events.htm#A

The PRICE is Right!
The PLACE is Right!
The MESSAGE is Right-on!

Let's do this Guys!
What do you say?
I'll save you a seat!


Bret*

Ha Ha Ha!  Good trick on me, Bret!  I thought some of Satan's minions had possessed your mind on Halloween. Don't scare me like that again!  I don't usually participate in Halloween 'festivities' because this world is scary enough for me without the extra ghoul and goblin wannabes. Why parents want to encourage their children to be little monsters more than they are and to make light of evil is beyond me.

The good part of your follow-up post is that some of it made some sense to me so that I know that Satan's minions have departed. I thought for a moment that I was going to need to perform an exorcism on you.  I hope that you also are aware that Satan works all sides of peoples views to distort, confuse, and deceive to dominate them.  Atheistic scientists, Joe Average, as well as YEs have been impacted by Satan's deception.   Truth is very hard to obtain in this world and we need to work hard to discover it under all the wild views and partial truths flooding the human mind. That is why we are having this debate.  Thanks for clarifying some of the questions that I asked. Nice to have you back.
  
Just because Richard uses scientific data to fuel his twisted atheistic belief, doesn't mean he is correctly interpreting it. Let's just remove Dawkins from the discussions and comparisons since He is off his rocker. He can provide no evidence for or against either of our positions. He is not a fit measuring stick, only an incendiary device.  Okay?
I wasn't totally sure about your view on deterministic physical laws though now that Free Will has been separated from them and assumed it's proper place in our spirit and character. It seems like you might be willing to accept that the physical laws are deterministic since they are in line with the Calvinist view and they don't impact free will for the saved (or unsaved from my perspective). Remember all of the physical laws are left behind in our transition to Heaven, therefore, it would not go well for us to have to leave our mind, spirit and Free Will behind as well if they had been tied to these laws. As Celine sings it 'the heart goes on' eternally and we (our spirit) cannot have our Free Will tied to a deterministic component related to the time dimension in this universe since it goes away in the afterlife. 

Your point on entropy has no meaning in the YE scenario because according to this view, all life was created in three 'days' spontaneously without entropy being a factor.  It does have significance for development of biological forms over long time periods however. Yes, entropy does increase at the universal scale dependably, but....

Your points regarding entropy require further examination since they are only partially valid.   Entropy is independent of deterministic physical laws. It is a measure of information (patterns of energy) becoming disorganized and degrading to lower energy levels.  On a large scale in our present universe, the disorganization grows with time as space volume increases permitting energy (information) redistribution from high concentrations and frequencies to low concentrations an frequencies which are favored statistically.  Information decays as time increases via thermodynamics, particle physics laws, electro-dynamics and gravity because all the laws permit entropy to increase even though each law is deterministic. It's statistics and time that drive entropy higher. Halt time then entropy stops increasing. Entropy can also be halted by correcting errors in information then reduced periodically by adding new valuable information. Of course this requires, a process for correcting information, extra energy to perform the error correction process, and some thinking being or process that can add new information. This energy can be obtained from the thermodynamic processes taking place naturally around us while the overall net entropy increases in the universe. The Information contained in all cellular life forms has learned how to cheat death to a limited degree.  Various biological processes and structures (information) in cells and viruses capitalize on the flow of energy toward heat death (thermodynamic processes) to preserve their information, make duplicates of information, and improve upon that information occassionally during reproduction. Dr. Fazale Rana has pointed this out clearly in his book 'The Cell's Design' as he shows us numerous examples of the cell's quality control apparatus to prevent mistakes and correct them when made.  During sexual reproduction, an organism's offspring occassionally has improved genetic code as genetic mistakes in one of the parents are eliminated.  This is an example of reduced entropy that occurs naturally due to the improvement in information. We see this effect quite often in bacteria that become immune to certain types of antibiotics. Their information has been preserved and improved upon for future generations with new hosts available while the ancestor bacteria do not have this advantage.  As these new microbes reproduce and multiply replacing their forebearers information increases and entropy decreases.       

 The information stored in DNA is a good example of how this reversal of entropy is achieved; using the same constituents and processes, bacterial DNA can be modified into any species alive on our planet. All that is needed is the correct code added at the proper location in the sequence.  This sequence of the DNA nucleotides provides the instructions for making any new copy or slightly modified individual. Short sequences of DNA grew into long sequences and diversified into a greater number of complex genomes during our world's long history.   As a result, the entropy related to biological life has become lower during earth's history. Information has increased with time. Now the big question is how did it become this way? Over the eons, did it happen by Darwinian evolution or by Theistic evolution. Can Darwinism actually reverse entropy's normal upward trend?  

Processes that manage information to correct errors or maintain this information bypass and can reverse the normal growth in entropy (disorder).  The minds of humans and other animals (information processors) work typically to reverse entropy. An example of this is a beaver that builds a dam or birds building nests to modify the natural state for their benefit. Humans society is totally based on this reversal of entropy until some demon possessed individual decides to blow some of it up. In the mean time human society (present federal and state administrations excepted due to self indulgence) spends a sizeable amount of it's energy reorganizing matter to lower entropy and actually build a better world for generations to come.  Reduced entropy is one of the best indicators of a mind at work. The Big Bang is therefore one of the best indicators of a mind at work since the entropy will be at the lowest possible value that could ever be achieved in this universe (highest concentration of energy at highest energy level totally defying statistical probability.       

Darwinists believe that genetic information can be increased and diversified over time.  Creationists believe that the natural world is very limited in it's capacity to improve the genetic code on it's own. It has been very difficult to determine how far the natural processes and nominal statistical events can advance biology over billions of years.   Scientists have only had about 60 years to explore genomics and only recently completed the human genome project.  They are finally now just getting good at sequencing genetic code at reasonably high rates.   Consequently, only a few genomes of other organisms have been  completed.  However, this has helped greatly in our comparisons of species.  By the end of this century mankind will have a much clearer picture of how genetic code sequences translate into form and function. Unfortunately it is still too early in this quest for knowledge to determine  if the changes necessary to speciate our planet were within acceptable probability limits without invoking miraculous infusions of information in the genetic code. The Darwinists believe they were and the Creationist's say they are not. As for me, I am undecided but leaning slightly more each day to the nominal probability side. I believe this is the way that God did it because he created nature and made it to accomplish His will.  Also, God sparingly performs miracles and violates physical laws even less if at all. It seems to me that the independent creation of each species that ever lived on this planet would go against the documented accounts we read in the Bible where He stated 'let the earth bring forth' or 'let the waters bring forth abundantly'. So it seems to me that Darwin may have had it about right and that natural processes were geared to perform the heavy work for God. The difference of course for me is that Darwin attributed the origination to chance and natural selection while I give God credit through theistic evolution. I believe God knows exactly what He will get through deterministic processes while the atheist, Ken Miller and Francis Collins believe the life forms are completely contingent. I think I'm the one whose correct but only God knows. Lots more to discuss in the years ahead.  

I have never believed that the world is perfect. I believe that God only is perfect and the best this world achieved at one point in it's history is very good after several other goods. Even the garden was not perfect since it contained man and woman who God foreknew would mess up in their decisions, but it was an important step in God's eventual conquest of evil in this universe and in the spirits of those going into the new creation for eternity. The inability to control our thoughts and actions for good are what separate us from God. We may have been very good at one point but never perfect and God knew it. We are loved in spite of our weaknesses in what we know and ability to control our actions. Fortunately, God gives us our lifetimes to improve our weaknesses in misconceptions regarding Truth and to build a better character along the way.
Praise God!
Brother Lee                  

Brother Lee ...

YES! ... Brother !!!
I'm glad to see that my Halloween "post" scared you!
My bombastic claims are meant to "shock" but never "impugn"!
I used (by far) the most famous & vocal proponent of Gradualism
on this planet to support your explanation of "Evolution".
Dawkin's (on camera) excursion into Scientology was more of
a Satanic sells pitch to the Trekkies and other gullible (pop-culture)
youths ... to find comfort in moving the lack of evidence for their
beloved Theory from here on Earth ... into Hyperspace !!!
Read his books ... and you'll find virtually the same interpretation
of the Data as you've described! The only word missing in his
books is "intelligent"!
In your defense ... that one word makes you anathema in Richard's
eyes! He couldn't care less about the "Facts" of Science!
You could believe in the craziest non-scientific explanation for
the origins of life and the universe ... but as long as you DON'T
believe in ANY kind of a God being involved ... then Richard will
add you to his list of pretentious "Brights" and peers !!!
Lee ...
This is NOT a conspiracy!
This is Spiritual WARFARE !!!
You do believe in Satan ... right?
When it comes to Science ... there's only ONE set of data!
The debate is over the "interpretation" of this data!
One that fits Satan's purpose ...
and the one that aligns with God's Truth!
Most modern day Scientists are (admittedly) Atheists!
Who has dominion & influence over them ???
Jesus said "You are either for me ... or against me! If you are
lukewarm ... I WILL SPIT YOU OUT OF MY MOUTH" !!!
This has NOTHING to do with "Smart" people vs. "Dumb" people!
It has EVERYTHING to do with "Good" vs. "Evil" !!!
As far as "Determinism" goes ...
it is a term most commonly used by Atheists in place of the
Biblical term "Predestination".
Strict Calvinists believe in something called "Irresistible Grace"!
Which implies that the "Chosen" of God basically had no choice
but to accept God's Gift of Salvation ... and everyone else will
miss the boat (so to speak)... also without choice!
They believe that God has EVERYTHING predetermined !!!
I do NOT believe that Free Will has ANYTHING to do with the
Natural Laws that God created! Free Will ONLY applies to those
eligible for Salvation through forgiveness of Sin!
The Natural Laws DO cause a kind of Deterministic Gradualism!
But ... it's the absolute OPPOSITE of Darwinism!
The Clock is winding DOWN !!! ... Not up !!!
Things started out PERFECT ... then started to turn to crap!
NOT the other way around !!!
Please ... correct me where I'm wrong?

Bret*

Wow, Bret you've taken us on a quick spin through Heaven, the mind, predestination, and throughout hyperspace at warp speed. I'm sorry but I don't believe anything that I saw in your last post.  Much too fast for me!  Maybe if you could unpack the logical reasoning behind your conclusions, I might be able to follow you at subwarp.  

How do you conclude that Dawkins would agree with 99.9% of my theistic evolution views since he is an atheist? He is also on record in Expelled as believing that life was brought to this planet from outer space; this is totally different than the concept I expressed. Did Richard have a recent conversion to theistic evolution from atheism? If I didn't believe that you had a good Christian heart and mind, I would suspect that you are undermining my view by associating it a renowned atheist.   This tact would be unbecoming of a sincere Christian. 

Your disbelief also exemplifies the YE total distrust of scientific discoveries made over the past 100 years; my concept of life's origination and development into plant life matches the scientific record and is independent of any religious views. It is just based on the facts dicovered by good science.  It looks like you are claiming that ALL scientific theories relating to earth sciences, geology, radiometric dating, archaeology, genomics, and microbiology are suspect because there is a giant conspiracy to prove Darwin's theory true. That the data collected is also bogus.  Am I interpreting your comments correctly?      
  
If the natural laws are deterministic how does one reach the conclusion that it makes God 'a lying Ogre'?  I'm sure you are familiar with Romans 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good for those who love God, who are called according to his purpose, 29 because those whom he FOREKNEW he also PREDESTINED to be conformed to the image of his Son, that his Son would be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. 30 And those he predestined, he also called; and those he called, he also justified; and those he justified, he also glorified.
Then in Acts 2:23 this man, who was handed over by the PREDETERMINED plan and FOREKNOWLEDGE of God, you executed by nailing him to a cross at the hands of Gentiles.
These passages clearly show us that God foreknew who would become a coheir of Heaven with Jesus and everything that has happened and will happen throughout time. Deterministic laws make this possible and are supportive of this passage.   
Are you assuming that our minds are a consequence of natural laws only and that there is no spiritual component in it that could give us Free Will? If you are, I disagree with this assumption. I have some concepts on how Free Will could be implemented within a deterministic set of physical laws but I think this should be reserved for a future blog series. For now let's focus on Darwin. 

What is 'Irresistible' determinism and how does it relegate 'Free Will to the realm of illusion or (worse yet) psychosis!'?

I can't believe you said that about Jesus based on the natural laws being deterministic. There is so much to  discover about how the mind works and what our spirit is that it seems extremely presumptuous to make that claim about Jesus and God 'a lying ogre'. It seems that again you are making wild claims about Free Will not at all understood to undermine my position.  

Please show me how Free Will is attached only to natural laws and not part of the spiritual gift God put into man and women during His special creation of them. You will have to think outside the box on this one. It seems you are over simplifying the entire process of God's interaction with His universe and mankind through thought by claiming that everything including all of mankind's thoughts is deterministic and not related to our individual spirit.     

How can you claim that there is  no data to support gradualism? Do some things not change slowly over time?  Are people all exactly the same genetically? Are humans and apes not made of the same materials with a small difference in the genetic code?  Are humans not closer genetically to each other than the ape? Do viruses and bacteria not mutate?  You need to show us your aces, just lay them on the table. I'm calling your hand. 

I strongly disagree with your premise that millions of scientists and engineers are supporting a giant conspiracy to promote Darwinism and all of the data being collected is suspicious. Even though I was angered when I watched Expelled and have been personally impacted by persecution in the workplace by a few, I do not buy into your assertion that the entire scientific community produces bad results to support Darwinism. We would be out of business quickly if we produced bad results as a community. Quite the contrary, the scientific community flourishes because of the knowhow and reliable data produced. 

Brother? Lee

Wow, Bret you've taken us on a quick spin through Heaven, the mind, predestination, and throughout hyperspace at warp speed. I'm sorry but I don't believe anything that I saw in your last post.  Much too fast for me!  Maybe if you could unpack the logical reasoning behind your conclusions, I might be able to follow you at subwarp.  

How do you conclude that Dawkins would agree with 99.9% of my theistic evolution views since he is an atheist? He is also on record in Expelled as believing that life was brought to this planet from outer space; this is totally different than the concept I expressed. Did Richard have a recent conversion to theistic evolution from atheism. If I didn't believe that you had a good Christian heart and mind, I would suspect that you are undermining my view by associating it a renowned atheist.   This tact would be unbecoming of a sincere Christian. 

Your disbelief also exemplifies the YE total distrust of scientific discoveries made over the past 100 years; my concept of life's origination and development into plant life matches the scientific record and is independent of any religious views. It is just based on the facts dicovered by good science.  It looks like you are claimining that ALL scientific theories relating to earth sciences, geology, radiometric dating, archaeology, genomics, and microbiology are suspect because there is a giant conspiracy to prove Darwin's theory true. That the data collected is also bogus.  Am I interpreting your comments correctly?      
  
If the natural laws are deterministic how does one reach the conclusion that it makes God 'a lying Ogre'?  I'm sure you are familiar with Romans 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good for those who love God, who are called according to his purpose, 29 because those whom he FOREKNEW he also PREDESTINED to be conformed to the image of his Son, that his Son would be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. 30 And those he predestined, he also called; and those he called, he also justified; and those he justified, he also glorified.
Then in Acts 2:23 this man, who was handed over by the PREDETERMINED plan and FOREKNOWLEDGE of God, you executed by nailing him to a cross at the hands of Gentiles.
These passages clearly show us that God foreknew who would become a coheir of Heaven with Jesus and everything that has happened and will happen throughout time. Deterministic laws make this possible and are supportive of this passage.   
Are you assuming that our minds are a consequence of natural laws only and that there is no spiritual component in it that could give us Free Will? If you are, I disagree with this assumption. I have some concepts on how Free Will could be implemented within a deterministic set of physical laws but I think this should be reserved for a future blog series. For now let's focus on Darwin. 

What is 'Irresistible' determinism and how does it relegate 'Free Will to the realm of illusion or (worse yet) psychosis!'?

I can't believe you said that about Jesus based on the natural laws being deterministic. There is so much to  discover about how the mind works and what our spirit is that it seems extremely presumptuous to make that claim about Jesus and God 'a lying ogre'. It seems that again you are making wild claims about Free Will not at all understood to undermine my position.  

Please show me how Free Will is attached only to natural laws and not part of the spiritual gift God put into man and women during His special creation of them. You will have to think outside the box on this one. It seems you are over simplifying the entire process of God's interaction with His universe and mankind through thought by claiming that everything including all of mankind's thoughts is deterministic and not related to the individual.     

How can you claim that there is  no data to support gradualism? Do some things not change slowly over time?  Are people all exactly the same genetically? Are humans and apes not made of the same materials with a small difference in the genetic code?  Are humans not closer genetically to each other than the ape? Do viruses and bacteria not mutate?  You need to show us your aces, just lay them on the table. I'm calling your hand. 

I strongly disagree with your premise that millions of scientists and engineers are supporting a giant conspiracy to promote Darwinism and all of the data being collected is suspicious. Even though I was angered when I watched Expelled and have been personally impacted by persecution in the workplace by a few, I do not buy into your assertion that the entire scientific community produces bad results to support Darwinism. We would be out of business quickly if we produced bad results as a community. Quite the contrary, the scientific community flourishes because of the knowhow and reliable data produced. 

Brother? Lee

Hola Lee ...

I read your "Middle Creation Week" post from before!
I'm probably the ONLY one who did read it?
Richard Dawkin's believes 99.9% of your Post!
I believe 0.1% of your fantastic voyage!
Irresistible Determinism relegates Free Will to
the realm of illusion or (worse yet) psychosis!
Without Free Will ... God is a lying ogre!
How can Jesus forgive "My" sins ... if He made
me sin to begin with?
I would have to die for His sins ... right?
Can you understand why I can't sign-on to
"Strict" & "Unbending" Determinism?
The balance & perspective needed to understand
and explain the coexistence of BOTH Free Will &
Predestination is a deep & meaningful Topic ...
that has been bandied about & nuanced for
hundreds of years!
With ALL that said .......
My main objection to Gradualism is ...
That there is NO evidence to support ANY kind
(flavor) of Gradualism ever happening !!!
Gradualism is a postulate based on NOTHING!
Yes! ... God could have gradually Created everything?
But! ... (if He did) He left ZERO evidence that this
is what happened !!! (Deception?)

Bret*

Hi Bret,

I think you must have skipped my post on Middle Creation Week about 26 posts back where I outline the stages of cell building. Determinism and predetermination is critical to the argument that I am making and that is why I am developing and showing everyone the details and the importance of deterministic laws. Because if the laws aren't deterministic there can't be predetermined gradual or punctuated evolution to my mind. The question for everyone to answer in their own mind is whether God can control the unfolding of the universe through the use of the physical laws and know ahead of time the outcome. If He can't in the reader's mind then I have no chance of convincing that person that slow theistic evolution could occur. This is of course the way I believe God put the universe together over billions of our years. I seem to be having a great deal of difficulty getting you to see this fine point. Hopefully this post will clarify it. I can continue with the evolution debate once the YE contingent understands this essential foundational factor.

Brother Lee

Brother Lee ...

I don't mind reading another book about Scientific Theory.
I love to read books about Science, Philosophy, & Theology!
But ... it seems that we're getting stuck on the wrong debate Topic?
We keep wrestling around with Predestination vs. Free Will issues!
We're suppose to be debating Gradualism vs. Divine Creation?
I will refrain from using the word "Random" when referring to
the Mutations that I believe ... you believe in!
Let's get started ... O.K.?
How did we get the 1st living Cell (or whatever) ???
I believe God spoke it into existence instantaneously !!!
How do you believe that God did it?
AND ... how does your view differ from Darwin's?

Bret*