http://biologos.org/blog en Copyright 2010 2010-03-11T20:48:27+00:00 http://biologos.org/blog/pauls-adam-part-i/#comment-6668 http://biologos.org/blog/pauls-adam-part-i/#comment-6668 Martin Rizley Gregory,  When you ask me, “Have you studied natural-physical science at any time in your life?” I wonder if you would ask the same question of Kurt Wise, who got his Phd. in geology studying under Stephen Jay Gould at Harvard, or Andrew Snelling, who is a practicing, professional geologist who got his Phd. from the University of Sydney?  Would you accuse them of ignorance of the facts, as you accuse me?  But it is a common tactic for those who oppose creationism to accuse their opponents of being ignorant of the facts.  As I pointed out, however, the difference between creationist and anti-creationist is not necessarily a difference in the degree of factual knowledge that each possesses, but rather, the approach one takes to interpreting the data.  The anti-creationist is committed to interpret all the data within the framework of uniformitarianism (the present is the key to the past; God never acts to shape any geological feature by immediate, supernatural intervention.)  This is not the only way to read the data, however; and from a Christian perspective, serious questions must be raised about assuming a strict, naturalistic view of God’s working in earth’s ancient past. - Posted by Martin Rizley Blog comments 2010-03-11T20:48:27+00:00 http://biologos.org/blog/the-apostle-paul-and-adam/#comment-6667 http://biologos.org/blog/the-apostle-paul-and-adam/#comment-6667 Kendalf @Gordon (#6627) “...when science did eventually progress to the point where the falseness of these hypotheses became evident, it was the Church that argued in favor them BASED ON SCRIPTURE.” What are the examples that you are thinking about when you say that the Church continued to argue in favor of a specific hypothesis even after the hypothesis was proven false? The context of your comment was in reference to the flat-earth view and geocentrism, and in regard to these two views at least the research of historians of science does not support your statement. For example, once the scientific evidence for heliocentrism became conclusive, the Church did not continue to maintain that the geocentric model was still valid, but it readily accepted that the passages of Scripture that seemed to imply a stationary Earth had to be interpreted figuratively or phenomenologically. - Posted by Kendalf Blog comments 2010-03-11T20:48:27+00:00 http://biologos.org/blog/pauls-adam-part-i/#comment-6666 http://biologos.org/blog/pauls-adam-part-i/#comment-6666 Martin Rizley Jeffrey, I agree that the term “world” is used in different way in Scripture, but in every case, the context (both the immediate and larger context of Scripture) must determine what is meant.  God so loved the world (the fallen race of mankind) that He gave His only Son to redeem sinners.  But John tells us not to love the world (that is, the evil world system).  So your point is well taken that words do not always have a meaning which is “obvious.”  Still, it seems to me crystal clear that God is the Creator of “all things”—not just His own people (Revelation 4:11, Psalm 104).  When God told Israel to keep the Sabbath day because ‘in six days the Lord made the heavens, the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day’ it frankly seems incredible to me that anyone would seriously believe the Israelites understand God to mean, “For in six days I created you!”  Of course He created them as a people, but God is clearly speaking of a larger reality here—namely, the creation of the entire cosmos, both the things above (the heavens) and the things below (the earth and the seas). - Posted by Martin Rizley Blog comments 2010-03-11T20:48:27+00:00 http://biologos.org/blog/the-apostle-paul-and-adam/#comment-6665 http://biologos.org/blog/the-apostle-paul-and-adam/#comment-6665 Joe Francis Greg # 6657, If you believe their are no reliable translations, why argue for the historicity of Adam as you have been doing? Why do you care? - Posted by Joe Francis Blog comments 2010-03-11T20:48:27+00:00 http://biologos.org/blog/pauls-adam-part-i/#comment-6664 http://biologos.org/blog/pauls-adam-part-i/#comment-6664 Gregory Arago Martin, I too, accept a ‘historical Adam’. But I don’t (and nor do *most* living Christians) for a second accept a literalistic, sola scriptura, ‘young earth’ pseudo-interpretation of the Bible, that only a dyed-by-their-signature, bureaucratically-controlled, anti-freedom-to-interpret, professor of English literature who is *not* a scientist would ever promote. Have you studied natural-physical sciences at any time in your life, Martin? These NPS disciplines offer knowledge valuable to people who live in God’s kingdom that all Christians would be wise to at least honestly consider, aside from the propaganda that is promoted in various American evangelical churches. Gregory - Posted by Gregory Arago Blog comments 2010-03-11T20:48:27+00:00 http://biologos.org/blog/pauls-adam-part-i/#comment-6663 http://biologos.org/blog/pauls-adam-part-i/#comment-6663 Martn Rizley For the full-blown supernaturalist, however, those strictures put on the interpretation of the data simply will not do, for he knows (based on his fundamental belief in the miracle-working God of Scripture) that God is by no means limited to work within the realm of natural law in shaping the geological features we see in the world around us.  For example, at the time of the Flood, God could well have hastened miraculously the rate of cooling of igneous intrusions so as to bring about rapid stability to the earth’s crust after the devastation wrought by the Flood.  If God could cause a mature almond plant to bud and blossom on Aaron’s rod overnight, then He could certainly cool and harden (for example) the thousand feet thick Paliisades material of northern New Jersey in a single day.  There is nothing in science itself to preclude this possiblity, since science looks at what is, not what could be (that is, what God could do).  So the fundamental question every professing Christian must face is this—will I allow the evidence of the rocks interpreted in a naturalistic framework to overthrow the clear and perspicous teaching of Scripture, or will I allow the teaching of Scripture to determine how I read the rocks? - Posted by Martn Rizley Blog comments 2010-03-11T20:48:27+00:00 http://biologos.org/blog/pauls-adam-part-i/#comment-6662 http://biologos.org/blog/pauls-adam-part-i/#comment-6662 Jeffrey L Vaughn Martin, (cont) The world that did not recognize Jesus was his own, those that did not receive him.  That is the world that was made through him.  John is not talking about two different entities here, just one.  Jesus’ own people, the world. The book has a Jewish context.  Not an all humanity context.  Every man in verse 9 was every Jew in Palestine.  Not you and me.  Not my ancestors in Britannia. You view the text with modern eyes.  Try viewing the text as John wrote it and meant it.  John was part of Jesus’ culture and was closer to the culture that wrote Genesis than we will ever be. Blessings. - Posted by Jeffrey L Vaughn Blog comments 2010-03-11T20:48:27+00:00 http://biologos.org/blog/pauls-adam-part-i/#comment-6661 http://biologos.org/blog/pauls-adam-part-i/#comment-6661 Jeffrey L Vaughn Martin, Do you disagree with my words about heaven and earth in Revelation 21? My approach is not allegorical as you claim.  I have used the definitions Scripture gives.  I have treated the text as Scripture indicates John understood Genesis.  It fixes contradictions that many see when viewing Jesus’ words and Paul’s words the way you do.  All those things you believe prove your “literal” work just fine with my “literal” view. Where I use biblical definitions for words, you use your MWR (as you called it) definitions.  You make assumptions about what the text should be about, then match your definitions accordingly. Demonstration:  What “world” was John talking about in John 1? 10He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. The world Jesus came to was his own people, first century Jews in Palestine.  The Jews were suppose to recognize him.  The Romans and Greeks didn’t have Scripture.  No one could or should expect them to recognize Jesus.  My naked ancestors in the British Isles never even saw Jesus.  Never had a chance to recognize Jesus. - Posted by Jeffrey L Vaughn Blog comments 2010-03-11T20:48:27+00:00 http://biologos.org/blog/clouds/#comment-6660 http://biologos.org/blog/clouds/#comment-6660 John VanZwieten Is attributing a composition to a composer unscientific? - Posted by John VanZwieten Blog comments 2010-03-11T20:48:27+00:00 http://biologos.org/blog/the-apostle-paul-and-adam/#comment-6659 http://biologos.org/blog/the-apostle-paul-and-adam/#comment-6659 Joe Francis Greg, #6655 I am not a big fan of the ID strategy which is lets argue science first and talk about God later, I think this strategy has hurt their cause in some ways. But that said, you can find ID principles in science.  For example, in my field, many molecular biologists, use the principle of “reverse engineering” to figure out the complexity of cellular machines.  The idea is that a functional machine requires a core subset of parts, and so we can begin the process of figuring out the essential nature of those parts by eliminating them one by one.  This is done in genetics with “knock out” mice.  We knock out a gene in the mouse and look for disfunction.  The assumption is that many genes are essential.  Why? because they are often part of complex entities inside cells or complex pathways inside cells.  This is a design principle which you can find as a major part of molecular biology today. - Posted by Joe Francis Blog comments 2010-03-11T20:48:27+00:00 http://biologos.org/blog/pauls-adam-part-i/#comment-6658 http://biologos.org/blog/pauls-adam-part-i/#comment-6658 Martin Rizley (continued)  Now, no one, to my knowledge, no one denies the fact that a very strong case can be made that the universe is very, very old if one ‘reads’ the data of the natural world through the lenses of naturalism.  That is because certain features of the earth’s surface, such as layers of igneous rock “sandwiched” between fossil-bearing, sedimentary rock layers, would have taken many hundreds or even thousands of years to form, based on the known, present-days rates at which solidifying lava cools.  But the key phrase here is “based on known, present-day rates.”  If one assumes that these rates have operated uniformly in the past as they do in the present (the principle of uniformitarianism), then one must conclude the earth is quite old.  Such an assumption is unquestionable for the naturalist, for he views the physical world as something that runs “on its own” in an unsupervised manner.  God, if He exists, never intervenes to work outside the framework of natural laws that He has established for the ordinary functioning of the universe.  Therefore we cannot appeal to miracle as a possible cause of anything (continued) - Posted by Martin Rizley Blog comments 2010-03-11T20:48:27+00:00 http://biologos.org/blog/the-apostle-paul-and-adam/#comment-6657 http://biologos.org/blog/the-apostle-paul-and-adam/#comment-6657 Gregory Arago Joe, I’m sure you know better what a “wacko hyper-literalist” is than I do. I don’t live in the USA, after all. Hyper-literalists hold on too strongly/tightly to the view that the Holy Bible is ‘truth’ without *any* possibility of it containing human errors. This is a translated text, gathered and legitimated by a Christian Council, which was not originally written in English. There are some who would defend the ‘literalism’ of the King James edition as being ‘perfect.’ I am not one of those (e.g. U.S.Southern Baptists). If you have ever translated a text in your life, Joe, then you’d realise (as I was doing yesterday), that a ‘perfect translation’ is impossible. Gordon’s comments on this have been most acute and realistic and I thank him for it. The polls about ‘believe in evolution’ are problematic. I’m a sociologist, Joe, i.e. one of the people who write those surveys. You are disgraced by a vast majority of fellow Christians worldwide who accept an ‘old Earth.’ You are not a geologist or a cosmologist. Why not seek knowledge outside of your YEC clique to discover the power of evidence that suggests an ‘old earth’? You could gain respectability on this path and still ‘do biology’. - Posted by Gregory Arago Blog comments 2010-03-11T20:48:27+00:00 http://biologos.org/blog/pauls-adam-part-i/#comment-6656 http://biologos.org/blog/pauls-adam-part-i/#comment-6656 Martin Rizley Harry, The problem with what you are saying, Harry, is that “evidence” is never interpreted from a position of neutrality by observers who are philosophically or religiously “neutral.”  Every human being has fundamental commitments of a “religious” character concerning the nature of ultimate reality, and those commitments shape the way we ‘read’ the evidence and determine which explanations of the evidence we will find acceptable.  Now, I believe that the fundamental religious commitment of the Christian is to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who has revealed His divine nature, redemptive plan, and moral will in writings that claim to be of divine inspiration.  The believer has arrived at this conviction, not through the power of his own reason or intellect, but through the ministry of the Holy Spirit, who has conferred to the child of God, through the “opening” of his spiritual eyes, an unshakable conviction concerning the infallible truth of the Christian revelation.  It is in light of that fundamental conviction that the Christian interprets everything in the world around him, including the data of the rocks (continued). - Posted by Martin Rizley Blog comments 2010-03-11T20:48:27+00:00 http://biologos.org/blog/the-apostle-paul-and-adam/#comment-6655 http://biologos.org/blog/the-apostle-paul-and-adam/#comment-6655 Gregory Arago @ #6654 And the reason I wrote the term ‘pre-theoretical’ is to uncover exactly the incoherent position you are espousing, Daniel. I borrow this perspective from a well-known 20th c. Christian philosopher, whom you will no doubt also self-righteously condemn with your Scripture-centric idolatry. You didn’t answer my question, Daniel: Can you come up with a ‘theory’ [of ID] that passes the muster of ‘scientific accuracy,’ since ID claims it simply *is* science & not *just* philosophy of science? Intelligent Design is a ‘theoretical’ position. The Holy Bible is *not* a ‘theoretical’ piece of literature. There are many aspects of the Biblical story that are ‘pre-theoretical’ and which do not require the sophistication of biblical scholars. - Posted by Gregory Arago Blog comments 2010-03-11T20:48:27+00:00 http://biologos.org/blog/the-apostle-paul-and-adam/#comment-6654 http://biologos.org/blog/the-apostle-paul-and-adam/#comment-6654 Daniel Mann Gregory, The reason that I wrote that ID is incontrovertible is not because we humans can’t find a way around it, but because the Bible strenuously claims this: •  The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. Romans 1:18-20 Paul claims that this deprives us of any excuse for not knowing God. Bertrand Russell had been asked what he would answer to God if he encountered Him after he died. Russell famously responded, “God, there just wasn’t enough evidence, just not enough evidence.” However, that will simply not cut-it with God! Instead, humanity has always demonstrated a profound ability to deny the obvious. I think it love’s duty to confront the denial. - Posted by Daniel Mann Blog comments 2010-03-11T20:48:27+00:00 http://biologos.org/blog/the-apostle-paul-and-adam/#comment-6653 http://biologos.org/blog/the-apostle-paul-and-adam/#comment-6653 Joe Francis Greg, #6641 As much as I might disagree with you about ontological reality, I must say I agree with many statements in your 6641 post. However, you have been a stickler for definitions.  What do you mean by hyper-literalism? I attend mainstream evangelical churches, and if I am a hyper-literalist, that means there is a lot of us out there, even here in the “left coast.” Here are stats that were just republished at Science Daily(dot) com: The paper cites a 2009 Gallup poll that coincided with the 200th anniversary of Darwin’s birth reporting that only four out of 10 people in the U.S. believe in evolution. The poll also reported that 16 percent of biology teachers believe God created humans in their present form at some time during the last 10,000 years. Are you saying that 16% of biology teachers are wacko hyper-literalists? - Posted by Joe Francis Blog comments 2010-03-11T20:48:27+00:00 http://biologos.org/blog/pauls-adam-part-i/#comment-6652 http://biologos.org/blog/pauls-adam-part-i/#comment-6652 Harry Correction:ignore previous post Martin, those slides are from the Sixth International Conference on Creationism in 2008. I just included them as they are what you asked for, the rest of the article by a mathematics professor who attended it can be found here. I particularly enjoyed the part about how Snelling thought creationists focused too much on the evidence. This view of ‘science’ which you seem to advocate seems to me to relegate it to simply a bunch of opinions held by individuals groups, with no real explanatory power, and people essentially saying the evidence is irrelevant. What about those who are trained in science and advocate geocentrism because of how they view the Bible? What about other religious groups who decide to interpret ‘science’ in light of their scriptures? If science is not ultimately decided by the evidence, and the ability to tell competing models apart, then what is the point of it? It seems to me this is the defintion of pseudoscience. - Posted by Harry Blog comments 2010-03-11T20:48:27+00:00 http://biologos.org/blog/pauls-adam-part-i/#comment-6651 http://biologos.org/blog/pauls-adam-part-i/#comment-6651 Harry Martin, those slides are from the Sixth International Conference on Creationism in 2008. I just included them as they are what you asked for, the rest of the article by a mathematics professor who attended it can be found here. I particularly enjoyed the part about how Snelling thought creationists focused too much on the evidence. This view of ‘science’ which you seem to advocate seems to me to relegate it to simply a bunch of opinions held by individuals groups, with no real explanatory power, and people essentially saying the evidence is irrelevant. What about those who are trained in science and pseudoscience. - Posted by Harry Blog comments 2010-03-11T20:48:27+00:00 http://biologos.org/blog/the-design-detective/#comment-6650 http://biologos.org/blog/the-design-detective/#comment-6650 Gordon J. Glover Gregory, You should know that these videos were run yesterday on an atheists website called “Unreasonable Faith” and I was berrated for being a “stealth creationist” because my Characters had no problem accepting telelogical design.  If these were intendend to win friends in the atheists camp, certainly I would have left those parts out.  So I think your criticism is unfair. But if your comment is taken as, “they’ll resonate more all atheists [as a whole] than with theists [as a whole] then you might be right.  But the same could be said about any of our efforts here since the majority of Chrisian theists (at least in America) prefer ID to evolution. - Posted by Gordon J. Glover Blog comments 2010-03-11T20:48:27+00:00 http://biologos.org/blog/the-design-detective/#comment-6649 http://biologos.org/blog/the-design-detective/#comment-6649 Gregory Arago Yes, they’ll resonate more with atheists than with theists. That’s for sure! - Posted by Gregory Arago Blog comments 2010-03-11T20:48:27+00:00