http://biologos.org/blog en Copyright 2012 2012-02-06T12:00:11+00:00 http://biologos.org/blog/behold-the-man http://biologos.org/blog/behold-the-man Jon Garvey A good point Hornspiel, inasmuch as it emphasises again that humanity is more than biology.However the incarnation of Christ shows that the redemption of the body is as important as that of the “soul”. I don’t think we know enough about the resurrection body to be too confident about the resurrection or non-resurrection of DNA. Jesus after his resurrectiuon walked through walls but ate carbon-based fish and had flesh and bones - I don’t think science can parse that.Biblically (as opposed to philosophically) “soul” (nepes) is quite a flexible word, but its root meaning is “life”. So God breathes into the body made of dead clay and Adam becomes (not “aquires”) a living soul. God is not, however, said the breathe into the animals in the same way - yet “nepes” is the word used for their life, too. Corpses are even referred to several times as “dead souls”. Only in a couple of places is there any application to post-death life, for which Hebrew “ruach” (spirit or violent wind - an equally imprecise word) is preferred. “Spirit” seems to cover the animating principle of mankind - but even that is not divorced from biology. Yet maybe it ties in with God’s breath in Genesis - in some way the God-givenness of human life, which therefore doesn’t simply fade at death.But you see how asking when we “acquire” a soul is the same as asking at what stage in life we become alive.The net result is that to the Hebrews, human life was just human life - hence the strong emphasis on physical resurrection rather than the non-Henbrew ideas of disembodied spirits or souls, which may exist (without being defined too carefully!) but are always seen as less than human life rather than, say, “true” humanity freed from the prison of flesh, or whatever. - Posted by Jon Garvey Blog comments 2012-02-06T12:00:11+00:00 http://biologos.org/blog/lets-not-surrender-science-to-the-secular-world-part-5 http://biologos.org/blog/lets-not-surrender-science-to-the-secular-world-part-5 Merv This doesn’t follow the current vein of comments above; but I just want to interject that Mr. Mann did well to bring up and distinguish between the various forms of naturalism that are common currency (and anathema) to so many discussions like this.  The very term ‘naturalism’ has become so poisoned to so many Christian ears that qualifiers like “scientific” or “methodological” are discarded as meaningless or contradictory when coupled with the  boogeyman of “naturalism”.  Nevertheless I think it might break new ground if more of us can realize that this descriptive functional philosophy is much more commonly assumed among all (including the devoutly religious) than is commonly admitted.  For example, we routinely defer to common explanations *as if* God was not personally attending all events.  Nobody says “God broke my pencil lead” or “God burned my cookies in the oven” instead of giving the more common explanations:  “I dropped my pencil” or “I didn’t hear the buzzer.”  We already routinely speak without putting “God” in every sentence, so I’m not sure why so many feel so threatened when science does the same thing.  It isn’t as if we’re insisting that the God who attends each sparrow or hair on our head is absent from all these things.  As Christians we know He’s involved everywhere.  But why is it we want to demand that scientists give explicit lip service without getting our dander up about everything else we do and say in functionally naturalistic manner?  I know that most of the answer to this is that we *don’t* need scientists to explicitly “find God” in what they study so much as to stop claiming (those that are) that they have somehow found “Not God” as if this was somehow scientifically addressable.  But such scientistic delusions aside, what corner of our all-encompassing theological turf is so threatened by methodological naturalism that so many fight tooth and nail to ignore the qualifier in front of that word?—Merv - Posted by Merv Blog comments 2012-02-06T12:00:11+00:00 http://biologos.org/blog/lets-not-surrender-science-to-the-secular-world-part-5 http://biologos.org/blog/lets-not-surrender-science-to-the-secular-world-part-5 beaglelady “Again what best explains the differences between these two species, some vague competition within the species, or adaption to very different environments?”It’s because tigers do commercials for Frosted Flakes, while lions star in Disney animated features.   Seriously, why do we have to pick one or the other? And what is vague competition?  Lions are obviously shaped by their environment. And male lions will engage in bloody competition to dominate a pride.  Nothing vague about it. - Posted by beaglelady Blog comments 2012-02-06T12:00:11+00:00 http://biologos.org/blog/jesus-history-and-mount-darwin-an-academic-excursion-part-13 http://biologos.org/blog/jesus-history-and-mount-darwin-an-academic-excursion-part-13 R Kennedy Bloggers,I am very grateful to you all for reading my blog.  On the other hand, can I try to get you back to the point that the blog thinks is crucial?The biologos web site that is trying to do maybe the most important intellectual project in our university-influenced world today—find an intellectually respectable way to have one foot in the dynamism of modern biology and the other foot in the deepest, most foundational, traditions of historic Christianity.I want to teach that a reasonable student and teacher at a university can find such a place to stand.  I wrote this book out of frustration with extremists on both sides with an Aristotelian belief that there is usually a true middle ground.  I get frustrated with theologians and philosophers.  I get frustrated with high-talking scientists.  I get frustrated with logic-chopping and grandstanding.Do you all think that methodological humility can help us all have a nice dinner togeter?  Do you share with me the belief that we all could sit at a dinner table together with Darwin and find much to agree upon and much to learn from each other?Today at lunch I listened to a faculty discussion that was full of dispair and smugness about wacky radio-Christians.  Despair and smugness destroy a good lunch. During the last few nights I have been reading the new biography of Charles Hodge.  Oh I wish I could have a lunch conversation—at Princeton in the Fall—with Charles Hodge and BB Warfield!  Thanks so much for reading my blog!Rick      - Posted by R Kennedy Blog comments 2012-02-06T12:00:11+00:00 http://biologos.org/blog/lets-not-surrender-science-to-the-secular-world-part-5 http://biologos.org/blog/lets-not-surrender-science-to-the-secular-world-part-5 melanogaster Well, if you had bothered to take the time to understand that natural selection is not about survival, but instead about reproduction, you’d be making an effort. - Posted by melanogaster Blog comments 2012-02-06T12:00:11+00:00 http://biologos.org/blog/behold-the-man http://biologos.org/blog/behold-the-man melanogaster “I’m sorry. Remember, I’m not a scientist.”I do remember that. Not being a scientist is no excuse.“And I don’t necessarily have the time to get a PhD in, or otherwise become expert in, evolutionary biology.”No PhD is required to understand the basic point that populations, not individuals, evolve. Nor is a PhD required to understand that existing variation in populations that you can see on the faces at your own family’s dinner table, not new mutation, is sufficient to drive natural selection.“I was hoping to get relatively short, clear answers to honest questions. Toward that end, I try to read carefully what the experts, such as you, say on this blog.”But you refuse to follow my honest, civil advice. Why is that?“Remember: I am, and my thinking is, just an evolutionary product of my genetic mutations (or allele frequencies?).”Why should I remember something that is so obviously false? This is a clear case of you putting words in the mouths of others. Is that ethical? - Posted by melanogaster Blog comments 2012-02-06T12:00:11+00:00 http://biologos.org/blog/behold-the-man http://biologos.org/blog/behold-the-man melanogaster I see that you see the problem with what you wrote. It’s a shame that your pride won’t allow you to correct a gross misconception about biology that might even make your argument more powerful.If God stopped all new mutations from occurring tomorrow, would natural selection stop tomorrow? Would recombination stop creating new variation tomorrow? Would drift stop tomorrow? Would evolution stop tomorrow? - Posted by melanogaster Blog comments 2012-02-06T12:00:11+00:00 http://biologos.org/blog/lets-not-surrender-science-to-the-secular-world-part-5 http://biologos.org/blog/lets-not-surrender-science-to-the-secular-world-part-5 melanogaster Ah, but the question was whether you had read it, not just looked at it. I’d also ask whether you examined the evidence in detail. - Posted by melanogaster Blog comments 2012-02-06T12:00:11+00:00 http://biologos.org/blog/lets-not-surrender-science-to-the-secular-world-part-5 http://biologos.org/blog/lets-not-surrender-science-to-the-secular-world-part-5 Roger A. Sawtelle Survival of the fittest is indeed just one circular arguement that does not explain anything, which is just what Karl Popper argued. - Posted by Roger A. Sawtelle Blog comments 2012-02-06T12:00:11+00:00 http://biologos.org/blog/lets-not-surrender-science-to-the-secular-world-part-5 http://biologos.org/blog/lets-not-surrender-science-to-the-secular-world-part-5 dont_blame_me_blame_evolution NeoDarwinistic evolution relies on variation through genetic mutation far more than it does on Natural Selection (NS). Without “variety”, NS would have nothing to “select” from. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = “urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office” /> NS certainly seems reasonable. It makes sense that snowshoe hares abound in the arctic, but more typical brown rabbits don’t. But in the bigger picture, I don’t see the predictive power of NS. Do we know definitively why T. Rex and some of the biggest and baddest dinosaurs, apparent kings of the earth, are no more? Or why the Coelacanths swimming in the oceans today are essentially exactly the same as the ones that swam 400 million years ago? What about a peacock? It has uniquely brilliant and expansive plumage that may help attract mates, if you’re into that kind of thing. But that colorful fan of feathers may also scream to predators “Yoo hoo, I’m over here! Come and eat me!” NS is synonymous, I think, with “survival of the fittest.” But the whole thing seems largely circular to me. Who survives? The fittest. Who are the fittest? Those who survive. NS just seems like a fancy phrase meaning some mutations survive and some don’t; “stuff happens”. Outta here for a few days. Adieu.   - Posted by dont_blame_me_blame_evolution Blog comments 2012-02-06T12:00:11+00:00 http://biologos.org/blog/jesus-history-and-mount-darwin-an-academic-excursion-part-13 http://biologos.org/blog/jesus-history-and-mount-darwin-an-academic-excursion-part-13 Roger A. Sawtelle Don’t Blame.Satan and his crew do not want to go to heaven and God honors their choice, the same with all people who choose to join them.The fact is humans cannot will or work their way into heaven.  God forgives us through the atoning death of the Messiah.  This done humans have the ability to accept or reject this gift of forgiveness.  Most seem too proud to accept it as a free unearned gift.Once a person has accepted the gift of grace, God’s undeserved Love, then she or he does have the ability to freely serve God and obediently do God’s will.  However the saving change of life and relationships based on the sacrifice of Jesus Christ and the relational gift of the Holy Spirit comes first.  Then comes the process of perfection through the Spirit, which does include obedience and work as well as love and peace.     - Posted by Roger A. Sawtelle Blog comments 2012-02-06T12:00:11+00:00 http://biologos.org/blog/lets-not-surrender-science-to-the-secular-world-part-5 http://biologos.org/blog/lets-not-surrender-science-to-the-secular-world-part-5 Roger A. Sawtelle Darrel, Beagle Lady, and HornSpiel,Let me give you an example of what I am saying.  A year or so back I came upon an interesting article about the cross between a lion and tiger.  What was interesting was even though they are two different species of cats they will mate and have offspring.  The female offspring of a male lion and a female tiger is a very large cat called a Liger.  It went on to explain that the male lion is much larger than the female, while the male and female tigers are almost the same size.  The question is Why this difference?  Is itg because of some unexplained competition as the article suggests, or because these two big cats live in two different environments and hunt different game in different ways. Lions and tigers do have very different life styles from all indications determined by their environments.  Lions live in prides, groups, led by the Alpha male.  The females do the hunting, while the males are scavengers.  Males also are able to defend the pride from intruders.  They are too big to hunt.Tiger live in pairs.  They also hunt in pairs so it makes sense that are they same size.  Tigers also love water, while lions live in an arid climate.  Tigers live primarily in India with its monsoons, while lions live primarily in Africa on the arid plains.   Again what best explains the differences between these two species, some vague competition within the species, or adaption to very different environments?    - Posted by Roger A. Sawtelle Blog comments 2012-02-06T12:00:11+00:00 http://biologos.org/blog/lets-not-surrender-science-to-the-secular-world-part-5 http://biologos.org/blog/lets-not-surrender-science-to-the-secular-world-part-5 Roger A. Sawtelle HornSpiel, If they are so obvious and numerous please give me at least one.  At least Darrell was able to find one example of what he believed to be true. - Posted by Roger A. Sawtelle Blog comments 2012-02-06T12:00:11+00:00 http://biologos.org/blog/lets-not-surrender-science-to-the-secular-world-part-5 http://biologos.org/blog/lets-not-surrender-science-to-the-secular-world-part-5 Roger A. Sawtelle Darrel,I have looked at the article.  Please understand what I am saying.  I am not saying that there is no natural selection.  What I am saying that natural selection as a process described by Darwin, survival of the fitest, has not been proven.  The article that I saw tells how genes change.  That is the question of variation.  It does not indicate how or why nature chooses some variations over others, which is natural selection.  It deals with changes in the genome.  That is not natural selection and evolution as Darwin saw it.    - Posted by Roger A. Sawtelle Blog comments 2012-02-06T12:00:11+00:00 http://biologos.org/blog/lets-not-surrender-science-to-the-secular-world-part-5 http://biologos.org/blog/lets-not-surrender-science-to-the-secular-world-part-5 HornSpiel  Natural selection...has not been verified by experiment or observation. ?!It is a sociological fact that most people do not change their minds based on data. If the experimental data and observations of data which to me is compelling and obvious, does not convince you, obviously you are perceiving something else. I am not surprised that you have not been able to convince many people of your view point though.  - Posted by HornSpiel Blog comments 2012-02-06T12:00:11+00:00 http://biologos.org/blog/jesus-history-and-mount-darwin-an-academic-excursion-part-13 http://biologos.org/blog/jesus-history-and-mount-darwin-an-academic-excursion-part-13 dont_blame_me_blame_evolution Roger,<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = “urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office” /> “James did not deny the importance of faith, he just made it clear that faith needs to be backed by a changed life… a relationship to God that fundamentally changes the way we live.” Wouldn’t ‘changing the way we live’ involve obedience and work? Also, if Satan and his crew “know that God exists and is faithful and just”, and so presumably know that God would have the power to save them, why are Satan and his crew going to hell?   - Posted by dont_blame_me_blame_evolution Blog comments 2012-02-06T12:00:11+00:00 http://biologos.org/blog/understanding-evolution-is-there-junk-in-your-genome-part-3 http://biologos.org/blog/understanding-evolution-is-there-junk-in-your-genome-part-3 Crude Dennis,Thank you for your reply.Since you asked a few questions to clarify what I was asking, I hope you don’t mind me asking a few to clarify your answer.You say “I believe God created and continues to sustain the entirety of the cosmos, moment by moment.” And I assume you hold God to be omniscient and omnipotent - you certainly haven’t denied as much. You also mention that God uses both natural mechanisms and supernatural events, so (like me) you see no requirement that God uses a miracle.So then, you believe God knew what evolution would result in, in advance of His beginning the process. And of course, He had and has complete power over that process - He chose what would result. So you’d hold evolution to be - ultimately, and not necessarily in a way that requires intervening miracles - guided and purposeful.Do I have you correct? - Posted by Crude Blog comments 2012-02-06T12:00:11+00:00 http://biologos.org/blog/lets-not-surrender-science-to-the-secular-world-part-5 http://biologos.org/blog/lets-not-surrender-science-to-the-secular-world-part-5 Darrel Falk Roger,Have you read this article in the October 27th issue of Nature?http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v478/n7370/full/nature10530.html It is hard to imagine getting more solid evidence for natural selection being the key shaping force in  mammalian evolution than is given in this paper.    - Posted by Darrel Falk Blog comments 2012-02-06T12:00:11+00:00 http://biologos.org/blog/behold-the-man http://biologos.org/blog/behold-the-man Douglas E First - I wish that Stephen or someone at BioLogos would fix the ‘follow this discussion’ function because I have neither the time nor inclination to return to the home page, find the blog entry and read through all of the nested comments just to find additional thoughts.Second - “Obviously all humans have a human genome” was my point.  What makes us human is our genetic material compared to others.  My second point was that is the scientific perspective is the reductionist part, and that the more crucial part is that which makes us human beings.  As was snarkily pointed out, no one is interested in the former but only in the latter.  Non-human species have complex brains, language and music, and display emotive characteristics such as mourning - and as others have pointed out, there are apparently other characteristics that sets humanity apart, perhaps the knowledge of good and evil. - Posted by Douglas E Blog comments 2012-02-06T12:00:11+00:00 http://biologos.org/blog/behold-the-man http://biologos.org/blog/behold-the-man dopderbeck BTW, here is a very relevant quote from Richard Dawkins, discussing the possibility of a human / chimp chimera (http://tinyurl.com/99gzhb):“If there were a heaven in which all the animals who ever lived could frolic, we would find an interbreeding continuum between every species and every other. For example I could interbreed with a female who could interbreed with a male who could ... fill in a few gaps, probably not very many in this case ... who could interbreed with a chimpanzee. We could construct longer, but still unbroken chains of interbreeding individuals to connect a human with a warthog, a kangaroo, a catfish. This is not a matter of speculative conjecture; it necessarily follows from the fact of evolution.”Dawkins uses this argument to claim that “essentialism is deeply un-evolutionary.”  In other words, for Dawkins, there is nothing essentially different between a human, a chimp, and a catfish.In one sense—a “biological” or “evolutionary” sense—he’s of course right.  But my overarching metaphysical argument is that essences simply can’t be reduced to biology in this fashion.  And if we are going to draw theological lines such as “image of God,” such lines are always going to intersect some population that in biological / evolutionary terms is continuous with what we say is on the other side of that line. - Posted by dopderbeck Blog comments 2012-02-06T12:00:11+00:00