http://biologos.org/blog en Copyright 2010 2010-03-21T13:00:34+00:00 http://biologos.org/blog/pauls-adam-part-2/#comment-7312 http://biologos.org/blog/pauls-adam-part-2/#comment-7312 Joe Francis Martin #7303 Martin, I have stated this position on other BioLogos blogs.I am a young earth or young age creationist who believes in polyphyly…i.e. I believe God created many different kinds in the beginning, and all species today are descended by common descent from those first kinds.  For instance, there may have been an original dog kind in the beginning, and from that kind all dogs, wolfs, and other canines were derived.  I believe that mutation and natural selection are real phenomenon in nature but they would not act fast enough to cause this rapid diversification…young age creationist believe that there may have been some event which promoted this rapid diversification after the initial creation and after the flood but we don’t see this in any major way today (although some speciation events are occuring now).  We also think this is consistent with the fossil record.  For instance we believe the horse fossil record is a real record of horse diversification.  This is part of a relatively new field in creation biology called baraminology.  Go to creationbiology.org for more info. - Posted by Joe Francis Blog comments 2010-03-21T13:00:34+00:00 http://biologos.org/blog/the-light-of-faith/#comment-7311 http://biologos.org/blog/the-light-of-faith/#comment-7311 Douglas S With a bit of trepidation, I too will add to the Lewis quote - “Even if my eyes are closed, or if I am blind, I know the Sun has risen because I can feel it on my face.” - Posted by Douglas S Blog comments 2010-03-21T13:00:34+00:00 http://biologos.org/blog/the-light-of-faith/#comment-7310 http://biologos.org/blog/the-light-of-faith/#comment-7310 Karl A It seems appropriate to mention a bit of my story again, in case it is helpful to someone.  I became convinced I couldn’t anymore deny the reality of evolution and common descent after years of reading articles and books on the subject by non-Christians (as far as I knew anyway).  This was a reluctant change in mind after holding to young-earth, then old-earth creationist positions.  When I finally came to this position, I felt real grief, because I assumed that meant I was concurrently being forced to abandon any teleological (purposeful) understanding of the universe.  So a flower was no longer a “love letter” of beauty from God, it was just an artifact of unthinking, unfeeling, unloving evolutionary processes.  When I was introduced to Francis Collins’ book and later BioLogos, it began to dawn on me that accepting evolution and God’s purposes in creation are not necessarily mutually exclusive.  For that I rejoice, and am again receiving God’s love letters! Thanks, BioLogos, for getting the good word out. - Posted by Karl A Blog comments 2010-03-21T13:00:34+00:00 http://biologos.org/blog/pauls-adam-part-2/#comment-7309 http://biologos.org/blog/pauls-adam-part-2/#comment-7309 BenYachov >I think he would share your views.  Why then do you distance yourself from his ideas? I reply: Nah if I lived at the time I would have bagged on him for making scientific claims without proof.  St Robert Bellermine had it correct “should it somehow be proven the Earth moves then the verses that speak of Joshua stopping the sun must be re-interpreted - Posted by BenYachov Blog comments 2010-03-21T13:00:34+00:00 http://biologos.org/blog/pauls-adam-part-2/#comment-7308 http://biologos.org/blog/pauls-adam-part-2/#comment-7308 BenYachov >however, his beliefs are very similar to yours, he believes that nature is an important authority and a more reliable authority than scripture itself.  I reply: I fail to see how?  I believe truth can’t contradict truth.  Thus I would never say the Bible “lied”.  I would say that this or that verse his been misunderstood or should be understood allegorically.  I don’t believe the Bible is meant to tell us about natural science.  Natural science & natural knowledge in general is something WE CAN figure out ourselves using our natural powers of reason.  Thus the Bible isn’t needed to do a job we can do ourselves.  The Bible reveals supernatural knowledge which by definition CANNOT be known by out natural powers.  For example I can know God exists threw reason alone but I can’t know He is a Trinity without the Holy Writ.  I believe the Bible is consistent with science or will be consistent with whatever specific science turns out to be true. - Posted by BenYachov Blog comments 2010-03-21T13:00:34+00:00 http://biologos.org/blog/pauls-adam-part-2/#comment-7307 http://biologos.org/blog/pauls-adam-part-2/#comment-7307 BenYachov Hey Joe, >However, when you read Galileo’s own writings, he makes his devotion to the church and scriptures very clear, I reply: He was IMHO a likely plagiarist, who often talked out of both sides of his mouth.  Galileo had originally agreed to put forth his view as a hypothesis not established fact & he went back on his word.  Also scientifically he didn’t prove his view correct at the time(we have to wait a few hundred years for science to prove the motion of the Earth).  His was just a mostly luck guess.  Also he clearly said the Bible had lied when it spoke of Joshua stopping the sun. How can one accuse the Bible of lying & be seen as “devoted” to the scriptures? Father Copernicus never did any of this nonsense & that is why the Church left him alone & the Pope honored him. - Posted by BenYachov Blog comments 2010-03-21T13:00:34+00:00 http://biologos.org/blog/pauls-adam-part-2/#comment-7306 http://biologos.org/blog/pauls-adam-part-2/#comment-7306 BenYachov Thanks for the info on your beliefs Martin.  Feel free to ask me anything if it strikes your fancy.  So you believe in a young Earth but are open to a possible somewhat old Universe?  That is an interesting permutation(it might even solve some anti-Creationist objections).  I have always believed there is a lot of overlap between Old Earth Progressive Creationism vs Theistic Evolution but your view leads me to see there might be some middle positions between Young Earth Fiat Creationism & Progressive Creationism as well.  It’s interesting to know.  Thanks & God be with you guy. - Posted by BenYachov Blog comments 2010-03-21T13:00:34+00:00 http://biologos.org/blog/intelligent-design-and-me-part-ii/#comment-7305 http://biologos.org/blog/intelligent-design-and-me-part-ii/#comment-7305 Kendalf In fact, he seems to state the opposite. An excerpt from Dembski’s essay, “The Explanatory Filter” When the Explanatory Filter fails to detect design in a thing, can we be sure no intelligent cause underlies it? The answer to this question is No. For determining that something is not designed, the Explanatory Filter is not a reliable criterion. False negatives are a problem for the Explanatory Filter. This problem of false negatives, however, is endemic to detecting intelligent causes. One difficulty is that intelligent causes can mimic law and chance, thereby rendering their actions indistinguishable from these unintelligent causes… Intelligent causes can do things that unintelligent causes cannot, and can make their actions evident. When for whatever reason an intelligent cause fails to make its actions evident, we may miss it. But when an intelligent cause succeeds in making its actions evident, we take notice. This is why false negatives do not invalidate the Explanatory Filter…. - Posted by Kendalf Blog comments 2010-03-21T13:00:34+00:00 http://biologos.org/blog/pauls-adam-part-2/#comment-7303 http://biologos.org/blog/pauls-adam-part-2/#comment-7303 Martin Rizley Joe Francis and Ben Yachov, Joe, you describe yourself as a ‘young age creationist’ who believes in ‘common descent.’  Could you explain to me what that means? Ben Yachov, you asked about my church affiliation.  I am a member of a Reformed Baptist church, which is theologically conservative church in the Calvinistic tradition.  Our Confession of Faith is similar to the Westminster Confession of the Presbyterians, except that we practice ‘credo-baptism’ (the baptism of confessing disciples only).  Regarding the old/young earth issue, on matters relating to the history of life on earth, I hold for all practical purposes to the young earth position (Flood geology).  Regarding the age of the universe, that all depends on the duration of the creation days—whether they were all of uniform 24 hour duration.  I am not sure we can say that on the basis of Scripture alone, given the fact that the first three days were not “solar days” (strictly speaking).  I do believe they were ‘solar-like’ (each day consisted of a day a night), but their exact duration seems to me uncertain. - Posted by Martin Rizley Blog comments 2010-03-21T13:00:34+00:00 http://biologos.org/blog/pauls-adam-part-i/#comment-7302 http://biologos.org/blog/pauls-adam-part-i/#comment-7302 Dan Isn’t the point true, whether Paul thought Adam was an historically real figure or not?  I have no training in theology at all, but a high school English student (at least when I was in high school 40 years ago) would recognize the passage in question as an obvious typology that makes a truth claim of its own regardless of the fact that Adam was not Jesus and Jesus was not Adam!! - Posted by Dan Blog comments 2010-03-21T13:00:34+00:00 http://biologos.org/blog/intelligent-design-and-me-part-ii/#comment-7301 http://biologos.org/blog/intelligent-design-and-me-part-ii/#comment-7301 Kendalf I think pds (#7239) is right to call out Beckwith’s claim that the position of Dembski and Behe is inconsistent with classical theism. And Mike Gene (#7244) hits it exactly on the head when he states that “detectable design is simply a subset of design.  That is, he would agree with you that nature’s order, including its laws and principles, does require a mind, but the ability to detect this requirement for mind is restricted.” When Dembski argues that after chance and law have been excluded then design can be detected, it does not necessarily follow that design is implicit only when it can be detected. Even if a coroner doesn’t find detectable signs that the cause of a person’s death was unnatural, he can still have reason to think that the person was murdered in a purposefully natural appearing way. Like pds, I would like to see where Dembski has ever stated something implying he restricts the work of a designer only to situations in which design is detectable. - Posted by Kendalf Blog comments 2010-03-21T13:00:34+00:00 http://biologos.org/blog/intelligent-design-and-me-part-ii/#comment-7300 http://biologos.org/blog/intelligent-design-and-me-part-ii/#comment-7300 Bilbo I also think that Prof. Beckwith gets it wrong.  One may believe that contingent existence and order —physical laws—demonstrate dependency upon God’s ncessary existence and design, and still find that there is additional evidence for design, such as the fine-tuning of the laws or the sophisticated nanotechnology of the cell. And I expect a professor of philosophy to be able to see those distinctions. - Posted by Bilbo Blog comments 2010-03-21T13:00:34+00:00 http://biologos.org/blog/pauls-adam-part-2/#comment-7299 http://biologos.org/blog/pauls-adam-part-2/#comment-7299 Richard Colling Thanks back at you both.  These were good. I engage with some trepidation.  Earlier experience has taught me creationists hate my views - and me, are eager to pronounce me outside the Christian faith, and will do all in their power to destroy those who understand God’s created order differently than they.  This included using so-called Christian theological discussion boards to disseminate false and disparaging information that was career threatening. This despite the fact that building bridges of understanding and peace to science/faith discussions will be difficult if Christian biologists are encouraged to offer their understanding of biology, genetics, and evolution.  To my way of thinking, we are all searching for the same thing: Truth.  Those of us who come from a faith perspective believe that discovery of the deeper truths of God’s created order can only lead us to a deeper understanding of God himself.  No need to demonize, vilify or destroy brothers in the faith. Sadly, your apparent experience with scientists who refuse to engage honestly and professionally has a counterpart for me: Christian theologians who work from an authority paradigm rather than a r truth-seeking paradigm. All best. Rick - Posted by Richard Colling Blog comments 2010-03-21T13:00:34+00:00 http://biologos.org/blog/pauls-adam-part-2/#comment-7298 http://biologos.org/blog/pauls-adam-part-2/#comment-7298 Joe Francis Thanks for the reference Greg. - Posted by Joe Francis Blog comments 2010-03-21T13:00:34+00:00 http://biologos.org/blog/pauls-adam-part-2/#comment-7297 http://biologos.org/blog/pauls-adam-part-2/#comment-7297 Joe Francis Greg, I have to confess that I do not know much about Gutenberg.  I do not like to comment on individuals until I read their actual writings.  Creationists have a tendency to make claims about history without doing their homework. I am more familiar with the successful creationists like Pasteur and Damadian.  Apparently Damadian discovered the science behind the MRI.  I also like James Clerk Maxwell, he used biblical principles to discover properties of light. - Posted by Joe Francis Blog comments 2010-03-21T13:00:34+00:00 http://biologos.org/blog/pauls-adam-part-2/#comment-7296 http://biologos.org/blog/pauls-adam-part-2/#comment-7296 Gregory Arago Also sending my thanks Rick, You wrote: “I see nothing in biology that rejects the idea of a “first human”. Logically, there must have been a “first”.” I find this a very important concession. There are biologists out there who imagine that their ‘science’ actually can trump even logic. In some cases, I’ve come across people who deny that ‘there must have been a first,’ saying instead that ‘no first is necessary.’ Thus, I’m pleased to hear you affirm this logical principle and its expression in history and biology. Also, you wrote: “new speciation event…means that humans came into being “recently”. (in evolutionary time).” I can accept this and also gladly note the qualifier ‘evolutionary’ wrt ‘time.’ Other types of ‘time’ have different characteristics, depending on the case. Both of these topics will likely come up again. Welcome to 1250 character chats! ~ Just curious how the Gutenburg reference met you Joe… McLuhan’s “Gutenburg Galaxy” is amazing on this issue. - Posted by Gregory Arago Blog comments 2010-03-21T13:00:34+00:00 http://biologos.org/blog/pauls-adam-part-2/#comment-7295 http://biologos.org/blog/pauls-adam-part-2/#comment-7295 Joe Francis Thanks Rick, My main point here is that I do not think it is unreasonable based on the biblical evidence and some biological evidence that living organisms, could have been at one time created to be immortal.  And as we discussed, this does not mean that individuals cells did not expire. I appreciate our discussion - Posted by Joe Francis Blog comments 2010-03-21T13:00:34+00:00 http://biologos.org/blog/pauls-adam-part-2/#comment-7293 http://biologos.org/blog/pauls-adam-part-2/#comment-7293 Richard Colling Joe, You are right, and few people recognize this point.  In essence, life, once created, has never ended. - Posted by Richard Colling Blog comments 2010-03-21T13:00:34+00:00 http://biologos.org/blog/pauls-adam-part-2/#comment-7292 http://biologos.org/blog/pauls-adam-part-2/#comment-7292 Joe Francis Hi Richard, I agree with everything you said, in fact I believe that death was a part of life soon after it was created.  However, this is an interesting discussion, because if we accept common descent, which is one of the concepts influencing Pete’s view of Genesis and Adam, then, a form of immortality is also accepted. . (and I do believe in common descent as I have stated elsewhere). let me explain. Many biologists if not all agree that life “begets” life.  Therefore all living things are on a continuum of a kind of immortal life via the cell level.  Gametes are alive, and they are transferred to make a new organism.  So where is death here?  It is at the level of the individual organism, yet the cells involved in making individuals never die.  So I would say that form of immortality is accepted in biology. Asexually reproducing organisms like E.coli are also an example…have they ever really died as an organism? Also as you know there are researchers who have extended the life span of mice and nematodes up to 65%.  They are forcasting even more increases in life span as research moves forward. - Posted by Joe Francis Blog comments 2010-03-21T13:00:34+00:00 http://biologos.org/blog/accommodationist-and-proud-of-it-part-i/#comment-7290 http://biologos.org/blog/accommodationist-and-proud-of-it-part-i/#comment-7290 Ophelia Benson Professor Ruse, You say ‘And yet, I am excoriated at every turn. Why? Simply, because I am an “Accommodationist.”’ It’s not “simply” because of that. It is, at the least, also because you do a fair amount of excoriating yourself. You make sweeping rude claims about “the New Atheists” whenever you mention them, and you mention them pretty often. As you say, you ‘rather like the fact that [you] stir people up so much that they want to strike out as they do.’ Quite, and you do a lot of stirring. That being the case, it’s rather invidious to claim that you are ‘excoriated’ simply because you are an accommodationist. You surely rile people on purpose, so you shouldn’t put all the opprobrium on them when they retort. - Posted by Ophelia Benson Blog comments 2010-03-21T13:00:34+00:00