Evolution and the Adventist Dilemma

don · 10-24-09 6:12 pm

Tom, I agree with your last post; with no reservations that come to mind. Thanks.

jag · 10-25-09 9:56 pm

Don, You seem to be critical of the geological column. Please do not overlook the fact that it was actually developed by creationist scientists, long before the idea of evolution was accepted. Evolutionists then simply inherited it from creationists. Why? Because it was good science; it is testable and it works. Please write what problems you see with the column, as naturally they should not be swept under the carpet. Tom, I am very close to agreeing with you too; whether it would be as unreserved as Don's would depend on a clarification of a few terms you have used. Still, what a great effort and what good thinking. If only the church leaders chose to adopt this kind of mindset, then there would be room for the most conservative conservatives and the liberalest liberals in the same church!

don · 10-25-09 11:57 pm

You seem to be critical of the geological column. If critical means rushing to judgment and inclined to find fault; that I am not. However, if critical means carefully examining all the assumptions that have been made regarding the column, then I hope to be critical. The critical person ideally uses skillful judgment as to truth, merit, etc. To be such a person, I need more information. I am still very much on a learning curve re: the Geological Column. My personal learning goals are:<ol><li>To become fully acquainted with the Geological Column as it manifests itself around the world. <LI>To read the "best" arguments used in the debate between "deep time" evolutionists and young earth creationists. <LI>To understand the radiometric dating process; its limitations and value. <LI>Specifically, to examine the alleged practice of ignoring radiometric readings which don't fit expectations based on the geological column. <LI>To know the issues so well that I can, at the drop of a hat, explain the debate and the reasons given for each side. <LI>To visit a radiometric lab and ask a lot of questions. <IMG SRC="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/clipart/happy.gif" ALT=":-)" BORDER=0></li></ol>Further to my agreement with Tom's assertions regarding faith and the Gospel. My quest to understand the geological column is intentionally scientific in nature. I do believe that my heritage as a young earth creationist can inspire me to be more rigorous in my study than if I bought into "deep time" evolution and the idea that radiometric dating is reliable beyond reasonable doubt. .

maggie · 10-26-09 12:44 pm

Tom and Don - I do think there is something to be said for Gould's "non-overlapping magisteria." <a href="http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html" target=_top>http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma. html</a>

elaine · 10-26-09 3:47 pm

Maggie, I agree. If we would heed his cogent statements about science and religion occupying different spheres, there would be far less acrimony. There should be no need for any religion to either embrace, or reject any scientific inquiry. Religion should be about matters of faith: something that cannot be falsified. Science operates on entirely different principles. Just as love cannot be put under the microscope of scientific inquiry, neither can religion.

maggie · 10-27-09 12:58 am

Amen, Elaine! FWIW, I think Discovery Institute is just shooting itself in its own very Christian foot with this ID Wedge thingy.

maggie · 10-27-09 1:11 am

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Elaine: Just as love cannot be put under the microscope of scientific inquiry, neither can religion.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>I think we can study the neurobiology of love, for example, but I don't think love can be reduced to neurobiology. I think that's a key distinction.

cadge · 11-02-09 3:16 pm

"NOMA" I guess that could cause one to view the Bible, more or less, as a parable with metaphoric symbolism, some "campfire stories", some factual history, and ultimate reality understood by a Spirit of revelation by which we determine our moral walk and ultimate fate. And for each to determine what is truth for themselves by it. So, we could find someones opinion on biblical matters, and after some perusal, it looks like "the truth" to us, follow it. Or, we can go it on our own and live as we interpret it. I mean if you believe something, then it's truth to you, even if someone else sees it different. And if you obey what you believe that message is, through the scriptures, then you are counted worthy of life, because when it all boils down, it's about whether one has an obedient heart or not, isn't it? Something to ponder. "Let every man be convinced in his own mind". Thanks for the link, Maggie. It's always good to hear from you. Cadge

bob_2 · 11-02-09 8:03 pm

My search for a church goes on. I attended an Evangelical Free Church and the Pastor's sermon was from Hebrews 11. Note this verse all you Christian Evolutionists: Hebrews 11:3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible. As a Christian, you have to deal with that. Pray for LSU as this month they deal with this very issue.

jag · 11-02-09 10:42 pm

Bob, why only Christian evolutionists are to note this verse? I have no problem with it at all, did the pastor suggest that it was in any way anti-evolution? If so, then he (I am sure he would have been a "he") must have been stretching it a bit...

bob_2 · 11-03-09 2:17 pm

JAG, if I can use a pun, you are being JAGGED. <img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/clipart/wink.gif" border=0> We all can agree on Adaption and MicroEvolution, it is trying to fit this verse and Jesus into the MacroEvolution, that does away with Christ and Christianity. Common Ancestry has no place in any Christian beliefs.

jag · 11-03-09 11:07 pm

I's sorry, Bob - completely disagree! Read Genesis chapter one. If you read it literally, God creates everything within a week. To me that is a much more closely knit common ancestry than that which separates various species by thousands and millions of years. Everything and everyone descended directly from God, a common parent. Even if I took Genesis 1 literally - and there was a time that I had - I would still consider pigs and tapeworms, mosquitoes and dinosaurs children of God in the same way you and I are.

john8verse32 · 11-04-09 9:59 am

you can check out Bob's and all our purported common ancestors here, on PBS, starting tonight. <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/?utm_campaign=icons&utm_medium=160x600&utm_source=tvguide" target=_top>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/?utm_campaign=icons&u tm_medium=160x600&utm_source=tvguide</a> Becoming Human Part 1 First Steps: Six million years ago, what set our ancestors on the path from ape to human? Tuesday, November 3 at 8 pm (Check local listings) Becoming Human Part 2 Birth of Humanity: New discoveries reveal how early humans hunted and formed families. Tuesday, November 10 at 8 pm (Check local listings) Becoming Human Part 3 Last Human Standing: Many human species once shared the globe. Why do we alone remain? Tuesday, November 17 at 8 pm <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/beta/evolution/becoming-human-part-1.html" target=_top>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/beta/evolution/becomi ng-human-part-1.html</a> Program Description Where did we come from? What makes us human? An explosion of recent discoveries sheds light on these questions, and NOVA's comprehensive, three-part special, "Becoming Human," examines what the latest scientific research reveals about our hominid relatives. Part 1, "First Steps," examines the factors that caused us to split from the other great apes. The program explores the fossil of "Selam," also known as "Lucy's Child." Paleoanthropologist Zeray Alemseged spent five years carefully excavating the sandstone-embedded fossil. NOVA's cameras are there to capture the unveiling of the face, spine, and shoulder blades of this 3.3 million-year-old fossil child. And NOVA takes viewers "inside the skull" to show how our ancestors' brains had begun to change from those of the apes. Why did leaps in human evolution take place? "First Steps" explores a provocative "big idea" that sharp swings of climate were a key factor. The other programs in the "Becoming Human" series are Part 2: "Birth of Humanity," which profiles the earliest species of humans, and Part 3: "Last Human Standing," which examines why, of various human species that once shared the planet, only our kind remains.

tom_norris · 11-07-09 2:29 pm

David said: Hi Tom, I was reading past answers from various "experts" and came across your reply to a question about evolution. We know for certainty that the world was created in 6 literal days because the Bible explicitly tells us how it was done: I'm not trying to tell you how to answer questions - but wouldn't it be easier to just point the person to the Bible with what it says? The just shall live by faith!!! Tom said: The Bible is an ancient, Semitic, document. It is not to be viewed as a scientific work that can explain the details of creation to the 21st mind. Such a misuse of the Bible robs many of Eternal Life. Contrary to what you think, you have no “explicit” idea about how Creation took place, or the age of the earth. You have only what was written down long ago by very unscientific people. The Creation story is not to be read in a scientific or literal manner. Rather, we are to embrace the God of Genesis as the Creator of the Earth and a special friend to the Jews. We are to enter, by faith, into this, Semitic Gospel Story and find Eternal Life. But this is very different from claiming that the Bible contains the details of Creation, or that this or that calculation about age of the earth must be correct doctrine for the church The moment someone tries to use the Bible to prove the Creation Story, or the age of the earth, or the depth of the flood, the element of faith is replaced with a quest for proof and verification. Such observation is not only impossible, but it wars against the present scientific evidence and weakens the credibility of the Gospel Story, which alone is necessary for salvation. There is no need to try and mix science and religion. It is a useless and dangerous endeavor that has never worked out well for the Church. Supposedly knowing the age of the earth is not part of the Gospel. Believing in a literal 6-day creation, or a young earth is neither necessary nor salvific, as many arrogantly assume. People can have any number of views about how God created the world and the universe, so long as they embrace the Gospel Story that unfolded in the Middle East, (including the bloody Cross event), and submit to the teaching and authority of the apostles. You are free to have your views and so too are others. Do not make the mistake of forcing your dubious views on others, or of condemning all that do no see things they way you do. Rom. 14:22 The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God. Even assuming that the Young Earth side is correct, so what? The Gospel is not about geology or scientific inquiry. Paul makes it clear that we are to accept those who don’t have everything fully correct, and that we are not to judge or marginalize them because their views are not as sophisticated as others. Rom. 14:1 Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions. Rom. 14:2 One person has faith that he may eat all things (or that the world is very old), but he who is weak, (Conservatives) eats vegetables only (and embraces the Young Earth position). Rom. 14:3 The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him. Rom. 14:4 Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. Rom. 14:17 for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, (or the study of geology and physics), but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. The Gospel does not condemn those that think the earth is very old, or that some form of evolution was involved. They may be right or wrong, but it does not matter. It is not an issue of salvation, nor should it be a point of debate. It is a diversion. Rom. 14:19 So then we pursue the things, which make for peace and the building up of one another. Do you understand? David said: You have allowed a person to interfere with your faith - Desmond Ford. Tom said: Wrong. You have been caught up in a diversion, which is harmful to faith. You have been misled to believe that there is salvation in geology, and in things that do not matter. My Faith in the Gospel is based on the teachings of Jesus and the apostles. Not on anyone’s view about the age of the earth or the details of Creation. It is the Gospel alone that saves, not some special insight about the age of the earth or the Creation process. While I have faith that the God of the Jews is the Creator of the world and the Gospel, I have no faith that the Genesis account is a scientific work that was meant to challenge the evidence of our modern world. This is what Dr. Ford is saying. The Bible is not to be used as if it contains the details about the age of the earth, or about how life came into existence. The Creation account is not to be used to stop scientific inquiry or compete with mans study of the cosmos or this planet. Those that want to believe the earth is millions of years old are free to do so, even as those that embrace a younger model are entitled to their opinions. But neither side has all the answers, nor does anyone need to know the real age of the earth or how God created the world. We may never know such details, not even in the New Earth. While God grants Eternal life to those with faith in the Gospel, he does not have to explain the process of Creation to them, and he may never do so. Moreover, we might not be able to understand such things anyway. There will be many in heaven that have very different and very wrong views about Creation and the age of the earth. So what? There is no such litmus test for salvation, nor is any such knowledge necessary for Eternal Life. David said: Desmond Ford believes in evolution. He has stated this in plain terms. He believes that it was not 6 literal days at creation but much longer periods. Tom said: Any educated person believes that some form of evolution has played a role in the history of this planet. Moreover, educated people also understand that the earth is much older than previously thought, and that the creation process is not as simple as depicted in the Genesis account. Dr. Ford is not denying that God is the Creator of the world or the Gospel. Nor is he an agnostic that thinks God is not concerned with this planet. One the contrary, Dr. Ford preaches a loving, active, and merciful God who sent his Son to earth to die on a cross for our sins. Thus Dr. Ford preaches and promotes the Gospel, not evolution. Furthermore, Dr. Ford is not denying there is a seven-day weekly cycle, with the 7th day being the Sabbath of the Jews in honor of the Moral law and the Creation Story. He is a strong and firm Sabbatarian that understands not only the Gospel, but also the fact that there is a New Covenant, 7th day Sabbath for the church. (Few have grasped this stunning fact, not even the SDA’s). So David, you need to stop being so critical and judgmental of those that do not think the way you were taught to understand the Bible. It is far more important to understand the Gospel and find Eternal Life then to pretend that the Genesis account is scientific history that all must embrace. The Genesis account is not to be understood as a scientific history of Creation. Those that fail to comprehend this principle will easily be mocked and defeated by secularists and unbelievers alike. They have embraced views that cannot be defended, and that makes the Gospel Story look mythical and impossible. This is a great error. David said: What kind of "Christian" is this? And THIS is who Adventism is supposed to change their understanding of the Bible on? Tom said: Dr. Ford is a very educated, world class, Protestant scholar. More than that, he is an expert on hermeneutics and well as the Gospel and eschatology. Which means he understands how to read the Bible and understand how salvation functions. He knows that neither the Creation Story, nor the age of the Earth are salvific doctrines. He knows these points are minor when compared to the Gospel and the teachings of Jesus, which alone can give Eternal Life. The sooner you embrace this viewpoint, the closer you will be to understanding the Bible and embracing the correct Gospel. David said: For Des Ford to support evolution - that means he, in reality, rejects the Sabbath. What meaning or significance would it have? Tom said: Dr. Ford supports the position that the Genesis Story is not to be taken as scientific history. He is correct to understand that Genesis is not meant to be a literal account of how this planet came into existence, or how the universe was formed. As for the Sabbath, Dr. Ford is a Christian, thus he supports the Moral law as both duty and guide, as do all in the RC and P paradigms. The Sabbath is part of the Moral law, and taught by Jesus; this is why Dr. Ford would embrace it. The age of the earth is not the reason for Sabbath observance. In addition, Dr. Ford has been a Sabbatarian for most of his life and he still views the Christian Sabbath as the 7th day, not Sunday. He has not changed his mind about this, and I doubt he ever will. Furthermore, Dr. Ford understands that the NC Sabbath is a representation of the spiritual rest that we have in Christ. He also understands that the Righteousness by which we are saved is a Sabbatarian Righteousness, and thus none are saved without the perfect Sabbath keeping of Jesus that is imputed for salvation. So the Sabbath is part of the Gospel Story, and part of Christ’s Righteousness that saves us. It is also a test about ones knowledge of the Bible, as well as a test of fidelity to the apostles and an admission that all church doctrine is Semitic. The age of the earth has nothing to do with any of this. Dr. Ford is correct to teach that there is a Gospel Sabbath for the church. Just as Old Covenant Israel had a weekly Sabbath, so too New Covenant Israel, the Church. Thus Dr. Ford knows the importance of the Gospel Sabbath in the church, even as he understands that the Genesis Story is not meant to be a scientific account of Creation. He does not reject the Gospel or the Sabbath and you need to stop making such unfounded and slanderous charges. David said: Des Ford has trusted in his own wisdom and has long strayed away from the Bible that he has basically become a Darwinian. Tom said: Who are you to make such assumptions and slanders about Dr. Ford? You are hardly in his peer group, nor are you qualified to judge him on any level. Dr. Ford understands the Bible far better than most all others, and you have no basis to say otherwise. Those that think Dr. Ford is their enemy have been misled by their dishonest and incompetent leaders that do not understand the Bible. They have not really listened to what Dr. Ford is saying, nor do they understand the Gospel or church history correctly. In conclusion, you need to study the issues more deeply. You need to learn from Dr. Ford, not waste your time trying to play the role of critic. You are not qualified for such a futile mission, and neither is anyone else that tries to defend Traditional Adventism. Have you ever read any of Dr. Ford’s books or heard him preach a Gospel Sermon? Have you read his online Interview or read any of his articles with an attitude to better understand the Word? He is also on YouTube, so you have no excuse not to be better informed. <a href="http://www.goodnewsunlimited.org/library/atodayinterview/intro.cfm" target=_top>http://www.goodnewsunlimited.org/library/atodayint erview/intro.cfm</a> <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW9yPT3MGXY" target=_top>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW9yPT3MGXY</a> <a href="http://www.youtube.com/fleetwd1" target=_top>http://www.youtube.com/fleetwd1</a> <a href="http://www.desford.org.au/live/" target=_top>http://www.desford.org.au/live/</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desmond_Ford" target=_top>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desmond_Ford</a> <a href="http://www.desford.org.au/home/index.php" target=_top>http://www.desford.org.au/home/index.php</a> All SDA’s need to pay close attention to what Dr. Ford has said about Adventist theology and the Gospel. He is friend of Adventism and the Pioneers, which is why he defended the genuine version of the Three Angels Messages at Glacier View and stood firm for the Fundamentals that define and empower Adventism. He was correct then and he is even more correct today. Traditional Adventism is a fraud and a disaster. It must be repudiated so that the Advent Movement can go forward and embrace its eschatological mission. I hope this helps, Tom Norris for All Experts.Com and Adventist Reform

don · 11-07-09 4:45 pm

Ford on Tithing and Grape Juice for Communion Tom, I have a two questions: (This is off topic. You strongly support Dr. Ford and rightfully so, IMO, but you also come down strongly against the practice of tithing and against the use of grape juice for the Communion service.)<ol><li>Has Dr. Ford repudiated the SDA doctrine of Tithing, as you have? <LI>Does Dr. Ford teach that the use of non-alcohol grape juice in the Communion service is a sin? or is wrong? (As I have read you teaching.)</li></ol> (Message edited by Don on November 07, 2009)

Adventists for Tomorrow

Announcement

#51 10-24-09 6:12 pm

Re: Evolution and the Adventist Dilemma

#52 10-25-09 9:56 pm

Re: Evolution and the Adventist Dilemma

#53 10-25-09 11:57 pm

Re: Evolution and the Adventist Dilemma

#54 10-26-09 12:44 pm

Re: Evolution and the Adventist Dilemma

#55 10-26-09 3:47 pm

Re: Evolution and the Adventist Dilemma

#56 10-27-09 12:58 am

Re: Evolution and the Adventist Dilemma

#57 10-27-09 1:11 am

Re: Evolution and the Adventist Dilemma

#58 11-02-09 3:16 pm

Re: Evolution and the Adventist Dilemma

#59 11-02-09 8:03 pm

Re: Evolution and the Adventist Dilemma

#60 11-02-09 10:42 pm

Re: Evolution and the Adventist Dilemma

#61 11-03-09 2:17 pm

Re: Evolution and the Adventist Dilemma

#62 11-03-09 11:07 pm

Re: Evolution and the Adventist Dilemma

#63 11-04-09 9:59 am

Re: Evolution and the Adventist Dilemma

#64 11-07-09 2:29 pm

Re: Evolution and the Adventist Dilemma

#65 11-07-09 4:45 pm

Re: Evolution and the Adventist Dilemma

Board footer