tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post4700646759676260954..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Overwhelming evidence for evolutionRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-44413876548190976092019-02-13T18:21:34.719-05:002019-02-13T18:21:34.719-05:00That's a good question.
To my knowledge, the...That's a good question. <br /><br />To my knowledge, there's not a single up-to-date book that defends the major distinctive ideas of YEC (e.g. a mature universe and earth, predation before the fall, a global flood). The closest I can think of right now is <i>The New Creationism</i> by Paul Garner, which I own and have read but not all of it. However, I wasn't particularly impressed from what I read to be honest. I thought it was a mixed bag. Perhaps I'll have to give it a second look. That said, if you want a broadly based introduction to YEC, then it's a reasonable place to start.<br /><br />I think someone like Henry Morris might've done so in the past, but I've never read him, for better or worse. More to the point, I think he had his heyday well before my time so I'm not sure how worthwhile it would be to read him in light of modern challenges. Not only in terms of scientific challenges (e.g. molecular and cell biology, chemistry including radiocarbon dating methods, astrophysics, the geological and paleontological sciences), but biblical and philosophical and other challenges too. <br /><br />Just to be clear I'm not suggesting that's entirely due to intrinsic issues in YEC. Rather, I suspect a large reason I don't see a single such book is because it would take something of a polymath to do it justice. Merely consider the science alone: science has become so subdivided and super specialized that I don't see how it's possible to master well enough the major relevant scientific issues to make a systematic case for YEC. To be fair, that's not limited to YEC either, I don't think, but applies broadly to Christian apologetics as a whole.<br /><br />So I suppose the ideal today would be to read different scholars on different topics. In that respect, I very much appreciate Steve's list.<br /><br />Short of this, say if you have time or other constraints, I think a reasonable gateway into YEC would be through philosophy since philosophy is able to intelligently cover such a broad range of topics. Among philosophers, I think Paul Nelson is one of the best philosophers who argues for YEC. I've even seen Nelson take on the biological issues involved in a defense of YEC. I believe Nelson has published a short ebook in defense of YEC (along with John Mark Reynolds).Epistle of Dudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07779184015407034200noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-67365516750975148142019-02-13T13:25:23.590-05:002019-02-13T13:25:23.590-05:00http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2018/10/roundup-on-...http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2018/10/roundup-on-creationism.htmlstevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-33679112732734421932019-02-13T13:00:05.262-05:002019-02-13T13:00:05.262-05:00steve or epitsle, do either of you have a recommen...steve or epitsle, do either of you have a recommendation for a YEC book?Aleksandrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02378930635094777233noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-36674324456831366272019-02-12T19:42:05.648-05:002019-02-12T19:42:05.648-05:00I don't own the book, but (I might be getting ...I don't own the book, but (I might be getting myself in over my head) if you want to post any excerpts from the book, due to questions or concerns you might have, I'd be willing to try to tackle them. :) Epistle of Dudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07779184015407034200noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-67877578591927846452019-02-12T18:12:17.985-05:002019-02-12T18:12:17.985-05:00I agree with you that that's a serious weaknes...I agree with you that that's a serious weakness of the book. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-55945959538570350572019-02-12T15:22:58.046-05:002019-02-12T15:22:58.046-05:00I just finished reading this book (A Fool and a he...I just finished reading this book (A Fool and a heretic), and I'm disappointed. I wanted to read a Christian (YEC) defense of creation, but it was mostly a book about how the two men could still get along despite how much they disagree. Worst of all, in one of the chapters, the evolutionist presented a TON of specific evidence for evolution thru 10 pages, and the creationist replied with a mere 5-page summary of only 2 specific evidences for creation. I was left with more questions than answers, thinking, "Wow, I wonder how a Bible-believer would answer or understand this piece of evidence." And I was discouraged when Todd (the Creationist) said he was puzzled by dino nests in the layers of rock that showed a global flood didn't deposit them there...he never told his readers how came to an explanation for the nests.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07531119460455845547noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-2151745871601188792019-02-10T17:57:52.997-05:002019-02-10T17:57:52.997-05:00As you know, theistic evolution is the mainstream ...As you know, theistic evolution is the mainstream view on modern Catholicism. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-77820958584175841292019-02-10T14:09:12.076-05:002019-02-10T14:09:12.076-05:00At some point in time, I've been a theistic ev...At some point in time, I've been a theistic evolutionist, YEC, and OEC. I'm currently an Old-Earth Creationist.<br /><br />I think the biggest problem theistic evolution has is math. If naturalistic evolution isn't plausible, neither is theistic evolution. So all critiques of naturalistic evolution count against it. So all the critiques from Michael Behe (who may technically count as a theistic evolutionist) would go against this view.<br /><br />The main problem is computational. You can't find proteins that match in a blind process that easily.geoffrobinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14949411893531888555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-18860066034657812302019-02-10T11:14:29.965-05:002019-02-10T11:14:29.965-05:00Hard to disagree with your assessment! :) Hard to disagree with your assessment! :) Epistle of Dudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07779184015407034200noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-68097784195924825982019-02-10T10:48:33.192-05:002019-02-10T10:48:33.192-05:00I think evolutionary theism combines the theory of...I think evolutionary theism combines the theory of evolution with an abstract theism, but with Christian theism that makes more specific statements about reality does not work.<br /><br />In the end, it's neither consistent with the Bible nor with the theory of evolution.Conhecereis a Verdadehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10120910946523193443noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-60609262639031571302019-02-10T00:17:32.878-05:002019-02-10T00:17:32.878-05:00Or maybe I should've said it'd break their...Or maybe I should've said it'd break their theory into thousands of pieces when it collides with the biblical narrative.Epistle of Dudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07779184015407034200noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-87658778432095943042019-02-10T00:09:41.493-05:002019-02-10T00:09:41.493-05:00"What was the event that in the worldview of ..."What was the event that in the worldview of theistic evolutionism caused the fall of man and a fallen world?"<br /><br />Of course, it depends on the theistic evolutionist. For instance, some theistic evolutionists believe that God set two hominids aside and endowed them with his image so that they became Adam and Eve, then the Fall would've played out as described in the Bible. Biblically, it's certainly wonky, to say the least, but that's what they argue.<br /><br />However, I presume you're referring to Y-chromosomal Adam and mitochondrial Eve. That is, while our Y-chromosome traces back to a single male, and our mDNA traces back to a single female, it's true some theistic evolutionists don't believe they were an actual couple. Rather, they were separated from one another by thousands of years. In that case, you have a good point: it would stretch the biblical narrative about the Fall to breaking point.Epistle of Dudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07779184015407034200noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-7938484451409054702019-02-09T20:32:12.185-05:002019-02-09T20:32:12.185-05:00Hi,
I don't know this theory in detail. There...Hi,<br /><br />I don't know this theory in detail. There is one thing that intrigues me. In the theory of naturalistic evolution there is no such thing as a primordial human couple. What was the event that in the worldview of theistic evolutionism caused the fall of man and a fallen world?<br /><br />Conhecereis a Verdadehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10120910946523193443noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-53979501758015485342019-02-09T19:31:00.846-05:002019-02-09T19:31:00.846-05:001. I like Darrell Falk as a person (along with his...1. I like Darrell Falk as a person (along with his BioLogos co-founder Francis Collins). In addition, Falk is a theistic evolutionist (though he prefers the term evolutionary creationist if I remember correctly), but Falk is more honest than most other theistic evolutionists. For example, I recall Falk positively reviewed Stephen Meyer's <i>Darwin's Doubt</i> and even conceded that Meyer was correct in many if not most of his criticisms against neo-Darwinism. And Falk conceded that Meyer was in the main correct about neo-Darwinian explanations for the Cambrian explosion not working.<br /><br />At the same time, judging by the quotations in Steve's post, it sounds like Falk is regurgitating common theistic evolutionary talking points. At least I don't see anything that hasn't already been addressed by others (e.g. ID theorists).<br /><br />2. As far as the quotation you cite, I think it's more of a wishful narrative that the order of the fossil record is so neat and tidy. There are significant debates over the ordering of the fossil record. It's quite arguable the fossil record (such as vis-a-vis stratigraphic columns) is a lot more random than Falk presents. For example, you might consider the work of a fellow YEC, Andrew Snelling, who is a geologist. <br /><br />3. Another example is the issue of JBS Haldane's Precambrian rabbits. Haldane said (paraphrasing) if a Precambrian rabbit could be found in the fossil record, then that would disprove evolutionary theory. That's because one wouldn't expect a rabbit in the Precambrian era. That would be out of place, out of order, not in the right sequence. A rabbit couldn't have evolved at this point. Modern evolutionists like Dawkins and Coyne have echoed the same sentiment. <br /><br />In fact, there are indeed examples of Precambrian rabbits in the fossil record. However, the issue is neo-Darwinists keep moving the goalposts. For example, when it's pointed out a Precambrian rabbit has been found, neo-Darwinists will argue from ghost lineages. A ghost lineage is a phylogenetic lineage that has left no trace of its existence in the fossil record, but is inferred to exist. That might be possible in certain cases, but another thing neo-Darwinists do is they extend the range of time for that period so that it encompasses the Precambrian rabbit counterexample. <br /><br />4. There's lots more examples, but this is probably long enough for now!Epistle of Dudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07779184015407034200noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-63316351853338625852019-02-09T14:43:44.336-05:002019-02-09T14:43:44.336-05:00"Rocks that are greater than one billion year..."Rocks that are greater than one billion years old have never revealed a fossil of a multicellular plant or animal…But there is a progression as we move through time to examine rocks that are younger and younger. Fish first appear in rocks of about 500 million years…Amphibians appear beginning in rocks of about 370 million years…Reptiles appear a little later (about 320 million years) and mammals (230) million years) a little later still…The first primates are not found in the fossil record until rocks dated at 55 million years ago…thousands of hominid fossils have now been found, none are found in rocks older than about five million years (pp136-7)."<br /><br />I'm YEC. I completely believe that YEC is what Scripture teaches, but I'm troubled by this evidence. Is there evidence to support the idea that the fossil record is ordered from least to most complex due to the world-wide flood and the way the organisms died? Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07531119460455845547noreply@blogger.com