tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post3341710495713653214..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: The challenge of evolutionRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-11718622617226111212015-03-09T12:34:19.512-04:002015-03-09T12:34:19.512-04:00The point is, does the interpretation originate fr...The point is, does the interpretation originate from Scripture and the revelation God has provided therein, or is the interpretation imported from the outside?<br /><br />Does it say, "yes Lord, as You have said", or does it say, "yea, hath God said?".CRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03231394164372721485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-80851310086662521392015-03-09T01:37:12.165-04:002015-03-09T01:37:12.165-04:00We can consider evolution on its own terms. We don...We can consider evolution on its own terms. We don't necessarily need to bring in Christianity or the Bible. Indeed, there are plenty of secular scientists and philosophers who disagree with key tenets of neo-Darwinism.rockingwithhawkinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10550503108269371174noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-16046376633003798672015-03-09T01:33:38.881-04:002015-03-09T01:33:38.881-04:00@martin718
"I don't believe that evoluti...@martin718<br /><br />"I don't believe that evolutionary creationists are putting words into Gods mouth any more than young earth creationists are."<br /><br />This isn't necessarily to disparage someone's intentions. But one can be sincerely mistaken. rockingwithhawkinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10550503108269371174noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-50661876802537742252015-03-09T01:18:47.980-04:002015-03-09T01:18:47.980-04:00That being said, i believe that putting the belief...That being said, i believe that putting the beliefs of man before scripture is wrong. But young earth creationism, although explaining the bible better, is still an interpretation of man. Like evolution is an explanation of nature that appears to work better, still leaves lots of things unexplained. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-21198530571743813632015-03-09T01:05:18.887-04:002015-03-09T01:05:18.887-04:00I don't believe in evolution, but I don't ...I don't believe in evolution, but I don't think those responses really have anything to do with the mechanisms of creation. "Yea, hath God said" was about a command notto eat of the tree. I don't believe that evolutionary creationists are putting words into Gods mouth any more than young earth creationists are. God said that we must rest on the Sabbath because he created after 6 days and rested. I don't think evolutionary creation would change that. It would just change the mechanism. Now Kirk, I don't think that denying any miracles in the bible because you have a different view of creation follows. Evolutionary creation still is a miracle, even atheists agree that it was very improbable. Also, Paul and the writer of Hebrews reinterpreted a lot of the law and prophets to fit the death and resurrection of messiah Jesus, would you then call Paul or the writer of Hebrews a "compromiser"?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-37239418659554933052015-03-08T16:36:40.055-04:002015-03-08T16:36:40.055-04:00But there's still the problem of the text, as ...But there's still the problem of the text, as the same science rejecting creation also rejects human parthenogenesis. By what standard does one get to reject creation but call the virgin birth dogma, if the text means whatever it means to me today? Kirk Skeptichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06142889734004402296noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-2756560166201519942015-03-08T13:08:32.513-04:002015-03-08T13:08:32.513-04:00And if I'm free to discount some texts that co...And if I'm free to discount some texts that conflict with my personal worldview, then I'm free to discount all texts that disagree with my worldview thereby conforming God's Word to myself instead of being conformed to God's Word.<br /><br />It's the ultimate act of hubris, and hearkens back to echoes of the fall; "Yea, hath God said?"CRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03231394164372721485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-76837883191764961462015-03-08T01:21:13.797-05:002015-03-08T01:21:13.797-05:00There's be no problem for them in the sense th...There's be no problem for them in the sense that they discount Genesis and feel free to excise whatever tenets of Biblical theology conflict with mainstream science. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-78129881012671354372015-03-07T23:58:18.429-05:002015-03-07T23:58:18.429-05:00About your first point: If some people believe tha...About your first point: If some people believe that God created man through evolution, and separated man from general nature to serve him, then wouldn't there be no problem for them?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-41409247987108616442015-03-07T22:44:59.071-05:002015-03-07T22:44:59.071-05:00As we know, neo-Darwinism is the mainstream accept...As we know, neo-Darwinism is the mainstream accepted paradigm when it comes to evolutionary theory. Neo-Darwinism centers on three main tenets: (1) small-scale random mutations leading to macroevolutionary changes in body plans ("from micro to macro"); (2) natural selection as the main cause of adaptive change; and (3) heredity, ultimately tracing its way back to a universal common ancestor. <br /><br />However, there have been challenges to neo-Darwinism. I'm not referring to, say, creationism or ID theory. Rather, I'm talking about challenges to neo-Darwinism from fellow secular scientists. Here's a list of alternative contenders to neo-Darwinism, taken from <i>Darwin's Doubt</i> (chapter 16) by Stephen Meyer:<br /><br />1. Symbiogenesis (e.g. Lynn Margulis, Michael Syvanen). This challenges neo-Darwinism by disagreeing with all three - random mutations, natural selection, and heredity. <br /><br />2. Natural genetic engineering (e.g. James Shapiro). This challenges neo-Darwinism by disagreeing with random mutations and natural selection. <br /><br />3. Facilitated variation (e.g. John Gerhart, Marc Kirschner). This challenges neo-Darwinism by disagreeing with random mutations. <br /><br />4. Evolutionary developmental biology (e.g. Sean Carroll, Rudolf Raff, Jeffrey Schwartz). This challenges neo-Darwinism by disagreeing with random mutations.<br /><br />5. Self-organization (e.g. David Depew, Stuart Kauffman, Mark Newman, Bruce Webber). This challenges neo-Darwinism by disagreeing with natural selection. <br /><br />6. Neutral evolution (e.g. Michael Lynch, Arlin Stoltzfus). This challenges neo-Darwinism by disagreeing with natural selection.<br /><br />7. Neo-Lamarckism (e.g. Eva Jablonka, Massimo Pigliucci). This challenges neo-Darwinism by disagreeing with heredity.rockingwithhawkinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10550503108269371174noreply@blogger.com