tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post5375881362694207907..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Young-earth theistic evolutionistsRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-77372430490084880662014-06-01T13:14:05.456-04:002014-06-01T13:14:05.456-04:00Hairsplitting distinctives? Not when the Bible ma...Hairsplitting distinctives? Not when the Bible makes those distinctions. There is no indication that insects count as <i>nephesh chayyah</i>. See for example <a href="http://creation.com/the-fall-a-cosmic-catastrophe" rel="nofollow">The Fall: a cosmic catastrophe: Hugh Ross’s blunders on plant death in the Bible</a>. Why there are different models for the origin of carnivory is very simple: the Bible doesn't say why. But it does unambiguously teach a vegetarian diet for both humans and animals before the Fall. Also, regardless of one's view of end times, commentators on Isaiah such as Alec Motyer agree that he was alluding to Edenic conditions in chs 11 and 65, as documented in <a href="http://creation.com/the-carnivorous-nature-and-suffering-of-animals" rel="nofollow">The carnivorous nature and suffering of animals</a>. Another common blind spot for old-earth compromise is <i>human</i> death before the fall, and by sinful means, according to the "dating" methods they swallow.Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/12530418085229071099noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-41624623958695829682013-09-22T00:13:26.547-04:002013-09-22T00:13:26.547-04:00Hi janitorialmusings,
Good thoughts, and I agree ...Hi janitorialmusings,<br /><br />Good thoughts, and I agree with a lot of it. <br /><br />Also, this might be obvious, but in case it's not: we don't need to accept the entire YEC "package" to accept parts. We can mix and match, so to speak, depending on what best accords with the Bible, what's most reasonable, etc.Patrick Chanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095377877712197984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-61921226598402234552013-09-21T21:18:05.329-04:002013-09-21T21:18:05.329-04:00The power of tradition. The power of tradition. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-7297974374607661702013-09-21T20:59:20.197-04:002013-09-21T20:59:20.197-04:00I agree that Todd Wood is a little strange like th...I agree that Todd Wood is a little strange like that. However YEC does need its in-house critics, since they might be more open to listening to someone who identifies with them (although when all you do is criticize and fail to build a positive case it does call into question your credentials). Personally, I wish YEC were more open to what their critics are saying. There is, I think, more homogeneity among YEC than can be reasonably explained apart from some group think. e.g., why don't we see YEC who accept animal death before the fall, who accept a non-global flood, or, say, Grudem's suggestion about Gen. 1:16 (which solves the light-without-sun problem)? I understand, of course, that some YEC will think they have good reasons rejecting these views... But none of them are essential to YEC itself, though they are often treated as such, and there are certainly some good reasons for adopting these views. So one would expect some more diversity or openness here were it not for something like group-think going on. As Steve points out, YEC is pre-packaged and it's a shame that so many don't take a step back to examine that more. ... Or I guess I could just be overlooking something that links all things together as part of an essential package.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-19738117018985072812013-09-21T20:02:28.692-04:002013-09-21T20:02:28.692-04:00Hi janitorialmusings,
Thanks for the comment.
1....Hi janitorialmusings,<br /><br />Thanks for the comment.<br /><br />1. Wood has often been far more critical of fellow "YEC" Christians than he has been of theistic evolutionists and even secular evolutionists. I agree with a lot of his criticisms about how many "YEC" don't quite understand the intricacies of "evolution," but I think there's strangely something off about Wood being so hard on them, and not so on evolutionists with whom he apparently disagrees, though I can't quite put my finger on it.<br /><br />2. I know secular evolutionists like Larry Moran and his ilk as well as the guys over at Panda's Thumb often cite him favorably too. Whereas AiG has taken down at least one of his articles (on natural selection).<br /><br />3. Wood is good at tearing down poor arguments against modern evolutionary theory (e.g. his famous or infamous chimp genome article). But what about building up? It's possible I missed it, but I haven't read a whole lot from Wood arguing for his purported position ("creationism"). Maybe an article or two on baraminology.<br /><br />4. Is Wood still at Bryan? Has CORE Academy shut down? At the least, I believe Wood has stated he'll have to change from a more research-centered role to more teaching.<br /><br />5. I've said similar things about "microevolution" vs. "macroevolution" being a bit vague, and not necessarily always the best way to frame the debate.<br /><br />6. I don't know what Wood's specific arguments are about horse evolution not being "microevolution." But speaking broadly, Jonathan has addressed horse evolution <a href="http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/10/fact-checking_wikipedia_on_com_1051951.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>.<br /><br />7. "Horse evolution produced new species, genera, and even subfamilies" is the closest he gets to a specific argument. But, as a baraminologist who ostensibly argues for "kinds" rather than "species" and so forth, I find this somewhat disingenuous of an argument. Although it depends on precisely what he means (e.g. maybe he's making way for "kinds"?). Perhaps there's better context to his remarks.Patrick Chanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095377877712197984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-31513803563590852192013-09-21T18:46:09.213-04:002013-09-21T18:46:09.213-04:00I think some YECs accept speciation. After all, th...I think some YECs accept speciation. After all, that's a narrow modern taxonomic category whereas YECs focus on natural kinds (or "baramins"). <br /><br />Usually they draw the line with new body parts, new body plans...that sort of thing. And, of course, they reject universal common descent, simple-to-complex, from goo-to-you. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-86386921510084948592013-09-21T15:48:30.848-04:002013-09-21T15:48:30.848-04:00While meandering through the internet today (I sta...While meandering through the internet today (I started off on an OEC website and through a series of links ended up on a YEC website) I happened upon this statement which is relevant to an earlier point I made: <br /><br />From Todd Wood: <br /><br />"...horse evolution is not microevolution. Although it's a vague term, microevolution generally refers to evolutionary changes within a species. Horse evolution produced new species, genera, and even subfamilies. I'll probably get a lot of flak for saying this, but horse evolution counts as a kind of macroevolution."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-27545059509795452902013-09-18T22:13:41.433-04:002013-09-18T22:13:41.433-04:00janitorialmusings
"Ok. But from an exegetica...janitorialmusings<br /><br />"Ok. But from an exegetical standpoint isn't the text silent on the issue? It doesn't give us a Cartesian picture of animals either. In that case, one can make the intuitive or otherwise appeal, granting the danger in that."<br /><br />As I've written in my review of John Loftus on the so-called problem of animal pain, I don't have that intuitively problematic. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-64035685758297063662013-09-18T21:15:20.723-04:002013-09-18T21:15:20.723-04:00>>That proves my point. That's not an ex...>>That proves my point. That's not an exegetical argument. That reflects the viewpoint of many apologists and philosophers. But that doesn't mean it reflects the viewpoint of the narrator. Indeed, that's in danger of mirror reading. Imposing your preconceived idea on the text. <br /><br />Ok. But from an exegetical standpoint isn't the text silent on the issue? It doesn't give us a Cartesian picture of animals either. In that case, one can make the intuitive or otherwise appeal, granting the danger in that. <br /><br />>>i) Are you alluding to the explosive postdiluvial speciation of survivors on the ark? Even if we classify it as macroevolutionary, that would simply introduce a point of tension between the YEC view of creation and the YEC view of the flood, where the former opposes macroevolution at the front door while the latter waves it through the back door... But the price they pay for that move is theistic macroevolution. <br /><br />Yes, I was alluding to the postdiluvian speciation. As for the point of tension I'm not sure whether you're, again, just talking about the standard YEC package. I agree that some YEC have a "yuck" factor when it comes to macro-evolution. They don't like the idea of it. Macro-evolution = bad. But I see nothing wrong with the concept per-se... I just don't happen to think God created that way. So if some Darwinist wants to argue that the rapid speciation that took place post-flood (or even post-fall in regard to, say, snakes losing their legs) counts as theistic macroevolution I'd be inclined to say "So?". If the YEC has some principled objection to God macro-evolving a species, I'm not aware of it. <br /><br />>>They typically play up the invidious contrast between an evolutionary nature-red-in-tooth-and-claw scenario over against their Doctor Dolittle alternative.<br /><br />That's true and I guess that might be the "principled objection" to it floating around in the back of their minds. But the rapid speciation or the case of the snake loosing it's legs isn't coming about through the same sort of nature (red in tooth and claw) mechanism and, at any rate, it's occurring in a post-fall world that has lost it's "ver good" status, presumably.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-28980892674084330422013-09-18T20:33:02.749-04:002013-09-18T20:33:02.749-04:00janitorialmusings
"Why would that be? I kn...janitorialmusings <br /><br />"Why would that be? I know R. Reymond says the gaps probably add up to a relatively short period based on the fact that other genealogical gaps in Scripture are relatively short... but I don't think that's a very good reason. Won't the length of the gap be dictated by the time frame you're trying to jump too? So, for instance, the RTB crowd believes Adam and Eve existed about 70k years ago, possibly around 100k. In principle, I don't see why a YEC couldn't adopt a similar stretch... although it would be unusual."<br /><br />In theory, YECs could be more flexible on the timeframe. I'm just stating the standard YEC position. <br /><br />"Concerning your point (iii) - It seems that all that has to be granted for the argument to have some force is that animal death and suffering is not good and can be, in fact, very bad. Many apologists and philosophers seem ready to grant that in the context of a theodicy."<br /><br />That proves my point. That's not an exegetical argument. That reflects the viewpoint of many apologists and philosophers. But that doesn't mean it reflects the viewpoint of the narrator. Indeed, that's in danger of mirror reading. Imposing your preconceived idea on the text. <br /><br /> "I think YEC, on any packaging, requires very rapid evolution that would, by secular standards, still be equivalent to macroevolution."<br /><br />i) Are you alluding to the explosive postdiluvial speciation of survivors on the ark? Even if we classify it as macroevolutionary, that would simply introduce a point of tension between the YEC view of creation and the YEC view of the flood, where the former opposes macroevolution at the front door while the latter waves it through the back door.<br /><br />ii) Again, though, I'm talking specifically about macroevolution, not just accelerated evolution. <br /><br />"If the YEC thinks the fall happened very shortly after the 7th day this objection may not carry as much weight. Carnivores like lions wouldn't have to live on a herbivore diet for very long."<br /><br />The question at issue isn't whether some carnivores can survive (at least for a time) on vegetation. <br /><br /> "And since some YEC are willing to entertain the idea that a T-Rex's carnivorous elements didn't arise until post-fall (http://tinyurl.com/ls23ghy), I doubt they'd have trouble accepting the vampire bat and jellyish arising, at least in their carnivorous state, post-fall too."<br /><br />But the price they pay for that move is theistic macroevolution. <br /><br />"Concerning your (vii) - I've never come across a YEC argument to the effect that it is *morally impermissible* for God to allow predation before the fall. The only argument I've seen is that the evaluation 'very good' is not fitting in a world of death, disease, predation. It is morally permissible for God to allow predation before or after the fall--but God wouldn't look at a world post-fall or pre-fall with predators, disease, and suffering and call that 'very good.'"<br /><br />They typically play up the invidious contrast between an evolutionary nature-red-in-tooth-and-claw scenario over against their Doctor Dolittle alternative. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-2509571909541488732013-09-18T18:48:23.106-04:002013-09-18T18:48:23.106-04:00>>Young-earth creationists disagree on wheth...>>Young-earth creationists disagree on whether the Genesis genealogies are open or closed. But even if they are open, that only allows for another roughly 4000 years. <br /><br />Why would that be? I know R. Reymond says the gaps probably add up to a relatively short period based on the fact that other genealogical gaps in Scripture are relatively short... but I don't think that's a very good reason. Won't the length of the gap be dictated by the time frame you're trying to jump too?<br /><br />So, for instance, the RTB crowd believes Adam and Eve existed about 70k years ago, possibly around 100k. In principle, I don't see why a YEC couldn't adopt a similar stretch... although it would be unusual.<br /><br />Concerning your point (iii) - It seems that all that has to be granted for the argument to have some force is that animal death and suffering is not good and can be, in fact, very bad. Many apologists and philosophers seem ready to grant that in the context of a theodicy. <br /><br />>>The problem with this explanation is that it becomes a second creation. Young-earth creationists espousing postlapsarian (or postdiluvian) theistic macroevolution. Isn't the definition of macroevolution the development of novel morphology (e.g. new body parts and body plans) in response to new genetic information? <br /><br />I think YEC, on any packaging, requires very rapid evolution that would, by secular standards, still be equivalent to macroevolution. <br /><br />>>But that doesn't work for creatures whose digestive system is essentially carnivorous or even hematophagous, viz., anteaters, jellyfish, vampire bats. To retrofit them from herbivores to carnivores requires macroevolution, kinda like those transformation scenes where humans turn into werewolves. <br /><br />If the YEC thinks the fall happened very shortly after the 7th day this objection may not carry as much weight. Carnivores like lions wouldn't have to live on a herbivore diet for very long. And since some YEC are willing to entertain the idea that a T-Rex's carnivorous elements didn't arise until post-fall (http://tinyurl.com/ls23ghy), I doubt they'd have trouble accepting the vampire bat and jelly fish arising, at least in their carnivorous state, post-fall too. <br /><br />Concerning your (vii) - I've never come across a YEC argument to the effect that it is *morally impremissible* for God to allow predation before the fall. The only argument I've seen is that the evaluation "very good" is not fitting in a world of death, disease, predation. It is morally permissible for God to allow predation before or after the fall--but God wouldn't look at a world post-fall or pre-fall with predators, disease, and suffering and call that "very good".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com