• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Kenneth Miller: Respected Christian Champion of Evolution

Status
Not open for further replies.

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
You can't call Genesis a narrative and also believe in theistic evolution. I mean you can but it makes you ridiculously inconsistent.
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Not really. My views come from careful study of scripture -- including the study of the Genesis narratives in Hebrew -- with about 30 years of analysis that includes geology, astronomy, and the human genome. I have had close friends and family members who are Christians and scientists, including an astrophysicist, two biologists, and a chemist. The branch of science that finally confirmed theistic evolution to me was biology, through the subject of the human genome. I read the book, Adam and the Genome, in conjunction with a biologist (a strong Christian who was struggling to reconcile Genesis with observable and confirmed science), and he confirmed the science presented in the book. He was blessed by the theology section that helped him unpack the Genesis narratives and the OT and NT use of "Adam." I was aided in the biology section and was also thrilled with the depth of the theology section which opened up a better understanding of the importance of the creation narratives and the rich depth of truth they provide.


That is simply a false accusation.


Genesis follows a form of ancient cosmology that was present when it was written. It repudiates the competing cosmologies and establishes the God revealed to Abraham and Moses as the true God. It is not meant to be interpreted with wooden literalism any more than Jesus saying He is the door to the sheep or the bread of life.


You should believe Moses in the proper way. I believe that happens to be the way I understand the writing of Moses.


You just answered your own question. Since humankind is not just another category of animals, the emphasis of the story is to explain how we were created in the image of God. The narrative is not at all concerned with the process.


Why? What purpose who it have served? That's not the point of Genesis.


Was that on the first day of creation (Genesis 2:4) or the sixth day of creation (Genesis 1:27, 31)?


Believe Moses properly. I think my understand of it is a proper interpretation.
Amazing thast the Christian Church had no problem accepting genesis as historical lieter historicak account of origins, but once fake science of evolution hit, had to now redo the viewpoint!
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Believe Jesus and Moses. But to do that, you actually have to study and be open to hearing them speak to you. I have done that. Have you?
Yes, as Jesus, who was there by the way, saw Adam and Eve as created by him dierectly, no evolutioanry process involved, and paul saw that Adam was a single historical indivudual, not a whole tribe of them!
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
You can't call Genesis a narrative and also believe in theistic evolution. I mean you can but it makes you ridiculously inconsistent.
I really don't seehow one can read what Dr Walton has written, and see that as the proper way to view Genesis and origins!
 

church mouse guy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The only problem with your assertion is that there is plenty of good scientific data available to support theistic evolution.

However, I would agree that there is no good scientific data available to support atheistic evolution, since atheism has no means to account for the necessary primordial elements and material conditions required for evolution to occur.

Well, Bill Nye the Science Guy thinks that maybe we came from Mars so wouldn't that cover your atheistic evolution account of primordial elements and material conditions? Is it correct to say that where science contradicts Scripture that you always go with science? That is where people like Richard Land and Norman Geisler are coming from.
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Well, Bill Nye the Science Guy thinks that maybe we came from Mars so wouldn't that cover your atheistic evolution account of primordial elements and material conditions? Is it correct to say that where science contradicts Scripture that you always go with science? That is where people like Richard Land and Norman Geisler are coming from.
God inspired Moses to pen down genesis, and yet knew that until godless evolution hit the scene, no Christian could really understand it correctly?
 

Baptist Believer

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Amazing thast the Christian Church had no problem accepting genesis as historical lieter historicak account of origins, but once fake science of evolution hit, had to now redo the viewpoint!
You ignore all of the evidence that contradicts your view, so why should I bother restating the evidence. Augustine, for one, did not accept six, 24-hour day, creation. But you should already know that since we have discussed it.

Yes, as Jesus, who was there by the way, saw Adam and Eve as created by him dierectly, no evolutioanry process involved...
Really? When did Jesus tell you that there was no evolutionary process? The scripture does not record that He addressed the issue. We've been through this before, but you could not interact with my explanation... You simply restate your premise as if the mere repetition of it is somehow evidence.

...and paul saw that Adam was a single historical indivudual, not a whole tribe of them!
That's a nice theory except that Paul uses Adam as an archetype. Again, we've been through this.
 

Baptist Believer

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Well, Bill Nye the Science Guy thinks that maybe we came from Mars so wouldn't that cover your atheistic evolution account of primordial elements and material conditions?
No, and the answer is stunningly obvious.

God is the Creator of the universe (including Mars) and there is no life except what He had created. Placing human origins on Mars, Pluto, in another galaxy, or on Earth doesn't change the fundamental issue that there is no material world, nor life, without the direct action of God. Atheism fails precisely because it cannot explain the most basic reality of existence.

Is it correct to say that where science contradicts Scripture that you always go with science? That is where people like Richard Land and Norman Geisler are coming from.
No, and I don't think Land and Geisler would agree with your statement.

When science appears to contradict our understanding of scripture, we have to conclude one of the following:

(1) The current scientific theory is wrong.
(2) Our current interpretation of the biblical witness is wrong.
(3) Both the current scientific theory and our current interpretation of the biblical witness is wrong.

When scripture and science appear to conflict, we must humbly go back to both and reexamine the evidence for the scientific theory and reexamine the evidence for our interpretation of the biblical text.
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
No, and the answer is stunningly obvious.

God is the Creator of the universe (including Mars) and there is no life except what He had created. Placing human origins on Mars, Pluto, in another galaxy, or on Earth doesn't change the fundamental issue that there is no material world, nor life, without the direct action of God. Atheism fails precisely because it cannot explain the most basic reality of existence.


No, and I don't think Land and Geisler would agree with your statement.

When science appears to contradict our understanding of scripture, we have to conclude one of the following:

(1) The current scientific theory is wrong.
(2) Our current interpretation of the biblical witness is wrong.
(3) Both the current scientific theory and our current interpretation of the biblical witness is wrong.

When scripture and science appear to conflict, we must humbly go back to both and reexamine the evidence for the scientific theory and reexamine the evidence for our interpretation of the biblical text.
When the scriptures state to us that God made One Adam, divine creation, no need for evolutionary process, and when Pauldescribed Adam as being the sole and one representative for us before God in the test....
 

church mouse guy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
No, and the answer is stunningly obvious.

God is the Creator of the universe (including Mars) and there is no life except what He had created. Placing human origins on Mars, Pluto, in another galaxy, or on Earth doesn't change the fundamental issue that there is no material world, nor life, without the direct action of God. Atheism fails precisely because it cannot explain the most basic reality of existence.


No, and I don't think Land and Geisler would agree with your statement.

When science appears to contradict our understanding of scripture, we have to conclude one of the following:

(1) The current scientific theory is wrong.
(2) Our current interpretation of the biblical witness is wrong.
(3) Both the current scientific theory and our current interpretation of the biblical witness is wrong.

When scripture and science appear to conflict, we must humbly go back to both and reexamine the evidence for the scientific theory and reexamine the evidence for our interpretation of the biblical text.

How do you know that Bill Nye the Science Guy is wrong since you weren't there? And Land and Geisler have said that they go with science and call YECs presuppositionalists so you are wrong about them.
 

Aaron

Member
Site Supporter
Not really. My views come from careful study of scripture -- including the study of the Genesis narratives in Hebrew -- with about 30 years of analysis that includes geology, astronomy, and the human genome. I have had close friends and family members who are Christians and scientists, including an astrophysicist, two biologists, and a chemist. The branch of science that finally confirmed theistic evolution to me was biology, through the subject of the human genome. I read the book, Adam and the Genome, in conjunction with a biologist (a strong Christian who was struggling to reconcile Genesis with observable and confirmed science), and he confirmed the science presented in the book. He was blessed by the theology section that helped him unpack the Genesis narratives and the OT and NT use of "Adam." I was aided in the biology section and was also thrilled with the depth of the theology section which opened up a better understanding of the importance of the creation narratives and the rich depth of truth they provide.

As I said, you dismiss the geologists, astronomers and biologists, etc., who say differently. Here it's evident you don't dismiss them based on superior learning, but on the prejudices of those by whom you wish to be accepted and esteemed.

Why? What purpose who it have served? That's not the point of Genesis.
Um, because it would be true?

Was that on the first day of creation (Genesis 2:4) or the sixth day of creation (Genesis 1:27, 31)?
Puh-leeze. After asserting your superior learning, you're tripped up on an anachrony?

Your assertions are old hat, and have been soundly refuted by believing scientists and OT scholars. There is no real question about what Genesis is saying. The best evidence is children, as such you must become if you're to receive the preaching of Christ, which is deeply rooted in Genesis. You don't have to tell a child that Jesus wasn't saying He was a literal door when He said, I am the door, or that He was saying he was processed wheat when He said He was the bread of life.

They know.

And the boy who drives the plow knows that Genesis is saying something altogether different than the Evolution chapter in his middle school science text book. Genesis was written for him, not for your friends.[/quote]
 
Last edited:

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
How do you know that Bill Nye the Science Guy is wrong since you weren't there? And Land and Geisler have said that they go with science and call YECs presuppositionalists so you are wrong about them.
Those who support Theistic evolution seem to ALWAYS have their finalauthority the assured "scientific facts" of evolution!
 

church mouse guy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
If one says that God created the heavens and the earth and He did it by evolution, then you are clearly challenging the perfection of Scripture and then one should be asked how he knows Genesis 1:1 is true?
 

Reynolds

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Honest and open intellectual inquiry is generally alien to the evangelical mindset with reference to the evolution vs. intelligent Design debate. Instead, they rely on creationist organizations to get a biased view of the basic issues, ignoring the most respected and well-informed apologists for evolution. As a result, their views are informed by straw men that are erected so as to be dismantled to create the illusion of some sort of intellectual victory. So few evangelicals have the integrity to fully engage the most articulate and respected champions and authors on evolutionary theory like Dr. Kenneth Miller, author of standard high school and university biology text books. Miller has served as a key witness persuading a conservative judge that Intelligent Design should not be taught in public schools. In that court case, creationist apologists were no match for his better informed arguments. I challenge you to temporarily, if timidly, leave the safe confines of your fundamentalist thought Ghetto, breathe the fresh air of honest and open inquiry, and watch and critically engage Kenneth Miller's eloquent and engaging lecture at Notre Dame. btw, Miller is a devout Roman Catholic:

youtube kenneth miller god and darwin - Bing video

Competent Christian apologetics is a function of a willingness to critically engage the most articulate and well-informed case for the contrary position. Why am I confident that few here have the intellectual integrity to watch this video?
The Louvre contains miles of scientific books that were in their day considered fact. Now, they have all been wholly or in major part proven wrong. Darwin himself said for his theory to be correct, the cell had to be simple. If the cell were proven to be complex, his theory would fail. I take his word for it.
 

church mouse guy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The Louvre contains miles of scientific books that were in their day considered fact. Now, they have all been wholly or in major part proven wrong. Darwin himself said for his theory to be correct, the cell had to be simple. If the cell were proven to be complex, his theory would fail. I take his word for it.

Exactly! The cell has proven to be very complex with DNA!

All this chaos in science began with the Enlightenment and this chaos would have ended already if American scientists were not so biased. For example, the man who first discovered the evidence for the Lake Missoula Flood at the end of the Ice Age when a lake twice the size of Lake Erie broke free and emptied into the Pacific Ocean was shunned for forty years until aerial photography confirmed his hard work.
 

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Kenneth Miller: Respected Christian Champion of Evolution

I wonder what it feels like to be a respected champion of one of the biggest myths in history.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top