Kenneth Miller: Respected Christian Champion of Evolution

[church mouse guy]

Miller may have backed off because the video linked was about 10 years ago and since then DNA experts have proven that the relationships between ape and human DNA is less than seventy percent. This is another case of American scientific bias that called parts of DNA that was not identified as junk DNA. When experts identified this DNA, it was found to have a purpose and not "junk" and it was found there was no correlation. I think that it is called homology when different kinds share some systems, such as eyes, ears, and nose--if those are valid examples.

 

[Aaron]

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.

Um, because it would be true?

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]Would a moderator edit the post linked to here to say "tripped up by an anachronism?" Then delete this post i made asking you to.

Thanks!

 

[atpollard]

You have got to be kidding.

I don't know ... "a swarm of flies" isn't the worst description of how his OP makes one feel that I have ever heard.

 

[Aaron]

I see myself as the swarm of flies sent to goad fundamentalists into honest and open inquiry into the truth of evolution. But I have no illusion about the problem of teasing them out of the tree of their closed-minded perspective and into the fresh air of a shared quest for truth that honors God.

LOL. God's scourge is always something or someone unclean or idolatrous. There was no plague of light, or of truth, or of love.

"I'm going to chasten you with peace."

So if you see yourself as a vessel unto dishonor poured out to chasten God's children, you should choose a frog. People tend to welcome frogs in their garden ponds at least. Flies are for dog poop.

 

[Baptist Believer]

If one says that God created the heavens and the earth and He did it by evolution...

I doubt many theistic evolutionists would say that. Only a person who doesn't know what evolution is would claim that "God created the heavens and the earth" through evolution.

I believe you are confusing evolution with the formation of the universe (the Big Bang?) and the material realm.

Evolution is the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth. Evolution requires pre-existing matter and the conditions appropriate for life to grow and develop. It is not a theory of how the heavens and the earth were formed.

No wonder your response to what I wrote previously made no sense to me.

...then you are clearly challenging the perfection of Scripture...

I am not challenging the perfection of scripture. I am only challenging the perfect of some interpretations of scripture -- and you are doing the same thing.

...and then one should be asked how he knows Genesis 1:1 is true?

Because it is God's word to us. I could go into a lot of detail about how I know scripture is of God, but I think we would all agree on that.

What is interesting is that you and others always jump to the idea that everyone is on the end of losing their belief in scripture and in God Himself -- that if there is a bit of ambiguity or mystery, then one's faith will come crashing down like a house of cards.

I say to you and everyone else, if scripture is true and God is real, there is no danger in asking questions regarding our interpretations of scripture because we know we will find truth.

 

[Baptist Believer]

As I said, you dismiss the geologists, astronomers and biologists, etc., who say differently.

I don't summarily dismiss anyone.

As you know, there are more geologists, astronomers, biologists, etc. who are not six-day creationists. I could easily make the same false accusation that you dismiss the majority opinion of the scientific field and insinuate that you are too close-minded to fairly consider their arguments. But I have no basis for that accusation and it would simply be a personal attack in the same fashion as you are waging on me. So let's set aside rhetorical swaggering and talk to each other like honorable men.

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.

This is a stupid and baseless accusation.

Um, because it would be true?

Lots of true things are not dealt with in Genesis. The point of Genesis is not to talk about biological processes.

Puh-leeze. After asserting your superior learning...

I did not assert "superior learning." You have made a baseless accusation that everyone in this thread (except for maybe you) got their views because we "read it somewhere" and we were not scientists. You asserted that I had not actually worked through the issues myself and that I had not really engaged science in my work. So when I responded in a way that undermined your false assertion, you attacked me as someone who was "asserting [my] superior learning."

...you're tripped up on an anachronism?

I'm not tripped up by it at all. It is simply one of the textual clues that show us that these creation narratives are not intended to be interpreted in a literal, historical sense. I am pointing you to the text and you turned that into another attack.

Your assertions are old hat, and have been soundly refuted by believing scientists and OT scholars.

That's a big unsupported assertion that is simply false.

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.

You are correct. They know because we know that characteristics of human beings. So they would ask us why he said those things. I have explained those passages to children on several occasions.

A child, when confronted with strong evidence that seems contradictory to their understanding of scripture, knows that they have to either change the way they understand scripture or re-evaluate the evidence. Only foolish children refuse to change their thinking.

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.

The plow boy would immediately know the message of Genesis:

• God is the Creator of all things, including humankind
• God created humankind in His Own image so that human beings could reflect the character of God and reign over creation using God's authority and power
• Women are equal to men for the woman has come from the side of the man
• God has declared His creation good.

What he would not know is the specifics of the processes that God used to create everything, including human life.

Genesis was written for him, not for your friends.

You are woefully misusing the Tyndale anecdote. I doubt William Tyndale would claim that God wrote Genesis specifically for a 16th century plowboy. It was written in a style appropriate to the time of Moses with enormous relevance for humankind through all of the ages. When we interpret the scripture, we have to be careful not to read in our modern presuppositions and biases.

And you have made a great point that it was not written for modern scientists. That's why we shouldn't impose science or scientism onto the Genesis narratives.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Be specific. What was that cosmology?

It's actually several cosmologies:

• Enuma Elish
• Gilgamesh
• Atrahasis
• The Assur Bilingual Creation Story

Give an example.

While there are a lot of similar elements (the gods separating the heavens and earth, establishing the lights of the sky, setting the bounds of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, a counsel of the gods creating humans by mixing clay, etc.), the narratives of Genesis claim there is one God, and that God has created earth as a temple of worship, giving special honor to humankind to bear His image and reign upon the earth.

I could go on, but I suspect you really aren't interested. You are simply challenging me.

The big point is that the Genesis creation narratives, as well as much of the content going up to Genesis 11, is a repudiation of the pagan myths that were undoubtably quite familiar to the first readers/hearers of Genesis. Genesis 1-11 demonstrates that the God revealed to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses is the One True God.

 

[church mouse guy]

I doubt many theistic evolutionists would say that. Only a person who doesn't know what evolution is would claim that "God created the heavens and the earth" through evolution.

I believe you are confusing evolution with the formation of the universe (the Big Bang?) and the material realm.

Evolution is the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth. Evolution requires pre-existing matter and the conditions appropriate for life to grow and develop. It is not a theory of how the heavens and the earth were formed.

No wonder your response to what I wrote previously made no sense to me.


I am not challenging the perfection of scripture. I am only challenging the perfect of some interpretations of scripture -- and you are doing the same thing.


Because it is God's word to us. I could go into a lot of detail about how I know scripture is of God, but I think we would all agree on that.

What is interesting is that you and others always jump to the idea that everyone is on the end of losing their belief in scripture and in God Himself -- that if there is a bit of ambiguity or mystery, then one's faith will come crashing down like a house of cards.

I say to you and everyone else, if scripture is true and God is real, there is no danger in asking questions regarding our interpretations of scripture because we know we will find truth.

Technically, the idea of evolution comes from the Hindus through the Greeks and then brought to the forefront again during the Enlightenment, and big bang or deep time would be a part of evolution since evolution depends upon millions and millions and millions of years. So, no I am not confusing that, which I think is all one can of worms.

So Evolution, not a product of Jews or Christians but of materialists or naturalists contradicts Scripture on several points. So you say that you believe Genesis 1:1 and use that as proof that we didn't come from Mars, as Bill Nye the Science Guy says is a possibility (and Bill Nye the Science Guy believes in evolution), so the problem is debate within your camp. From my point of view, you believe science when it states that live evolved but otherwise you accept Genesis 1:1.

It is as Jesus said:

John 5:46-47 (KJV) For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

 

[Yeshua1]

I doubt many theistic evolutionists would say that. Only a person who doesn't know what evolution is would claim that "God created the heavens and the earth" through evolution.

I believe you are confusing evolution with the formation of the universe (the Big Bang?) and the material realm.

Evolution is the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth. Evolution requires pre-existing matter and the conditions appropriate for life to grow and develop. It is not a theory of how the heavens and the earth were formed.

No wonder your response to what I wrote previously made no sense to me.
Life itself could not come into existence apart from God creating it!
I am not challenging the perfection of scripture. I am only challenging the perfect of some interpretations of scripture -- and you are doing the same thing.


Because it is God's word to us. I could go into a lot of detail about how I know scripture is of God, but I think we would all agree on that.

What is interesting is that you and others always jump to the idea that everyone is on the end of losing their belief in scripture and in God Himself -- that if there is a bit of ambiguity or mystery, then one's faith will come crashing down like a house of cards.

I say to you and everyone else, if scripture is true and God is real, there is no danger in asking questions regarding our interpretations of scripture because we know we will find truth.

 

[Yeshua1]

I don't summarily dismiss anyone.

As you know, there are more geologists, astronomers, biologists, etc. who are not six-day creationists. I could easily make the same false accusation that you dismiss the majority opinion of the scientific field and insinuate that you are too close-minded to fairly consider their arguments. But I have no basis for that accusation and it would simply be a personal attack in the same fashion as you are waging on me. So let's set aside rhetorical swaggering and talk to each other like honorable men.


This is a stupid and baseless accusation.


Lots of true things are not dealt with in Genesis. The point of Genesis is not to talk about biological processes.


I did not assert "superior learning." You have made a baseless accusation that everyone in this thread (except for maybe you) got their views because we "read it somewhere" and we were not scientists. You asserted that I had not actually worked through the issues myself and that I had not really engaged science in my work. So when I responded in a way that undermined your false assertion, you attacked me as someone who was "asserting [my] superior learning."


I'm not tripped up by it at all. It is simply one of the textual clues that show us that these creation narratives are not intended to be interpreted in a literal, historical sense. I am pointing you to the text and you turned that into another attack.


That's a big unsupported assertion that is simply false.


You are correct. They know because we know that characteristics of human beings. So they would ask us why he said those things. I have explained those passages to children on several occasions.

A child, when confronted with strong evidence that seems contradictory to their understanding of scripture, knows that they have to either change the way they understand scripture or re-evaluate the evidence. Only foolish children refuse to change their thinking.


The plow boy would immediately know the message of Genesis:

• God is the Creator of all things, including humankind
• God created humankind in His Own image so that human beings could reflect the character of God and reign over creation using God's authority and power
• Women are equal to men for the woman has come from the side of the man
• God has declared His creation good.

What he would not know is the specifics of the processes that God used to create everything, including human life.


You are woefully misusing the Tyndale anecdote. I doubt William Tyndale would claim that God wrote Genesis specifically for a 16th century plowboy. It was written in a style appropriate to the time of Moses with enormous relevance for humankind through all of the ages. When we interpret the scripture, we have to be careful not to read in our modern presuppositions and biases.

And you have made a great point that it was not written for modern scientists. That's why we shouldn't impose science or scientism onto the Genesis narratives.

We shoukld read and accept genesis as being straightfoward historical account of Hod God created Universe and all life forms, and that Man was a soecial creation, and that God did not use any eloutionary process that was done to do species change!

 

[Yeshua1]

God created all things after their own kind, so why bring evolution into the mix at all?

 

[Baptist Believer]

Technically, the idea of evolution comes from the Hindus through the Greeks and then brought to the forefront again during the Enlightenment, and big bang or deep time would be a part of evolution since evolution depends upon millions and millions and millions of years. So, no I am not confusing that, which I think is all one can of worms.

No, evolution (at least, what I'm talking about) is the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth. It is dependent upon something or Someone bringing earth into existence. Therefore, evolution is something that comes after the Big Bang or whatever view of cosmology that one has.

So Evolution, not a product of Jews or Christians but of materialists or naturalists contradicts Scripture on several points.

Truth is not the exclusive domain of believers in God, nor is error the exclusive domain of those who do not know the God of Abraham.

So you say that you believe Genesis 1:1 and use that as proof that we didn't come from Mars...

Actually, I made no such claim. You have confused cosmology and evolution and have come to a false conclusion regarding my comments.

I agreed with you 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." In other words, if an atheist claims that there is no god on the basis of evolution, they are not taking into account the source of all of the material required for atheism... they are starting way too late along the timeline.

The existence of the universe points to the physical coming out of the spiritual, which points to a Designer/Creator existing in a plane of reality other than material/physical. Note, that does not prohibit the Designer/Creator from also inhabiting the material/physical realm.

In response to that, you threw out Bill Nye's idea that life could have come from Mars. That totally misses the point I was making. (Please note, Bill Nye is an engineer by training and an entertainer by profession.)

...as Bill Nye the Science Guy says is a possibility (and Bill Nye the Science Guy believes in evolution), so the problem is debate within your camp.

No, the problem is that people consider Bill Nye to be an authority. Moreover, you are operating with faulty definitions, so it is quite difficult to have a conversation with you since we cannot even agree on what words mean.

John 5:46-47 (KJV) For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

I believe both Jesus and Moses. Do you?

 

[Baptist Believer]

We shoukld read and accept genesis as being straightfoward historical account of Hod God created Universe and all life forms, and that Man was a soecial creation, and that God did not use any eloutionary process that was done to do species change!

Thank you for the announcement, Pope Yeshua1.

 

[Baptist Believer]

God created all things after their own kind, so why bring evolution into the mix at all?

Because of evidence from what we see and observe.

 

[Yeshua1]

What evidence of a species change exists?

 

[church mouse guy]

No, evolution (at least, what I'm talking about) is the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth. It is dependent upon something or Someone bringing earth into existence. Therefore, evolution is something that comes after the Big Bang or whatever view of cosmology that one has.


Truth is not the exclusive domain of believers in God, nor is error the exclusive domain of those who do not know the God of Abraham.


Actually, I made no such claim. You have confused cosmology and evolution and have come to a false conclusion regarding my comments.

I agreed with you 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." In other words, if an atheist claims that there is no god on the basis of evolution, they are not taking into account the source of all of the material required for atheism... they are starting way too late along the timeline.

The existence of the universe points to the physical coming out of the spiritual, which points to a Designer/Creator existing in a plane of reality other than material/physical. Note, that does not prohibit the Designer/Creator from also inhabiting the material/physical realm.

In response to that, you threw out Bill Nye's idea that life could have come from Mars. That totally misses the point I was making. (Please note, Bill Nye is an engineer by training and an entertainer by profession.)


No, the problem is that people consider Bill Nye to be an authority. Moreover, you are operating with faulty definitions, so it is quite difficult to have a conversation with you since we cannot even agree on what words mean.


I believe both Jesus and Moses. Do you?

Well, evolution does believe in deep time because Creationists say that the earth is six thousand years old, but evolutionists think that it is 4.5 billion or something like that and the universe is 14 or 15 billion years old so long periods of time belong to evolution, not creationism. You claimed that life did not come from Mars for obvious reasons. But how do you prove that Bill Nye the Science Guy is wrong when he says that Mars populated earth?

Evolution has always been the theory of atheists from Hinduism to the Greeks to the Enlightenment to Darwin--it has been an attempt to explain creation without God and has been the province of naturalists or materialists so I don't know what you are talking about on that point. If you believe in evolution, you contradict Genesis and do not believe what Moses wrote. It is that simple.

 

[Yeshua1]

Well, evolution does believe in deep time because Creationists say that the earth is six thousand years old, but evolutionists think that it is 4.5 billion or something like that and the universe is 14 or 15 billion years old so long periods of time belong to evolution, not creationism. You claimed that life did not come from Mars for obvious reasons. But how do you prove that Bill Nye the Science Guy is wrong when he says that Mars populated earth?

Evolution has always been the theory of atheists from Hinduism to the Greeks to the Enlightenment to Darwin--it has been an attempt to explain creation without God and has been the province of naturalists or materialists so I don't know what you are talking about on that point. If you believe in evolution, you contradict Genesis and do not believe what Moses wrote. It is that simple.

Theistic Evolution basically wants to keep the "evolutionary process" as being factual, and so will use the scriptures in any fashion to make them seem to prove their point!

 

[Baptist Believer]

What evidence of a species change exists?

Evidence can be found in the DNA of animals and people, not to mention evidence in the fossil record. I've given you a reference for you to check out if you actually want to know, but you have consistently shown no signs of wanting to fairly consider other views. You simply go read a negative review of the references somewhere and pretend you have studied.

If you want to know more about this issue (as I have written, repeatedly), Adam and the Genome is a great place to start.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Well, evolution does believe in deep time because Creationists say that the earth is six thousand years old, but evolutionists think that it is 4.5 billion or something like that and the universe is 14 or 15 billion years old so long periods of time belong to evolution, not creationism.

Nope.

Creationists believe a variety of things about the age of the earth and the universe, and date the formation of the earth from only 6,000 years or so, all the way to billions of years.

Remember, theistic evolutions are creationists too. They believe that God created all things -- that's our cosmology. To pretend otherwise is denying reality.

You claimed that life did not come from Mars for obvious reasons.

Again, I made no such claim. I'm not sure why you can't/won't get that through your head.

But how do you prove that Bill Nye the Science Guy is wrong when he says that Mars populated earth?

How do I prove that the street guy I spoke to this afternoon wasn't from Mars? How can I prove that YOU are not from Mars? I can't. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. I don't take Bill Nye as any sort of authority. Why do you?

Evolution has always been the theory of atheists from Hinduism to the Greeks to the Enlightenment to Darwin--it has been an attempt to explain creation without God and has been the province of naturalists or materialists so I don't know what you are talking about on that point.

It's clear that you don't understand much that I have been writing... You are confusing atheistic evolution with theistic evolution. (Theistic evolutionists believe God did it.) You are also conflating cosmologies like the Big Bang with evolution. Just because they are associated in the lyrics to the BIg Bang Theory theme song doesn't mean that they are the same thing.

If you believe in evolution, you contradict Genesis and do not believe what Moses wrote. It is that simple.

Nope. You are absolutely wrong about that. It's that simple.

 

[church mouse guy]

Nope.

Creationists believe a variety of things about the age of the earth and the universe, and date the formation of the earth from only 6,000 years or so, all the way to billions of years.

Remember, theistic evolutions are creationists too. They believe that God created all things -- that's our cosmology. To pretend otherwise is denying reality.


Again, I made no such claim. I'm not sure why you can't/won't get that through your head.


How do I prove that the street guy I spoke to this afternoon wasn't from Mars? How can I prove that YOU are not from Mars? I can't. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. I don't take Bill Nye as any sort of authority. Why do you?


It's clear that you don't understand much that I have been writing... You are confusing atheistic evolution with theistic evolution. (Theistic evolutionists believe God did it.) You are also conflating cosmologies like the Big Bang with evolution. Just because they are associated in the lyrics to the BIg Bang Theory theme song doesn't mean that they are the same thing.


Nope. You are absolutely wrong about that. It's that simple.

I was talking about young earth creationists (YECs), which you are not, when I mentioned six thousand years. I agree that atheists and old earthers have all kinds of figures for the age of the earth but mostly it is millions and millions and millions of years.

How do you prove that God created the earth? If you are going to quote Scripture as proof, then you have to explain why you don't believe Scripture in other places about Creation but believe Darwin, or more exactly, why should people believe you?

If you look back over your posts you will read that you said that life did not come from Mars for obvious reasons. The reason that you can't disprove Bill Nye on Mars is that you do not think that Genesis is literal. And because you do not think that Genesis is literal, you reject Young Earth Creationism.