Posts Tagged ‘Creation’

First Bruce, now Tim? When theory becomes “fact” and pomegranates become permanence

I had written a brief post drawing attention to OT scholar Bruce Waltke being a theistic evolutionist. You can see it here. I’ll admit that I was only fairly familiar with Waltke, as I had used his work as one of many resources through the years – his writings in Old Testament commentary and the like. Now it seems there is one who is WAY MORE FAMILIAR on the neo-darwinian band wagon – Tim Keller, Senior Pastor at Redeemer Presbyterian in New York and co-founder and Vice President of the Gospel Coalition. Having done work with Biologos earlier this year, Keller is now making what is at odds for many, compatible. The attempt to make compatible science and religion is sticky enough for some, but only exacerbated when the science is bad and the religion is singular truth.

Neo-Darwinian macro-evolution has never left the theory/hypothesis stage of the scientific method – no matter which one you use. The missing links are still missing. The idea of species to species change cannot be tracked by the fossil record, any science before the first chapter of the modern era, or the current presence of species in the modern era. Certainly, many on both sides have gone too far by mixing tertiary issues with primary issues, but at the end of the day, God made each according to their kind. I’m not trying to be daft here and just speak oversimplistically, but it is not that complicated.

For all who would argue for theistic evolution, or any kind of macro-evolution, I would ask, have you read Origin of Species, by Darwin? If yes, did you catch the phrase,

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”

Scientists like Michael Behe have clearly shown this to have occurred, and thus the theory has absolutely broken down.

If no, you should read it before believing.

I would also recommend Ray Comfort’s intro to the 150th Anniversary of OoS. You can get it here – very enlightening.

I do not mean to just be a lightning rod here, but I liken this subject to a conversation that I have with my 3-year-old babygirl from time to time. She will see an episode of Doc McStffins or Pinky-Dinky-Doo and then soon have a conversation with me about content of the episode, as if it were her story. She has the keen ability to appropriate imaginary situations into her life as her own. Her imagination burns with power as she delights in the fantastical. The conversation usually reaches the point, though, where I have to say, “Honey . . . well, that is just a cartoon. It’s not real.” She understands and we move on, to dance like ballerinas or sing silly songs.

The facts of Neo-Darwinian Evolution is that the facts do not lead to the proof of said theory. We keep trying to be noble and reconcile the biblical text to something that is not real, so that we can make an attempt at some sort of peace or intellectual prowess. In actuality, many of those types that Keller admits that he has to trust because of their expertise have realized this. One such group would we the Dissent from Darwin group. This is a group comprised of hundreds of scientists, religious and non-religious alike, who are taking a stand against the claims their most basic contribution to the discussion, as described in their mission statement, of sorts:

“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural
selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the
evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

More specifically, we might read some of the personal statements, like:

“Life as revealed by new technologies is more complicated than the Darwinian viewpoint anticipated. Thus evolutionary theory, which was considered to be a key foundation of biology in 1959, today has a more peripheral role. Modern science makes it possible to be a scientifically informed doubter of Darwinian theories of evolution.”

Dr. Roland Hirsch, Ph.D. Chemistry

“Darwinism was an interesting idea in the 19th century, when handwaving explanations gave a plausible, if not properly scientific, framework into which we could fit biological facts. However, what we have learned since the days of Darwin throws doubt on natural selection’s ability to create complex biological systems – and we still have little more than handwaving as an argument in its favour.”

Professor Colin Reeves, Dept of Mathematical Sciences Coventry University

“Darwinian evolution — whatever its other virtues — does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology.”

Dr. Philip S. Skell, Member National Academy of Sciences, Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University

and finally,

“The ideology and philosophy of neo-Darwinism which is sold by its adepts as a scientific theoretical foundation of biology seriously hampers the development of science and hides from students the field’s real problems.”

Dr. Vladimir L. Voeikov, Professor of Bioorganic, Moscow State University; member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences

The mirror that our Enlightenment forefathers looked through was even dimmer than the one we use now – and that mirror was/is merely physical. We need another image, another Father, another Light. () I am saddened by this move by Keller and others like him. I am saddened for him and all others who finally make the connection that their supposed God has supposedly brought about life through immeasurable waste, as organisms are forming and failing through billion-year processes of micro-change, producing unsustainable life over and over and over again until all the pieces are finally in place – and then it starts all over again; that He would make the harbingers of this truth primarily be comprised of those who oppose Him – the neo-Dawinists- not the Scripture, not the People who are called by His name; that their supposed God would place them in the ethical conundrum of needing to be consistent to the mechanistic model of neo-Darwinism and thus see men like Hitler as the goal – he sought to purify the race, by conquering and surviving, because he was the fittest – all, just part of the process.

I am afraid that this method of thinking is likened much unto Persephone and her pomegranate seed: when we take from a lower world, we will be doomed to live there with true life a world away.

Post to Twitter

105 Your word is a lamp to my feet
and a light to my path. (ESV)

CCS SysTheo Slides on intro to Theology Proper

If you were asked, “Who is God?” . . . where would you begin?

Creator, Sovereign and Judge

Post to Twitter

Lord of all Creation – that means you and me

Systematic Theology must be lived theology – theology of worship!

Post to Twitter

Divine Intervention: Lecrae starts with Creation . . . good place to start.

This is for a special “fun day” in my Systematic Theology Class. Thanks for the recommendation, Hannah!

Post to Twitter

Wow! Bruce Waltke and theistic Evolution

Bruce Waltke, the recently resigned prof from Reformed Theological Seminary – now at Knox Theological Seminary – does some fancy soft-shoeing after being recorded and posted in his views FOR theistic Evolution. Look here for a closer primary source on this issue and here for Justin Taylor’s much-more-expanded-than-mine blog.

Post to Twitter

Error: Twitter did not respond. Please wait a few minutes and refresh this page.