A biblical and scientific Adam

[Revmitchell]

A challenge to evangelicals who have backed away from an historic Adam, using a theologically informed look at ape ancestry genetic claims

As the battle between Darwinism and the Bible rages, some evangelicals have backed away from maintaining that Adam and Eve were real, historical individuals created in the way Genesis 2 relates:

“… the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature. … So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.”

In a just-published article from the Westminster Theological Journal, Westminster Theological Seminary professor Vern Poythress brilliantly explains why such a surrender is wrong biblically and scientifically. Poythress, with both a Th.D. and a Harvard Ph.D. in mathematics, is well-positioned to write about both theology and evolutionary theory. He has published 13 books, including Redeeming Science and Redeeming Sociology, and numerous scholarly articles. We post this new one with the author’s and WTJ’s permission. —Marvin Olasky

http://www.worldmag.com/2013/05/a_biblical_and_scientific_adam

 

[Revmitchell]

A very good read, 8 pages long.

 

[gb93433]

Any time someone talks about science as factual they must realize that science is always changing. Does that really make science factual?

 

[Revmitchell]

Any time someone talks about science as factual they must realize that science is always changing. Does that really make science factual?

Actually it shows its unreliabilty. Good thing God's word stand true and never changing no matter what science thinks it knows. But in the end changing science is a result of a week framework which is darwinism.

 

[gb93433]

Actually it shows its unreliabilty. Good thing God's word stand true and never changing no matter what science thinks it knows. But in the end changing science is a result of a week framework which is darwinism.

Recently I heard a mathematician speak and he said that math is the only true science. Anytime something changes it is held captive to the current thought or idea for the moment.

 

[Aaron]

From the article:

The important feature here is that within the mainstream of modern culture Darwinism is not seen as religious, but merely “neutral” and “scientific.” Why? Because the religious assumptions have already been incorporated into the “scientific” theory in the form of underlying assumptions about lack of purpose and gradualism. We are simply told that “this is how science is done.”

Because of the cultural prestige of science and scientists, many people simply accept the present state of things as if it were the only possibility. But once we question the underlying assumptions, it becomes clear that there are other possible ways of construing the meaning of science: Science studies the regularities of God’s providential rule, and can do so without making assumptions that ban the idea of divine purposes or ban God’s exceptional acts.
​

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Actually it shows its unreliabilty. Good thing God's word stand true and never changing no matter what science thinks it knows. But in the end changing science is a result of a week framework which is darwinism.

To the contrary, science's greatest strength is that it is self-correcting. When new evidence passes peer review and falsifies a previously accepted explanation, the models are updated to take the new information into account, then tested again. Fundamentalist religion, on the other hand, holds fast to disproven explanations even in light of new evidence; hanging on to demonstrably false interpretations of holy books.

 

[sag38]

I look at the world through the lens of the Bible interpreting what is seen based on a Biblical perspective. No wonder my world view and that of science collide. Guess we will see who is right when we stand before God in glory.

 

[Aaron]

To the contrary, science's greatest strength is that it is self-correcting. When new evidence passes peer review and falsifies a previously accepted explanation, the models are updated to take the new information into account, then tested again. Fundamentalist religion, on the other hand, holds fast to disproven explanations even in light of new evidence; hanging on to demonstrably false interpretations of holy books.

Blah blah blah. Did you read the article?

 

[gb93433]

To the contrary, science's greatest strength is that it is self-correcting. When new evidence passes peer review and falsifies a previously accepted explanation, the models are updated to take the new information into account, then tested again.

You have proven the point that science is always changing. Truth never changes and can always be tested again and again and never fails.

Science is not always self correcting because it is not perfect. It is only as good as what can be measured. If you have done doctoral research work and verified it using statistics you will find that science is only verifiable to less than 100%. It os limited by the ability to measure Psychology is considered science and every time you will get different results.

I have been involved in peer review and wrote an article a few years ago where the reviewers were not smart enough in the field to follow what I did. I have seen other articles published that were nothing short of trash.

 

[Revmitchell]

To the contrary, science's greatest strength is that it is self-correcting. When new evidence passes peer review and falsifies a previously accepted explanation, the models are updated to take the new information into account, then tested again. Fundamentalist religion, on the other hand, holds fast to disproven explanations even in light of new evidence; hanging on to demonstrably false interpretations of holy books.

Actually science is always changing because it is seen through the lens of Darwinism and once their hypothesis fails they need to back up and try a different tack since the premise of their "science" is false.

 

[gb93433]

To state that something is self-correcting is to assume it wavers from the truth and is in need of correction. The truth is the standard and it never needs correction.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

To the contrary, science's greatest strength is that it is self-correcting

LOL. Biggest cop-out ever. Now you don't have to worry if a scientific theory is true or not, because in time it will correct it'self.....

Scripture needs no correcting. Praise God for that, eh ?