Kenneth Miller: Respected Christian Champion of Evolution

Yes I realize that but, whether you realize it or not, you are making false accusations with the way you attempt to pit “creationists” against theistic evolutionists. Both groups are creationists, they just disagree about the method and timing.

There is a philosophical argument that can be given based on simple reason and observation, but the simplist way to do it is to point to Genesis 1:1. Most people - even irreligious people - don’t find that hard to believe.

This is simply a lie.

I believe scripture and I assume you do as well. We simply interpret some passages differently. If I accused you of “not believing scripture” simply because you interpret scripture differently than me, you would be rightly irritated. I am irritated, but it is tempered by my assumption that you are simply repeating the lies told in YEC circles and don’t intend it as a personal attack.

I’m not terribly concerned about people believing me. I want people to believe Jesus, believe Moses, believe the scriptures properly, and believe good science. There is no conflict.

In the popular mind, belief in evolution somehow eliminates the need for a Creator. This fuzzy thinking takes for granted that there is a material cosmos, an earth, and the primordial conditions required for evolution to happen. But there is no material reality itself unless it is brought into existence. I could go through the lengthy philosophical argument with you, and I’m sure you would agree, so let’s just put forth the assertion that the material must have come into being from another realm - what we would call the spiritual realm. So based simply on the fact that the material realm exists at all, we know there is a Creator. So all atheistic philosophies are thereby disproven.

Back in the post you referenced, you took issue with my assertion that atheistic evolution completely fails because it cannot explain the existence of the elements required for evolution. To put it another way, one cannot make a cake unless the ingredients exist.

In this context, you dragged Bill Nye into the conversation with his idea that life on earth may have come from Mars, thereby giving credence to atheistic evolution.

Of course, the response to that is obvious... simply moving the origin of life (or its primordial elements) to another location in the material universe does not solve their problem. Their problem is that Earth, Mars, Pluto, and the Sun EXIST AT ALL!

Therefore, I took no position on whether or not life originated on Mars because it is simply irrelevant.

As I have already pointed out, Bill Nye’s argument is irrelevant. It is wishful thinking. I have easily disproved it.

Regarding Genesis 1-2 not being literal, that became obvious to me when I was working through those passage in Hebrew years ago. I had not formed an opinion about the means of creation back then, although I actually leaned toward YEC with “apparent age” being the reason why things looked much older.

Through my study of the literary clues provided in Genesis 1-2, I realized that the passages didn’t address the process or timing of creation at all. They were not intended to and imposing that expectation on the texts undermined the true purpose of the narratives - to refute the pagan myths and introduce the God of Moses as the singular Creator of the heavens and the earth.

My final shift to theistic evolution occurred last year in my study of the human genome.

I reject YEC because it does not properly fit the facts of scripture or science. Moreover, YEC is often used as a litmus test of “believing God” or not. It interferes with the work of evangelization and often becomes a substitute for real faith in God among its most zealous adherents.

 

Oh, I don't pay attention to old earth people anymore. You are the overwhelming majority so you are not victims of anything. Evolution and Genesis disagree on many points. For example, plants were created on the third day but the sun was not created until the fourth day. If you believe that the days were millions of years old, then the plants would die before they got any sunshine but if they just went overnight without sun, no problem.

As a YEC, I think that there is a difference between believing the Scripture literally when possible and believing them properly, as you suggest, presumably to accommodate Darwin. Darwin has the same process as you, but it is true that Darwin was an atheist so he probably believes in chance as the cause of life. Your opinion of YEC makes me laugh, because that is what YECs say about old earth--that they have no answers. As for the human genome project, it refutes Darwin because the RNA and DNA are not trending upward but acquiring more and more errors. YEC is not a litmus test, as you charge, because it has nothing to do with Salvation, and I don't know of a YEC who believes what you charge. Until 1850, when the last of the older British and American preachers who rejected Darwin, passed away, the Church believed in a young earth. There was about a hundred years until the modern YECs came into being with the publishing of the book The Genesis Flood by Henry Morris and John C. Whitcomb in 1961. Dr. Whitcomb still lives in Indianapolis and very recently attended a book-signing at the Ark Encounter in Williamstown, Kentucky, south of Cincinnati, Ohio.

Dr. John Whitcomb

Human genome decay and origin of life - creation.com

 

Ya, right I guess besides being irredeemable deplorables some of us are dishonest (by implication) and close minded (also by implication) and devoid of intellect.

Thanks.

 

No one has claimed to be a victim.

They weren't meant to address the same issues, so we shouldn't expect them to correlate. I don't expect the Bible and my math book to have much correlation either.

I don't believe anything so foolish. The day/age theory doesn't take the scripture seriously.

I don't think I've mentioned Darwin once on Baptist Board. I don't worry about Darwin when studying the scriptures.

I don't understand how this is relevant to our discussion at all.

Glad you got a chuckle.

Again, Darwin is irrelevant to our conversation.

I'm glad you don't, because I know plenty. They usually say things like, "If you don't believe what God said in the beginning of the Bible, then there is no way you can believe Jesus and trust Him to save you from your sins." In this thread and other similar ones, a milder version of it gets thrown around, claiming that theistic evolutionists don't "believe Moses" or Jesus or the scripture. You have done that yourself.

The majority of Christendom has believed a lot of false things, including infant baptism. So you are really making much of a point. Moreover, I'm not so sure that what you allege is actually true. Do you have evidence of that?

Yes, I was around for the early years of The Genesis Flood and other works. It became really popular at my home church in the early 1970s and was turned into a litmus test for a number of people. Those who didn't believe the premise were branded as persons who "don't believe the Bible." It was one of several influences that pushed my brother into atheism since, he was told, one cannot do science that does not support the YEC premise and be a Christian.

 

Darwin is another word for evolution. The human genome project does not say what you think as I have linked. Nor does Miller's claim about DNA stand up to modern science. Science confirms Scripture. Actually, evolution is devoid of scientific confirmation.

 

Perhaps in the lingo of the YEC community that is true, but for the rest of us, Charles Darwin is a person with a specific set of theories. Modern evolutionary theory is something else.

Your link does not relate to the evidence of the human genome that I studied in the book, Adam and the Genome. Moreover, it seems written to destroy this stated premise:

The foolishness of the claims made for these results—that they help us to understand how life could have arisen by chance—is illustrated in figure 3.​

I do not believe that life originated by chance, or that it is maintained by chance. I am a theistic evolutionist, not an atheistic evolutionist!

If you can't understand that, I'm not sure how we can have a conversation about the subject.

I haven't watched the Miller video in the OP, nor am I familiar with his assertions. My views have not been shaped by him.

I am not "Deadworm" nor supportive of "Deadworm."

Let me fix your statements:

Science and scripture are both true.

Atheistic evolution is false.

 

Yes, I got the point that you believe in theistic evolution and old earth--you are like Norman Geisler and many, many others--perhaps a 99 44/100s % majority of today's theologians.

Well, I would be interested to hear how modern evolution is different from Darwin. Do you believe in Uniformitarianism? Is it correct to say that you don't believe that Adam and Eve were the first people?

If I understand the blurb about the genome book that you linked correctly, does that mean that you would disagree with this statement?

Finally, geneticists have found evidence for Eve in mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA). We inherit this kind of genetic code from our mothers, and it accumulates mutations like nuclear DNA does. Every person tested so far has one of three fundamental lineages, or versions, of mtDNA: M, N, or R.6 The wives of Noah’s three sons explain this intriguing detail of modern human genetics. Genesis 10:32 says, “These were the families of the sons of Noah, according to their generations, in their nations; and from these the nations were divided on the earth after the flood.” Geneticists worked out the equivalent of Eve’s mtDNA sequence by subtracting all the mutations that have occurred since its creation.7

Does Modern Genetics Confirm a Historical Adam?

 

I don’t think the percentage is as high as Ivory Soap is pure. However, I’m sure it is fairly high among professional theologians.

Simple. Darwin is a person who lived in the 19th century and was an innovator in 19th century science. Modern evolution is a scientific theory that takes into account all that were currently know and it not limited to 19th century science.

Added to that, Alfred Russel Wallace, a contemporary of Charles Darwin, independently conceived of the theory of evolution during the same era. His proposal of the theory to Charles Darwin prompted Darwin to publish his own ideas in On the Origin of the Species. This is evidence that evolution was based on careful science based on observable data.

Uniformitarianism - the theory that changes in the earth's crust during geological history have resulted from the action of continuous and uniform processes.

In general, I agree with uniformitarianism since it is the central presumption of all scientific inquiry. Philosophically, it comes from Christian thinking that a Creator God who created and ordered all things, and a God who acts consistently, according to His character. However, there is no scientific way to prove it, but if one believes in a Creator that is not capricious, then exceptions to uniformitarianism will be rare.

At the same time, we have to leave room for the actions of God in history and in human origins.

So yes, I believe in uniformitarianism for theological reasons. However, I also recognize that direct actions of God (aka “miracles”) are exceptions to uniformitarianism.

No, that is not correct. I believe Adam and Eve are archetypes of humankind in the creation and fall narratives of Genesis. Therefore “Adam and Eve” represent the first people (a community) created in the image of God.

There are a couple of assertions in that statement, so I’ll break it down:

Genetic evidence points to an ancient woman, who lived 120,000 to 156,000 years ago that has been dubbed “Mitochondrial Eve.” She is the most recent common ancestor of all currently living humans. However, that does not mean she is the first woman who lived, nor does that mean she was made in the image of God. By the same token, there is a “Y-chromosomal Adam,” the individual from whom all living persons are patrilineally descended. They are uncertain about how long ago this individual lived, but it could be any time between 180,000 to 580,000 years ago. Moreover, there is no evidence that this man and woman lived at the same time.

That’s an oversimplification of the science. Moreover, those mitochondrial lines go back more than 120,000 years, not 6,000.

 

NO fossil record supports a definite species change, as there is indded evolution with species, but none ever seen or evidenced supporting species change itself! Name one!

 

Would you hold to the fact of a Univerasal, worls wide flood?

 

Were the firsdt humans direct creation of God, or were they caused by the evolutionary process?
Jesus and paul referred toa single Adam and the scriptures call Eve the Mother of all huamns, not a group of Eves, correct?

 

Just seems that his mind is so foxed on scirnce oiverriding the Genesis account, that no evidence will suffice!

 

False, but you don't care enough to look at the evidence. We've been through this a couple of times. My views on evolution are not based on the fossil record, but on the human genome.

I don't have a strong opinion on that. Do you hold to the fact of human evolution?

We've talked about this before. You didn't like my response and now you are asking again. I'm not going to play that game with you any more since you really are not interested in my perspective, only in pretending to be open-minded.

Go back and read everything I have written in our previous conversations. I'm not going to waste time repeating myself endlessly.

And here's more of the false criticism. I believe you are the one who is fixated on misrepresenting the Genesis narratives and you don't even have the courage to read a book of evidence and think for yourself.

 

You now admit no fossil evidence for species change, so where has that ever happened?
I would agree in evolution in the sense within the species, as in the original Adam and Eve had children, and over time migrated out, as after tower of babel, and then amnkind developed darker skin tone, taller race, brown/black/oriental/Caucasian, but ALL still remained human!

 

The scriptrures stated world wide flood, right , and just Noah and his family survived?

 

I am from the quiet generation, people born during the Great Depression or during World War II, and no one in my family believed in evolution, which was not discussed much before Sputnik in 1957, when a resurgence in the teach of mathematics and science began. I remember one professor saying that many of them were against evolution in private but that one could not say anything in public for fear of losing the job. People used to say that Darwin converted to Christianity on his deathbed, but hat is not true. Evolution has always had scientific problems.

When I got to the Creation Museum and the Ark Encounter in northern Kentucky (God Bless Kentucky), I found that the emphasis was on science and where there was artistic license, a sign would say so.

Answers in Genesis is a think tank. They have provided many free videos on their website on a wide variety of Genesis topics:

Video

 

That's the story.

Why is that a question? Haven't you read it for yourself?

 

Not so sure about that. My father learned about it in high school science before WWII, around 1941, and then earned a B.S. in Biology a few years after the war (I think, 1949) where evolutionary theory was the norm.

 

Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

I just said that my views are not based on the fossil evidence. I didn't say that there wasn't evidence. If you look at the stratification of fossils, you will see that animals generally progressed from less complexity to more complexity. I'm not going to play the "provide the missing link" game because the standard of evidence that you would require would be unreasonable.

When God decided to make it happen.

I'm a theistic evolutionist, remember?

 

I am from rural Indiana, which was Bible Belt in those days.