Jan 18 2008
I added a new poll in the sidebar that addresses creation, evolution, and origins of life. If you need to define terms, mouse over the following: Young Earth Creation, Old Earth Gap Theory, Old Earth Progressive/Day-Age Creation, Theistic Evolution, Non-Theistic Evolution.
(HT: Michael Patton at Reclaiming the Mind and Vance McAllister at Submerging Influence)
Jan 15 2008
Michael Patton at Reclaiming the Mind channels Vance McAllister at Submerging Influence regarding the way we look at the Creation account. This is one of those divisive themes that periodically splits believers, each accusing the other of misinterpreting the text.
I would also recommend RubeRad’s post on the topic at Blogorrhea if you’re interested in the discussion.
Vance’s view is that there exists a continuum of belief regarding creation and origins of life of earth. He proposes eight positions. Generally speaking, the list runs from an extreme literalist view of the Creation account to an extreme allegorical view, and from a extreme negative view of the authority of science to extreme positive view.
Where do you fit? Is this an accurate description of the positions?
Vance presents them in this order:
1. Flat-earthers - believe that a plain reading of Scripture indicates that the earth is flat. Very few still hold onto this belief.
2. Geocentrists - believe that the sun and all the stars literally revolve around a fixed and unmoving earth. Still a surprising number of these around, although it suffered a major setback after the late 60’s. They have a plethora of Scripture and theological bases to argue from, however, and insist that a literal reading of Scriptures requires geocentrism.
3. Young Earth Creationists - believe that the earth and universe are both young (less than 10,000 years old) and that all the diversity of species is the result of special creation, based on a literal reading of Scripture (even if not AS literal as those above).
4. Gap Theorists (a form of Old Earth Creationism) - Believe that the earth and universe were created at the time science says, but that God created Man and all the animals at the “young earth” time frame (with a huge “gap” in between. Some believe this is a “re-creation”, God having scrapped an earlier version (dinosaurs, etc).
5. Progressive Creationists (aka “Day-Age Creationists”, another form of OEC)- Believe that the earth and universe were created at the time science says, but that each “day” in Genesis referred to an indefinite period of time. Genesis is an historically and scientifically literal account (using that alternate form of the word “day”), just that it happened over a VERY long time period.
6. Theistic Evolutionists (with a literal Adam and Eve) - believe in an old earth and universe, and accept that God used evolution as part of His creation, basically as science describes it. But they feel that there was a literal Adam and Eve in a literal Garden. Some attribute this Adam and Eve to an instance of special creation, others to election as “representatives”, etc. Also believe in biogenesis, not abiogenesis.
7. Theistic Evolutionists (no literal Adam and Eve, but biogenesis) - believe that Man evolved along with the other species (pursuant to God’s plan), but that the initial spark of life was immediately God induced. Some even push this forward to some mass special creation of a variety of “kinds” around the Cambrian period, with all the species evolving from there.
8. Theistic Evolutionists (abiogenesis) - God created everything and established the full system of natural laws upon with the universe and the earth would work. And it did work, entirely naturally, as God intended. With life arising at the time and place He had known it would, etc. So, here the “abiogenesis” would not mean that life arose without God, only that God built how life would first arise right into the “program”. This is not “deism”, however, since it says nothing at all about God interacting with and even directly intervening in His creation at any point in time (such as a particular event 2000 years ago, for example).
May 07 2007
“We were at the beach
Everybody had matching towels
Somebody went under a dock
And there they saw a rock
It wasn’t a rock
It was a rock lobster” (B-52’s, Rock Lobster)
National Geographic posts this about the dating of a lobster fossil. I’m thinking that the evolutionists have some ’splainin’ to do.
May 3, 2007 - It’s definitely too late for the melted butter.
This fossil crustacean found in Mexico’s Chiapas state in 1995 has now been confirmed as the world’s oldest lobster, according to scientists at the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM).
The ancient animal has been dated at 110 million years old-about 20 million years older than previously known specimens-UNAM scientists announced in a press release on Monday.
“This lobster that we found in Chiapas belongs to the genus that is in Africa today,” UNAM geologist Francisco Javier Vega Vera told the Reuters news service. This isn’t a surprise, because at that time … Africa and America were relatively close.” The two continents are believed to have started splitting apart about 120 million years ago.
The juvenile fossil lobster, dubbed Palinurus palaceosi, was among the remains of several ancient fish and crustaceans found in a quarry in the tiny town of El Espinal. Vera says the region could be where the evolution of modern lobsters began.
“The important message that we can give is that the evolution of these groups of crustaceans needs to be reviewed, since the specialists of the world thought that it started much later,” Vera said in the UNAM press release.
“We could call them living fossils, since they have had a consistent morphologic pattern throughout many millions of years.”
Why hasn’t this guy (or the cockroach or the ceolocanth) evolved? I don’t have a problem with dating this critter to 110 million years ago, but what’s he been doing since then? The evolution theory says that things will evolve over time to a more perfect form. So where is the highly evolved lobster civilization today?
(Answer? On my plate!)
Sep 04 2006
In yet another denial of personal responsibility the 10th International Congress on Obesity in Sydney was told that evolution was to blame for fatness.
SYDNEY (Reuters) - Evolution and the environment, not just gluttony, has led to a global obesity pandemic, with an estimated 1.5 billion people overweight — more than the number of undernourished people — an obesity conference was told on Monday.
“It is a disease with disastrous health, social and economic consequences,” Zimmet told the conference.
Steinbeck said fighting obesity was not simply a matter of people eating less and exercising more, but discovering environmental and genetic contributors to obesity.
“We know this is not about gluttony — it is the interaction of heredity and environment,” said Steinbeck.
Can you follow the thread here? It’s not about being responsible for what you cram into your mouth, it’s about a “deadly disease”, which is, after all, just a result of of our evolution. It doesn’t matter that you choose to pound down a double cheeseburger, large fries and a Diet Coke for lunch.
Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28 detail a list of curses and blessings that will result from following or not following God’s leading. The list is pretty extensive and Israel learned - to her dismay and sorrow - that God was serious. Later prophets (Isaiah and Micah, to name but two) brought it back to the nation’s mind prior to the Assyrian and Babylonian captivity. The key distinctive of the nation of Israel was always their covenant relationship with God, yet they turned their back on Him, becoming no better than the heathen nations around them. Enter the curses and away they go into captivity.
So what’s that have to do with cheeseburgers? Actions have consequences. There are certainly physical manifestations and consequences of obesity, but the root cause isn’t our evolutionary bent or even the sin of gluttony — it’s our own unwillingness to take responsibility for our actions. It was the same for Adam; it was the same for Israel; it’s the same for you and me.
