Bob Ryan has been talking about Darwin's own loss of Christian religious faith, so I thought I'd look into it. Here is an account from a Christian source that I nonetheless think is fairly balanced: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/darwin.html

I'd like to make two points about this:

1. Darwin did not start out as a convinced atheist and create his theory with the express goal of attacking Christianity or the credibility of the Bible. Quite the reverse - he was a very devout Christian during his voyage on the Beagle and as he was doing much of his work. He was forced to his conclusions by the evidence he saw, not by any animus toward Christianity. He arrived at his conclusions reluctantly.

2. It's speculative, of course, but I wonder whether, if Christians had been more flexible in their approach and more willing to look at the evidence, Darwin might have been able to retain his Christian belief. I get the sense that he was subjected to the same (I believe false) dichotomoy that is so regularly put to me here: if you reject literal 6 day, 6000 year ago creation, you must reject Christianity. I reject that: pity Darwin couldn't.

It is more than a little coincidental that Darwin's discovery of the gap and the irreconcilable nature of it -- also matches the testimony of other more modern former-Christians ... like Dawkins.

It is instructive that there are quad-zillions of Christians trying to buy into darwinism and the Bible "at the same time" so these guys listed above were not "losing it" because they did not see those guys -- it is because that conflicted position simply makes no sense.

Just as Darwin discovered after trying it for a few years.

in Christ,

Bob

1. 'Darwinism' might be a convenient slam phrase, but it's not a particularly good description of modern evolutionary theory, which although it owes a lot to Darwin has also undergone significant evolution (heh) of its own. It's probably more communicative to talk about 'evolution' than 'Darwinism'.

2. The conflict, as I have repeatedly made the point here, is not between evolution and the Bible, but between the attempt to understand the empirical evidence in the world around us and one particular *interpretation* of the Bible. The position that says 'My way of interpreting the Bible is the only possible way, and disagreeing with me is disagreeing with the Bible' is unfortunate but ubiquitous. (I like Shane's more humble approach.)

3. I do not at any point rule out a miraculous creation by God. he has the power, and can do it. The position being described by Bob and others here is very odd and internally inconsistent, however. The pounding insistence on SIX DAYS of creation is contradicted by the possibility of an extra burst of creation at the Fall and at the Flood, mysteriously not mentioned in the Bible.

It would be nice to believe it's as simple as a clear, unitary Biblical creation story and a simple, unitary and atheistic 'Darwinism'. But it's just not that simple.

I could call it "neo-Darwinism" if that helps - but I think the readers already get the point.

Another note - in Patterson's comments he uses the term "evolutionism".




As Dawkins points out - the naturalist POV is distinctly the atheist point of view -- it's goal is to drive the god-element out of the equation. This becomes even more apparent in their opposition to ID science purely on the grounds that it can not be bent to atheism.

As the Bible points out - the TEXT of scripture argues for the CREATOR creating all life on earth - as is and we can now argue that from a DNA POV - making each "kind" distinct.

Your statement above presupposes that exegesis does not exist for interpreting scripture -- that there is only eisegesis (inserting into the text whatever pleases your a priori bias) and then you go on to argue that the goal is simply to pick one of the infinite number of eisegetical solutions that are possible - to get the one that is least objectionable to Darwinism and to Christians.

Sort of the ultimate compromise with assuming the "plasticity" of scripture.



What is unfortunate is that the concept of exegesis has gained so little acceptance in some circles. If one seeks to take a all-is-relative "that-view is ok and so is that other view" - we would not even have Christianity let alone Adventism.

As the Christian church distinguished itself from the man-made traditions of Judiasm the argument was "what says the Word of God" the same is true with the reformation and the same thing true AGAIN with Adventism.

IMAGINE if you will that at each point we could delete the concept of Exegesis and argue against the reformers in every age "that is just your interpretation and to be open-minded you must start by saying everyone's POV is equally valid when it comes to interpreting the Bible -- there is no right or wrong".

And that is the road to "Aesop's fables" as we all saw in that video.


in Christ,

Bob

Notice that Moses' timeline summary in Ex 20:8-11 agrees completely with the chronological sequence given in Gen 1-2:3.

"SIX days you shall labor...for in SIX DAYS the LORD MADE the heavens and the earth the seas and all that is in them"



Indeed - that is thankfully one thing we can all agree on.

The point is "what does the text say".

Because once we agree that the God "who can do anything" IS the God of creation AND is also the God of the Bible - then we simply look at what HE says HE did --

After all - we already agree "He can do anything".




How so?

It is the exegetically correct view of the text -- and so far there are no other options for the text being given "over and over" again.



That is an "argument from the void" of what the text does NOT say to get a new idea of what God created.

That is not exegesis at all -- not even remotely.

Why not render the Bible accurately - render the ACTUAL findings of science (such that the guesswork portion is clearly differentiated) and let the gap be what it may? After all - humans are not all-knowing.

Why balk at that more strict and trusted result?



It is that simple for Darwin, for Dawkins, for Meyers and for millions of Bible believing Christians both inside and outside of the Adventist church.

Everyone of them clearly sees the huge glaring gap between what atheism needs and what the text of scripture SAYS.

The only place of "doubt" is in the insistence of some Christians that the Bible is far more "plastic" than many have supposed -- not because they are doing any exegesis to argue the point - but simply because their conflicted positions in favor Darwinism "need it".

Their argument is Transparent yes -- but clearly many see it as transparently flawed.

in Christ,

Bob

Dawkins is irrelevant. So one (loudmouthed) evolutionist is an atheist - does that mean all evolutionists are atheists? The BTK serial killer was a Christian - does that mean all Christians are serial killers? Dawkins does not speak for a huge number of theistic evolutionists.

Calling your opponents' position 'eisegesis' and your own 'exegesis' is a very ancient gamnit in theological terms, but it doesn't actually prove anything.

What of the geocentric universe? I presume you don't still hold to that view? But it was preached by the church and alleged to be based on the Bible.

Dawkins IS relevant to the extent that his own testimony as seen in that video is one of a Christian whose Christian faith was demolished by evolutionism JUST as Darwin says HIS was!

Meyers is also claiming the same thing as Darwin in that regard.

And -- finally Darwin himself argues this case.

You can not simply throw them all out as "they don't know what Darwinism is saying" and you can not argue that none of them were Christians though all of them claim it -

So where is your argument for tossing them?

These are not simply annecdotal unknowns making these observervations -- and oh by the way -- they also fit the observations of all YEC Christians as well.

Is all the world mad in your view when it comes to this point?

in Christ,

Bob