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

err.. umm.. ok -- what about it?

Are you saying that to be YEC you must then argue that all church leaders in the dark ages were using perfect exegesis?

We are protestant by affiliation you know.

in Christ,

Bob

Again you argue the point as if exegesis is a subjective undefined term. The whole point of Exegesis and it's rules for context and the authors intent is to eliminate the act of bringing your bias to the text and then "making the text fit".

The point is as glaring as someone who makes up stories about what an antiderivative is used for vs someone who actually engages in integration over an interval.

It is not a matter of subjective "preferences" the term is fully defined and the role of context fully outlined for that concept - the idea of just making it fit whatever you prefer does not apply. It is not as plastic as you have supposed.

Our RC friends constantly complain that exegesis is so illusive that you need a Pope to tell you what to think because the Bible is too plastic. But the facts are quite the opposite. The Bible is very specific and detailed -- the only way the other ideas gain acceptance is by ignoring inconvenient details and then relying on the ignorance of the reader - which is why they restricted access to scripture for so long.

This is why I complained a bit that there needs to be more awarness of this objective method.

in Christ,

Bob

And yet, different exegetes come to different conclusions.

So my Catholic friends kep telling me -- they claim the solution is -- "get a Pope" -- I keep telling THEM - that exegesis is not about "ignoring inconvenient details IN the text" it is about InCLUDING them.

They get stuck on that point.

then I point to Act 17:11 where Non-Christians "study the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by Paul WERE SO" --

this is the very thing that is NOT supposed to be possible in that Bible-is-so-very-plastic model.

But the failure of your own argument in trying to find exegesis for Ex 20:8-11 that would show the Bible could be bent to Darwinism is "instructive" enough for the objective unbiased reader. All translations -- all Bible scholars agree "SIX Days you shall labor...for in SIX DAYS the Lord MADE" is talking about SIX DAYS!

Impossible to ignore. Not the foggy bit of rocket science you had imagined.

Perfect for testing out Exegesis.

in Christ,

Bob

MMhhmm, it's exactly what I thought it was. What it boils down to - what it *always* boils down to - is 'those whose exegesis agrees with mine are absolutely, objectively correct. Those whose doesn't (even if they're using exactly the same methodologies) are either mistaken or lying'. Contrary to your assertion above, I *brought* a different exegesis of those verses, and you rejected it.

As I said -- I get that all the time from my RC friends arguing that "it is all relative" and that we need a pope to decide since exegesis should not be relied on to tell us ONE truth.

And as I said of Act 17:11 regarding even NON-Christians able to "get the point clearly" from Bible study "They studied the scriptures DAILY to SEE IF those things spoken by Paul WERE SO" -- totally disproves that "all is relative" line of argument against exegesis.

Exegesis is basically saying "show your math" -- do the work -- rather than simply hand-waiving and bending the facts to fit some desired solution. But you have to actually practice doing it to appreciate it's value and as I said before -- many people choose to skip that step.

But as it turns out -

1. The Christian church "came about" because Christians were successfull in geting non-Christian Jews and Gentiles to look at the Bible and "do the math" - to see that their own prior-bias was wrong.

2. The Protestant reformation "came about" because Christians were successful in getting fellow non-Protesting Catholics to look at evidence "sola scriptura" and "do the math" to see that their prior-bias and man-made ideas were wrong.

3. The Adventist church "came about" because Christians were able to get fellow non-SDA Christians to evaluate the evidence on doctrine "sola-scriptura" and come to conclusions about errors in prior man-made ideas normally brough to the text in the past.

It is a bit late to start now claiming in effect "it is all relative -- we are all the same -- no idea is more objective than any other when it comes to exegeting scripture"

in Christ,

Bob

There is a large difference between claiming that 'it is all relative' and stating the empirical truth that 'different people using the same methods come to different conclusions'.

Clearly there are conclusions that would be eisegesis. I do believe there are correct answers and correct interpretations, so the relativism argument is a straw man. The point I was making is that there are serious working theologians, using the same methodologies, who do come to different conclusions.

That means that it is possible to be doing good exegetical practice and still end up with different conclusions. The lay person is then left with a dilemma of which conclusions to accept. This is not relativism, this is serious scholarship.

For a very long time serious physicists, doing serious physics, were not sure whether the universe will continue expanding, or whether it will stop expanding and start contracting. Physicists are the least relativistic (pun intended) people in the world, and go for the hard evidence every time... but there were real differences, and more physics needed to be done to resolve them.

As I am sure our RC friends would totally agree.

But as it turns out - we do have Christianity appealing to the same objective verifiable truth of scripture standing in the way of preference. Not simply as evaluated by Christians - but even as evaluated by non-Christians (hence the converts).

We saw it again with the Protestant reformation and then again with the forming of the SDA church -- formed out of the group of non-SDAs who once again were testing that sola-scriptura idea that you do not simply "find whatever you prefer to believe" in scripture.



Agreed. The key is to come up with something that is NOT eisegesis. It is harder than you might think if you have not tried it.



So also do our Catholic friends argue that there is a right interpretation and it is theirs. But they argue that it is too hard for YOU to find without an infallible Pope to guide you.



hmm - we have already been told that about Sabbath, and praying the dead and eternal hell and ...

Well you get the idea.

So nothing new there.




Not so. When those individuals study the point out and then conclude 'well then we were not supposed to be praying to the dead after all" it is typically with a kind of "because as it turns out the Bible speaks in this one way to that subject -- and it can not be turned around".




That is what our Catholic friends keep telling me -- they say I need a Pope to get it right.



Yep - that is what they claim. But in each case I am able to show that the text is far more available and apparent then they would prefer to pretend.

Hence their decision in the dark ages to keep the Bible from the lay person.

in Christ,

Bob

It is not very apparent that they were loudly proclaiming "we do not know if steady state is valid" -- while waiting to come up with the big bang.

Rather we had the same "popularity" voting going on in the form "most cosmologist agree" with only a very small minority holding out.

Then the pendulum changed course - "again".




Agreed - but "physics" is real science so it is free to admit where it has boundaries - flaws that could completely undo the theory.

For example the boundary between Maxwell and Newton - where Newton argues for relative motion - but Maxwell claims that the speed of light is fixed.

Or the boundary between Newtonian physics and special Relativity where - Newton has no place for the earth to orbit a non-existent sun yet special relativity argues that no information can travel faster than the speed of light (no ripple through the space time fabric can travel faster than light) - which would leave us with the earth orbiting a non-existent sun for about 9 minutes.

Or the boundary between general relativity and quantum mechanics where GR views all of space time as a smooth curved survface -- curving along the lines of gravitational force -- while QM sees it all as quantum "Foam" with particles and anti-particles cancelling each other out in frantic activity to obtain "The average" of either a glass of water or empty space -- depending on where you are.

The key in Physics (a "hard science") is to mathematically state each position - define the boundaries -- identify the tests and experiment to show a solution that is "verifiable" not simply "imaginable" as one would be doing in junk-science "stories easy enough to tell but they are not science".

The same is true for chemistry or biology when dealing with observed behavior and properties. But when "imagining that birds came from reptiles" well there you are on your own -- in a world of "Stories easy enough to make up".

in Christ,

Bob

Laying aside the irrelevant Catholic-bashing, your point is *still* that only your exegesis exists and that no other exegesis is possible, despite the empirical evidence that other exegeses exist. Your claim is simply and demonstrably false.

1. It is not Catholic bashing to report their argument on this point.

2. History SHOWS the objective position taken at EACH of these boundaries --

Jews-to-Christian
Catholic-to-Protestant
Protestant-to-SDA

EAch one relied on the fact that the Bible is soooo objectively clear that even NON-members could easily see the point of the text and discover that all that they PREFERRED to believe was in error on a given point.

Recall that when SDAs give a Bible study on "SIX days you shall labor..for in SIX DAYS the LORD MADE" we do not say "well not really the text just says that -- but it's wrong".

In ALL of these cases - even with the Jews-to-Christians the other side had a truck-load of Bible scholars arguing that the Christians "were wrong".

But the KEY in each case for those promoting man-made-ideas over the Bible text was to get the lay people NOT to read the text because as it turned out the text was not as vague and misleading as they had hoped!

Nothing new in that regard as our evolutionist friends engage in their own dispute with the Bible - hoping to insert vagaries where nothing but clarity is evident.

Clerity to th epoint that the entire Hebrew nation keeping an ACTUAL 7 day week and honoring the ACTUAL Sabbath - instead of each individual just "making stuff up".

And as was already pointed out - "SIX days you shall labor..for in SIX DAYS the Lord MADE.." is NOT the way to frame Darwinism - in fact it is the very language of YEC most condemned by our atheist friends.

Obviously.

in Christ,

Bob

I log in to Orgins to ask questions and learn Scientific answers, even if I disagree. But this constant 'bashing' of ideas based on ones personal beliefs and not 'real' science is very frustrating. Is there any way to get back on track?????

Well the clear point stated is

1. The Bible is objectively and accurately read by those "following the details" in the text and trained in the area of exegesis to let the text speak instead of bending it.

We see this in the case of Jews being asked to read the text and SEE IF Christianity was so (See Act 17:11 "The studied the bible daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by Paul WERE SO").

We see this in the case of "protesting Catholics" who were encouraging fellow Catholics to evaluate doctrine "sola scriptura" instead of just "going with whatever man made ideas you were told to accept".

We see this in the case of the Adventists who still today ask that non-SDAs engage that same sola-scriptura exercise to SEE IF the doctrinal positions we are presenting are in fact "so".

Which means it is way too late to start taking the more non-SDA solution "The bible is plastic you can bend it anyway you like".


2. THIS thread is about "Darwin and faith" and Darwin already came out and told the world that he gave up Christianity for Darwinism once he fully saw the true extent of irreconcilable differences between them.

And as I pointed out with that video - so also did Dawkins, Meyers, Provine, and others.

http://adventistforum.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/190647/Re_Darwin_and_Faith#Post190647

Is this the part you didn't want to know - or did want to know?

Given that all of that information came out in post #2 -- and no new information has come out since -- where would you like to see this thread go?

in Christ,

Bob