Comment on Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution? by Bob Helm.
I grow very tired of reading that creationism is a 19th century concept. For the latter part of the 19th century, this was simply not true! By the late 19th century, Darwinism was practically as widespread as it is today, though certainly not in the SDA Church!
Also I see no conflict between an old universe/sterile earth and a short chronology for life on earth. First, careful exegesis of Gen 1 yields the YLC position. If you look at the structure of Gen 1, each creative day is introduced by the formula “And God said,” utilizing the Hebrew vav consecutive. This formula first appears in Gen 1:3, which strongly suggests that the chaotic earth of Gen 1:2 is pre-creation week. Note also that the Hebrew verb “asah” in Gen 1;16 can as rightfully be translated “established” as “made.” So rather than assuming that the celestial luminaries were created ex nihilo on the 4th, day, it is better to understand that they were established as time-keepers in the earth’s sky at that time. This also accord with Job 38:9, which attributes the primordial darkness at the beginning of creation week to cloud cover, which was progressively cleared away, revealing first light and then the luminaries.
Second, there is a huge difference between stars condensing out of the energy produced by the big bang (the ex nihilo creation of the universe) and the supposed development of life from non-life (via abiogenesis). Although stars are enormous, they are very simple structures that are primarily composed of hydrogen. In contrast, the DNA molecule is the most complex of all molecules and is really a extremely complex code. I would suggest that God first created the universe (ex nihilo) 13.7 billion years ago and then proceeded to design paradises on certain select planets in the outskirts of the galaxies, probably around stable mid-sized yellow stars and orange dwarf stars. Although the ancients may not have understood cosmology in this way, it is quite compatible with the inspired account in Gen 1.
Table of Contents
Bob Helm Also Commented
Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution?
@Mike Manea: Mike, the problem is not a lack of evidence for the creationist model. The problem is the hold that the Lyell/Darwin model has on the scientific community, including all the psychological baggage that goes with it. This is not just a theory; this is a way of viewing all of reality (much like a religion), and for many people, it has great psychological appeal. For this reason, it is naive to think that it can be overthrown in a few years. However, the evidence for the creationist/catastrophist model continues to mount, and those with open minds are willing to at least examine it.
Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution?
@Sean Pitman: I think you are correct. Thanks!
Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution?
@Ervin Taylor: Can you supply us with your coauthor, as well as the publisher. I would also like to obtain your book and read it. Thanks!
Recent Comments by Bob Helm
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
What is wrong with conceding that many claims of scripture can only be accepted on faith?
I fully realize that 21st century scientists cannot perform X rays of Mary’s womb or insert instruments into her womb to determine exactly what took place when the Holy Spirit overshadowed her. Of course, I accept the virgin birth on faith! My point was that we now have examples of virgin births occuring as a result of modern scientific technology, and since science has now produced virgin births in mammals, if God is real, we have an analogy for how He could have done the same thing. @Professor Kent:
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
Darwinist is just short for Neo-Darwinist. While the majority of biologists subscribe to Neo-Darwinism, I would contest your statement that Darwinist=biologist. I prefer “Darwinist” to “evolutionist” because the latter is a slippery term. Even creationists believe in micro-evolution.@pauluc:
Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
@Sean Pitman: Sean, it’s interesting and ironic how churches repeatedly try to become more relevant by accepting Darwinism and other forms of liberalism, but in the end, they always die, while churches that maintain their creationist stance and conservative values continue to grow.
Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
@pauluc: I wondered if you would bring up alchemy. Just because Newton was wrong about alchemy, why try to slur him over it? Even though he was a great physicist, he was human, and he did make mistakes!
Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
@Pauluc: Actually, there is one extrabiblical reference to Jesus’ Resurrection. In his “Antiquities of the Jews,” we have this from Flavius Josephus: “When the principal men among us had condemned Him [Jesus] to the cross, those who loved Him at first did not forsake Him. For He appeared to them alive again the third day. . .” This so-called “Testimonium Flavianum” has provoked fierce debate, with critics calling it an interpolation. However, it is written in the style of Josephus and appears in all the extant Greek manuscripts of “The Antiquities of the Jews.”
