Comment on Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution? by Bob Helm.
Mr. Helm is typical of those who use a chain saw and hatchet to butcher up the bible to patronize science. The first five verses in Genesis are all “the first day”.
Bill, with all due respect, I fail to see your argument about the first day. Go get your Bible and look carefully at the text. The account of the 2nd day begins in Gen 1:6. The account of the 3rd day begins in Gen 1:9. The account of the 4th day begins in Gen 1:14. The account of the 5th day begins in Gen 1:20. And the account of the 6th day begins in Gen 1:24. Please note that each of these accounts begins with the formula “And God said,” or some translations say “Then God said.” In the same way, the account of the 1st day begins with the same formula in Gen 1:3. The first chapter of Genesis was very carefully crafted with a definite structure. Gen 1:1-2 is the introduction. Gen 2:1-3 is the conclusion with the Sabbath (it is unfortunate this was placed in Gen 2). And there is a correspondence between the first 3 days and the second 3 days: day one (light) – day four (luminaries), day two (sky and water) – day five (water creatures and flying creatures), day three (plants) – day six (animals and humans that feed on the plants). Careful attention to this structure indicates that the account of the 1st day begins in Gen 1:3 with the formula “And God said.”
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.”
