Comment on Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution? by Bob Helm.
Michael J. Osborne:
Sean Pitman – I just wanted to thank you so much (!) for this whole read. What I got most out of it, as a lay person, was confirmation of my own understanding as regards the age of the universe. I can say that “I thought so”. I knew that Lucifer and the angels had to be created prior to Creation week and I also recall texts mentioning other unfallen worlds. So many times (!), a few evolutionist but Adventist friends have dissed my posts about creation on Facebook. And they sometimes make the assumption that I believe the whole gosh darn universe was also created in that six day period. So it can be annoying to say the least. What was surprising, was that even Uriah Smith had made a comment about it. I didn’t even know that there was a theory called Passive Gap either. Thanks again and God bless.
MIchael, I am also pleased that the discussions here have helped you. This may seem like a small point, but I personally prefer the term “Young Life Creationism” to “Passive Gap Theory” or “Soft Gap Theory” for a couple of reasons: 1) It is more expressive of what we actually believe. 2) It is not confused with the traditional Gap Theory (sometimes called the “Hard Gap Theory”) which is derived from questionable exegesis (including animal death before the fall) and which is totally contrary to data from the geologic column and the fossil record. It’s up to you which of the three terms you use, but I just wanted to share my opinion on it.
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.”
