Upon entering the office of the President of Southwestern Seminary, one finds to the immediate right a baboon hunted by Dr. Paige Patterson. Resting in the primate’s hands is a copy of Charles Darwin’s “Origin of the Species.”
If you don’t find this the least bit amusing, may I suggest that you get out more.
After exiting the President’s office, I walked down the hallway and noticed the portrait of one of my retired professors in the field of Biblical Backgrounds, who was open about his belief in evolution.
I’m sure he must be pleased to know that Darwin’s theories continue to enjoy such a place of honor in the President’s office at Southwestern Seminary.
LOVE Dr. Patterson and his sense of humor and stand for truth!
I could not agree more. We all owe him a debt of gratitude for the Conservative Resurgence in our convention.
One of my old Deacons used to say, if man came from monkeys, why didn’t the rest of the monkeys evolve?
What a great question!
One of the worst things about evolution is that it is racist. It has to show one of the races closest to the monkey. They deny it and come up with a different hypocritical theory. That means Evolution is made up of many theories which makes it much like a lottery. Evolution is a gamble. And humans believe in that over a God who loves His creation. How sad. 🙁
Evolution doesn’t have to show one of the races closest to the monkey…
Well, Bruce, as much as I hate to agree with Chris on just my second post back from my self-imposed Voices Sabbatical, I must confess that I don’t quite understand the argument that embracing the theory of evolution requires a hierarchy of skin pigmentation.
Are you saying that evolutionary theory requires that hairy and darker skinned people must be closer to the monkeys than non-hairy and lighter skinned people? I’ve never considered such an argument before.
“Well, Bruce, as much as I hate to agree with Chris”
If you promise not to make a habit of this, I promise to try not to be too weirded out this time.
With my love for Japanese food, I must evolved from one of the white snow monkeys found in the mountains of Japan.
The Evolution Theory has no boundaries. One thing these Scientific Guessers are is Politically Correct. Even within their own ranks they argue much like Armenian and non-Armenian. They just wouldn’t take their theories to a reasonable conclusion openly.
Chris,
It shows the monkey, adds a million years or so and then man. An evolutionist would have to prove that skin pigment changes with the environment. They just say it with no proof. Eskimos have darker skin than some Europeans. Not going to argue this, however, evolutionist certainly do not have the answer and I am not going to try to blend this theory with creation either. Don’t fit.
Bruce H.
If you need help getting your foot out of your mouth, call Dave.
New breed of evolution: Foot-in-Mouth
Dave can’t help.
Rick and Chris,
Darwin proposed this in his book The Descent of Man.
Darwin began the first chapter of The Descent of Man with these words: “He who wishes to decide whether man is the modified descendant of some pre-existing form, would probably first enquire whether man varies, however slightly, in bodily structure and in mental faculties; and if so, whether the variations are transmitted to his offspring in accordance with the laws which prevail with the lower animals” (1871, p. 395). Later, in his chapter titled “On the Affinities and Genealogy of Man,” Darwin wrote:
At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla (p. 521).
Clearly, Darwin was convinced that the more “civilised races” (e.g., Caucasian) would one day exterminate the more savage races, which he considered to be less evolved (and thus more ape-like) than Caucasians. Darwin believed that “the negro” and “Australian” are like sub-species, somewhere between Caucasians and apes. [NOTE: In addition to Darwin’s racist comments in The Descent of Man, he also included sexist statements. His evolutionary views led him to believe that “[t]he chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shown by man’s attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can woman—whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands…. [T]he average of mental power in man must be above that of woman…. [M]an has ultimately become superior to woman” (pp. 873-874).]
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=2654
John,
I’m familiar with that aspect of Darwin and how it has been used to support atrocities in places like South Africa, but such is not an element in evolutionary theory today. We can point out problems in the foundation of evolutionary theory, but cannot claim it as a problem with evolutionary theory today unless a goodly number of scientists continue to make that claim.
Chris,
Now goodly number of scientists hide behind words like Chromosome, DNA, Genome, Mitochondria and the likes and get Nobel prizes to disguise racist vocabulary and actions. All do to the fact that some folks have different Melanin variants.
Race is a concept of society that insists there is a genetic significance behind human variations in skin color that transcends out ward appearance. However, race has no scientific merit outside of sociological classification. There are no significant genetic variations within the human species to justify the division of “ races.”
John,
Race is not merely a concept, it is a real thing. Consider that there are 300 to 400 races (breeds) of dogs within a single species. The line between species and race is arbitrary, if settled convention. Indeed, I think you are the one affected by stigma. Why not be honest and admit there are purposeful differences in the genes of human races?
Not to say that some are inherently better than others. I don’t believe that’s the case at all, especially given the overshadowing significance and impact of culture relative to homo sapien’s racial variance.
Regarding dogs: Didn’t most of the “races” of dogs come into being via selective breeding–largely starting in the 1800’s? Periodically we add a “race” to the dog list as it becomes recognized as separate by some association or other.
I don’t think that anyone has come up with any “purposeful differences” in the genes of humans.
Why do you think that there are “purposeful differences?” Could you give some examples?
Bennet: Regard dogs and breeding:
I think it exploded in the 1800s, but dogs were domesticated first around 10k years ago, hence the sheer number of wild variations we see today. Breeding interferes with natural selection, so we can’t really argue which of these breeds would succeed in the wild, but its possible most of them would not. We’ve gamed the system to have cute, fluffy dogs. Same thing with cats, but for whatever reason they don’t have nearly the same distinctions.
As far as “purpose”, I don’t necessarily mean to say that I know why and how pigmentation works, but that natural selection itself isn’t random. Just because WD40 was invented by accident, doesn’t mean it doesn’t sit on store shelves across America because people accidentally buy it. Despite its roots, it has real value to the world.
Also what should be remembered is that the philosophy that twinned itself to Darwin was birthed by a contemporary by the name of Herbert Spencer. In fact he coined the phrase, “survival of the fittest” describing the process of natural selection and the heritability of traits among succeeding generations. He is the philosophic father (as Darwin is the scientific father) of the modern eugenics movement – a movement which claimed a ton of social movement intellectuals such as Margaret Sanger (“Planned Parenthood”), Karl Marx, Fredrick Nietzsche, Theodore Roosevelt, Henry Ford – among many others. The most successful politician to embrace the totality of the eugenics movement is of course Adolf Hitler and his desire to purify the “Aryan” race by selecting out (terminating) the weakest therefore leaving the strongest to survive (his elimination of the infirm, mentally challenged, and others as well as the Jews are infamous).
What should be remembered is that evolution is not just a mere biological theory. Since men are merely the product of evolutionary processes, then their actions, behaviors, and activities are also a product of these processes as well. Spencer himself desired the elimination of all who were on the lower end of the socio-economic tree since they were ill equipped to deal with life because they were poor – societies of better men would result and utopia would appear if the poor were selected out (killed). Spencer’s beliefs was so notorious that the famous English novelist, Charles Dickens, (who himself was an advocate for the poor) developed a caricature of Spencer in one of his novels.
Rob
I am really uncomfortable with the turn this discussion has taken.
Could be your inner baboon showing?
Chris,
I can see another problem with Darwin’s theory. If we are in the grave several thousand years before the Rapture, and everyone changes shape and looks different, will we look like the new race of people, or the old race. :O
ROFL
I am too, Dave, but thank you, John K, for enlightening me with that quote from “The Descent of Man.”
I find great irony in the fact that the very secular humanists so quick to deny any form of racism or sexism are also most responsible for the promotion of Darwinian ideas seemingly rooted in both racism and sexism.
A nice thing about science is its willingness to move beyond its roots.
Many people who talk about evolution occasionally make it sound deliberate. As is pointed out in this thread, genetic change is random. It only becomes evolution if the change is advantageous–and this means from a reproductive point of view.
The reason that environmental stress produces evolution is that the requirements for reproductive success change. This helps some mutations be successful in the new environment.
Evolution is racist. That’s the point.
No, it is not. People are racist–unfortunately. We have a long history of not dealing justly (or well) with people who are different from us.
Ironically, you don’t realize that racism itself is an evolved trait. It isn’t limited to humans, either.
If God chose the Jews as His people, would that be racist? Fortunately, we Gentiles have been chosen when Christ died.
The whole ‘race’ thing has nothing to do with the genus and species to which we as human beings belong. We are all of us ‘homo sapiens’ and we have 46 chromosomes in each of our cells, with the exception of a sperm cell (23) and an egg (23). Sometimes, people are born with chromosomes anomalies, as was my eldest son with Down Syndrome.
We say that all human beings are members of the same genus and species.
To be members of the same species involves the ability of the males and females of that species to mate and reproduce young. Once again, ‘race’ has nothing to do with our humanity.
What DOES have something to do with our humanity is that we are made in the image and likeness of God. Imagine, if you will, written on the botton of the foot of every human child born, these words from Psalm 139:
‘for I am fearfully and wonderfully made’
Knowing that, we can discuss ‘race’ with some dignity and respect. And we do know that Psalm. And we must be respectful of the dignity of all mankind.
Personally, I think Darwin had it wrong. It seems much more likely that men evolved into apes, than vice versa. Apes don’t have meetings, budgets, ulcers, taxes, or most of the other things that vex us humans.
Yup. That’s my story and I’m stickin’ to it.
Humans didn’t evolve from apes or monkeys. They came from a common ancestor approximately 6.5 million years ago. Those common ancestors are extinct and/or evolved into different races. The idea that homo sapiens devolved into a lesser intelligent form doesn’t make any sense, because the engine of evolution is “selection pressure”, or things that make sex and reproduction more frequent.
Evolution is very intuitive. The process is not limited to biological systems, either. Consider computer hardware and software. I am a software developer, and I create a lot of random programs and web sites for people and companies. I don’t really know which of these the market will respond to well, but when a particular project has some success, I regroup and focus my efforts with lessons learned from this experience. In with the new success, out with the flops.
Biological evolution is a fluke that relies on errors when cells are duplicated. You know this is possible if you’ve ever met someone with a genetic disorder. The fluke is that sometimes (very rarely) these errors are advantageous. That advantage is passed on. And after A VERY LONG TIME, you have what we call “new species”. Most transposition errors — like Dave’s passion for the NY Yankees — are *not* advantageous.
Evolution isn’t intentional, though. If there was a God, and he made DNA and cellular function perfect, cellular evolution wouldn’t even be possible. Well, of course now we can modify DNA on our own without evolution (like GMO foods), but that’s another story altogether.
Byron, your analogy broke down as soon as you wrote the words “I create.” A further examination of your premise also shows that you equate random programs (which no doubt are designed to do specific tasks, thus giving them a purpose for existence) with the evolutionary fluke of random natural selection (which taken to it’s natural conclusion would posit that no purpose of existence is necessary for any being, because it all just “happened,” et voila! Here we are!)
God designed DNA and cellular function to work exactly as it does. Simple mathematic probability shows that everything would have to be just right in so many different ways for the universe to be formed. Add to that the possibility of life on a little blue planet that happens to sit in just the right spot within the boundaries of an insignificant solar system and it is so highly improbable as to be laughable.
The fact that we can now manipulate DNA still doesn’t give us the ability to create it. It may be replicated, poked, prodded, changed, synthesized, and now even photographed, but we can’t manufacture the stuff of life.
By the way, thanks for taking care of your mother. You’re a good son.
Hi Dale,
All analogies break down at a point; of course that is the case :-). As an analogy though, it stands up pretty well I believe. The point is my programs are “random mutations” because they’re not created necessarily with the evidence that they or better than their predecessors. The mechanism of genetic mutation is the same — it’s random, and blind to its future. Of course I have more insight than that, but similar to DNA, I also rely entirely (literally) on the same type of work done by others before me, down to the invention of electricity and wire itself. From a laypersons perspective, these things are “created” and “invented”, I agree, but the actual process of invention is VERY sloppy, and mostly failures. Imagine how many tries and random variations it took to get the lightbulb right, for example. (I happen to know it was quite a lot).
As I said, in this case, my coding is not “random” in the same sense as DNA mutations are, but the process is the same. Many options are had, most fail miserably, a few rare ones succeed. Evolution. Natural selection — success and failure.
As for the math being “highly improbable”, I’ve agree with you 100%. Evolutionists do not argue that a particular evolved trait is “probable”. The point they make (as I’ve made above) is that evolution is extremely unlikely. However, and as I assume you believe given the ample evidence and number of distinct dating methods, the earth is about 4.5 billion years old. That’s plenty of time for mutations to take hold, even if they only happen once per 100,000 years per species. Keep in mind that the odds of a trait evolving are multiplied by the number of organisms alive. It’s not a flat statistic.
Thanks for the comment. My mom appreciates the car very much. Dave would have me take it away from her and give it to him, though, which I can’t do. It’s about family, Dale.
Aha the time factor. Irrespective or not that no mutation has been observed by modern science that can universally absolutely be determined to be a part of the process of evolution, they, “must have in time!” Darwin himself proposed that the fossil record should be full of specific variations that would lead to an overwhelming conclusion that evolution was reality. Since we are still having this debate, Darwin was wrong. What is then left is a mere “time machine” theory. Anything could have should have did happen if we put a few zeros behind years in a time warp. Pigs can talk and Dogs could read if we just give it some time! It just goes to show that Darwinists take as much on faith if not more as any other religious belief they ridicule. A non-theistic religious faith system full of rules, norms, practices, catechisms, dogmas, and even excommunications! Wow! seeing that they claim antipathy to any other religious practice. I am glad to see that our non-theistic coreligionists are as exclusive and intolerant they claim Christians in being.
Rob
Rob,
The fact that hints of evolution are not perfectly preserved in the fossil record is not evidence that evolution isn’t true. Every single branch of science which touches biology and archeology (etc) agrees with the theory of evolution. The only people who debate it are Christians like yourself and me, a person who has nothing better to do with his time than argue with you about science that was established 200 years ago.
We are having this discussion because some of us don’t look carefully at the “fossil record.” Especially, we don’t look at how the fossils occur and the fact that the record has to cover a long time. We also ignore the fact that we are regularly finding more of them. And people occasionally fake something that draws a lot of publicity. (Much like Biblical archaeology in this.)
A theory makes an effort to explain what it proposes. All theories are being tested regularly–even the ones that seem to be “settled science.” Scientists are quite willing to test theories if we can find a way to do so. Sometimes theories are dumped in favor of better explanations and sometimes the old theories prevail.
The rules in science are simple. Things will be carefully tested and if your idea fails the test, it must change. However, scientists are people and so are theologians. This complicates things. 🙂
Byron. Your condescension aside truth isn’t established by majority vote or there would be no science.
I respectfully disagree that science has been established for 200 years.
Einstein would have chuckled at that statement. He died feeling the prevailing theories were incomplete or faulty.
Also. Evolution is as much about philosophy as science if you read biographies of Darwin and his handlers, the Huxleys.
We disagree but the issue of origins is less established today because of new scientific discoveries. It is not only Christian scientists that critigue evolution.
1. You are arguing with Darwin and not with me. He would fit in to the “200 year” paradigm I believe.
2. Your “fact” is a two edged sword. While my proffering of “Darwin” does not prove that evolution does not exist, your assertions are neither proof that Spencerian/Darwinian evolution DOES exist. Since theories are distinguished by a time tested method called the “scientific method” and then processed and repeated for verification for modification and/or correction, I find that Darwinists on this matter are fairly inflexible – as you are it seems. Is this also a verification of my thesis about your faith?
Since you have nothing better else to do with your time except with those who are beneath you, perhaps you can continue to have a conversation with me. Perhaps.
Rob
Rob,
You are incentivized to argue against evolution because of the Bible. I am not. You take it on faith that evolution is wrong. I take it on evidence that it is correct.
Until that day,
Polts
I just chuckle when someone says I am “incentivized” by my bias, when they are truly “incentivized” by their own which to them is true and absolute filled with “facts” and “truth” unassailable to any argument to the contrary. What more proof do you need Bryon that what you have is a carefully held to religious faith?
Rob
Rob, I don’t think that we are inflexible regarding evolution. There is simply no credible data that I have seen to deny it. It seems reasonable to insist that people who deny evolution present their evidence.
I suppose that in the insistance that evidence be produced we are inflexible.
Let us tackle terms:
Microevolution – changes or modifications that occur within a species. The example mainly used are the varieties of dog species. Adaptions of the human species seems to be environmental such as pigmentation differences and other small factors. I think modern observation and practice would conclude that this type of “evolution” is true. The fossil record is also conclusive to this point, as well as the complete record of human history. I would use the term “adaptation” in preference to “evolution”, but I am not willing to quibble about it. No one argues the existence of micro-evolution here. Definitely a straw man.
2. What is definitely under discussion is Macro-evolution = the changing from one species to another different species through the process of random chance and random selection over time. Not only has the process of macro-evolution never been observed, the probabilities of the random draw of lower organisms evolving into higher organisms is so astronomical as to be absurd. Random generation of a RNA molecule has been estimated to be 10 to the 17th power = in comparison the luck of being hit by a meteor or winning the lottery has been computed to be in the neighborhood of 10 to the 3rd. Also it is negated by the Second Law of Thermodynamics (the Law of Entropy) which states that organisms/systems of high organization tend to dissemble to a low state of organization over time – not vice versa.
Rob
Rob Ayers: regarding micro/macro evolution
Hi Rob,
So for you to believe in macro evolution, someone needs to have lived for 10 million years and witnessed the entire thing personally? I think it would be faster to check out this picture of skulls: http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a178/belmarduk/fossil-hominid-skulls.jpg? Arguing that micro evolution exists but macro does not is like saying you believe in tractors and combines, but not in farm equipment.
If there’s no good reason to distinguish southern baptism, then why are you southern baptist? I am, because I was born and raised in Mississippi and Alabama 🙂 Despite being a non-believer, I still take pride in having at least been a genuine SBC. 🙂 I sinned a lot, though.
“”rguing that micro evolution exists but macro does not is like saying you believe in tractors and combines, but not in farm equipment.””
This is a bifurcation or false analogy. A does not logically require B, or whatever way you want to arrange your premises to draw your conclusion.
Micro-evolution is not just a “shorter version” of macro-evolution. They are two completely different processes. Tractors and combines are both subsets of farm equipment.
Micro-evolution is not a “subset of macro-evolution.”
PS — unfortunately, being Southern Baptist is not always a subset of Christianity as your testimony proves.
Christianity has no subsets.
maybe you were thinking of ‘denominations’ ?
Frank L.
Scientist have just recently found, what they think is a skeleton of a Baptist cave man. He was surrounded by stone jars that they think held wine.
One more little thing I left out, over behind the stone jars were many bones of what scientists think is some sort of prehistoric chickens.
Jess,
I think I dreamed the same article you cite.
Also found was a hide strap, as long as the circumference of a man’s middle, with a crude bucking device on each end. Anthropologists are divided as to whether the device was used to hold animal skins to his side, or (most likely) that the device was a fence around a chicken graveyard. It does not seem to occur to anyone that it could be both.
Jerry,
You’re too much, LOL.
Technologically speaking, combines are a result of the “micro-evolution” of the tractor and harvester attachment.
Hi Byron,
I checked out your link. Somebody has selected skulls and arranged them in an order that implies the point they want to make.
It is worthwhile to wonder about the arrangement.
Are the skulls found in that order in the sedimentary strata? Are they to scale? Are parts of the skulls enhanced? For me, I don’t know. But I know that religious people and atheist people are likely to “adjust the truth” in order to make their point.
At least we can agree that your link shows an arrangement of skulls.
I know this kid. He’s not kidding about that last line!
He has been known to steal chocolate cake when a family is out of the house.
Oh well, Byron. Some things just randomly happen that way. Your mother was naturally selected to drive a Cadillac. Dave Miller wasn’t. Come to think of it, neither was I. I suppose that means that luxurious driving will never fully evolve unless he and I go the way of the dinosaurs.
Bryon Polts,
Would you be interested in buying a bridge in Brooklyn. I will sell it cheap.
I live in Manhattan, but just gave my new Cadillac to my mom, so prefer to take the subway now. I might have some friends interested in your offer, though. Could you send me your SSN so I could initiate a background check?
Or, you could make a material contribution to the discussion 🙂
Your mom didn’t need a Cadillac, but I sure could have used one.
I just bought something that I have wanted since 1989–a 1989 Cadillac. A joke (intended anyhow).
Bryon Polts,
There is a God, and he loves you so much that he sent his only son into this world to die for your sin and mine. Jesus is the lamb of God, in whom was no sin at all. He was the prefect sacrifice to die in our place. If we repent of our sin and turn to Jesus in Godly sorrow and ask him into our life, he will enter our hearts while saving us from the wrath to come. Would you think about it, and accept Jesus as your Saviour?
Appreciate your efforts Jess, but you’re a bit off topic here! I was raised in the SBC, but have moved on to other things. I realize how crude that sounds to you, but c’est la vie.
The full title of Darwin’s Origin of Species:
On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.
Great evil has been done in the name of evolution. Great evil has been done in the name of Christ.
There is evil in the world. Jesus Christ deals with it. Evolutionary theory has no philosophic basis for admitting evil exists.
Why does everyone just assume that Man evolved from the Monkey? What if the Monkey evolved from Man?
I mean after all these millions of years of evolution there are still some real “knuckle draggers” in my family 🙂
Most of the ones in my family hang sheetrock for a living.
I’m pretty sure the post was not meant to engender a serious discussion, but what the heck?
There are really two questions that are being conflated as one:
Is evolution possible? And if so, is it responsible for us?
Christians, I think, are too quick to answer no to the first question because they have bought into the idea that if we answer yes to the first, we must answer yes to the second.
Natural selection is pretty irrefutable. Man has recognized and co-opted the process throughout the history of agriculture.
Whether evolution through natural selection is capable of producing incredibly complex, rational beings is a much bigger question. Even then some Christians are willing to accept that God might have used such a mechanism to help shape His creatures. But of course completely random, directionless naturalistic processes are rejected by most people of faith as being responsible for us.
Bill,
“I’m pretty sure the post was not meant to engender a serious discussion…”
Truer words were never written. It was intended as something of a lighthearted joke. I mean, it’s a stuffed baboon…reading a book…about evolution!
Personally, I think that animals should be “stuffed” only if it was an equal opportunity event–they were just about as likely to have gotten you as you were to have gotten them. There should be at least some probability that the event would turn out in their favor.
Bennett,
So you only eat the meat of animals that you personally wrestle to the death with your bare hands?
Are you sure your last name is not Alford? (See my comment above) 🙂
No, no. Stuffed, not eaten. If you are going to eat the critter, have at it. 🙂
But there was a time (back on the farm) when I did eat the flesh of animals that I personally killed (chickens mostly). 🙂 Older and wiser people did the cows/pigs.
Bill Mac,
I do not often disagree with you, but I will on this point.
What you describe is a classic misunderstanding of “evolution.” You describe “micro-evolution” (eg. animal husbandry) but you conflate that with “macro-evolution,” the development of a completely different species (series of different species) from a lower life form to a higher through mutation.
There are many, many reasons why evolution can be categorically denied as a “possibility” such as information theory, probability, irreducible complexity, and the list goes on and on.
To accept evolution one “must” begin with an assumption (hypothesis). That hypothesis must of necessity negate the operation of any “Creator.”
Few people realize that Darwin, because of life circumstances, started with the assumption: “God must not exist because hell is too horrible for me to contemplate.” After the death of his “Freethinking” (19th century code for atheist) father and non-believing daughter, Darwin set out to appease his deep hurt by looking for a way to get his father and daughter out of hell.
Remember, Darwin began his life career as a clergy man.
So, I can say without equivocation that the answer to your first question is, “no.”
PS — Keep in mind that one does not have to be a Christian to reject Darwinian evolution. Also, one does not have to be a Christian to come to an understanding that science necessitates a First Cause of some kind.
By the same token, being a Christian does not mean one rejects evolution as a whole. There are young earthers, old earthers, 6 day creationists, theistic evolutionists, and intelligent design(ers) among the Christian family.
I do understand the distinction between micro and macro evolution. That is why I just used the blanket term to cover both.
I’m just urging people to look at things rationally. Christianity can be rational. For crying out loud, I’ve heard Christians say that dinosaur fossils are fakes planted by Satan. Irrational.
Just to head off the next 50 comments: I’m not saying that YEC is irrational, I’m saying that saying YEC is the only “Christian” position is irrational.
Bill Mac,
“”By the same token, being a Christian does not mean one rejects evolution as a whole. “”
Again, I must respectfully disagree. Evolution as it is understood in science can be, and must be, dismissed out of hand by any Christian — or any truly reflective person in general.
Evolutionary theory, particularly Darwinism, is the opposite of a “causal” approach to cosmology. It is “acausal,” to the extent that it deals with causes at all.
I agree that faith and reason (faith is rational) are two wings of the same plane of human experience. The problem is that evolution has no pilot.
I disagree with the assertion that the alternative to rejecting evolution is “irrationality.” That is a bifurcation. It is a common attack on a theistic approach to cosmology.
In fact, such false ideas have been stated so often as to have become “accepted dogma” by evolutionists. Your list includes both biblically acceptable and non-biblical approaches to cosmology.
For example: theistic evolution is an oxymoron.
I agree with you that we need to investigate thoroughly but not capitulate. I’d “cry out loud, too” if I heard someone make a stupid statement such as you reference.
So Frank, YEC is the only truly Christian position?
Bill Mac,
I never said that. I think you may be assuming that old-age creationism means “theistic evolution” of some sort. I think that point of view demonstrates how Christians allowed science to modify their world-view without significant reason to do so.
I see nothing in science (I began life as a scientist) that mandates an “old-age” for the earth. That is one plausible conclusion, but not the only one.
Also, I do not see an old-age for the earth as necessitating some view of “evolution.”
So, you may be conflating various view-points.
PS–Also, I can conceive of how the universe can be millions of years old, and yet human life be only thousands of years old. I lean toward a YEC, but I am not married to it.
There is not sufficient evidence to dismiss a young-age of humanity out of hand. The approach should be to look at the evidence and let the evidence take one where ever it goes.
The problem is one of epistemology. What will one allow to qualify as “evidence?” If one limits one’s investigation to only empiricism (scientific naturalism) one is not using all the rational tools that God has provided.
Such a classic, logically weak argument of atheism, “you (Christians) believe with only faith. I believe based on evidence.”
That is a classic and ancient argument. It is as wrong today as it ever was.
SB Christianity and Darwinian evolution are mutually exclusive, even if you believe both of them, they still both cannot both be true. You can join the backslidden reformers and argue that God created evolution to lead to the creation of man — but that is problematic for obvious reasons.
Christianity is about faith. Science is about recording data and analyzing it. You subscribe to the former with religious conviction, I to the latter with skepticism. 🙂
1. Christianity is Christianity = “Southern Baptist” is a variation but nevertheless under the Christian umbrella.
2. Something we can agree to. They are indeed mutually exclusive. One must have “faith” to believe because as with both of us “we were not there” to see the beginning of the world and the process of which it began. Welcome to the boat of life my brother!
Rob
“”You subscribe to the former with religious conviction,””
You misstate my world view.
I do not see faith and reason (science for you) as mutually exclusive.
I believe I have more “evidence” for my world view than you do for yours.
My graduate work is in cosmology so I have both a “religious” (your term, not mine) approach to reality as well as a “rational” one.
I see no evidence for you point of view that “science” is at the top of the epistemological ladder. Such a view is commonly referred to as “scientism,” or “scientific naturalism,” and is a philosophy of science, not strictly science.
Many quantum physicists hold to a completely different philosophy of science rather than the traditional scientism. Many quantum physicists, like Bohr, take and Eastern path to a philosophy of science.
Others, like Einstein, was skeptical about skepticism.
So, in a conversation of cosmology it is helpful to realize the difference between the “act of scientific inquiry,” and a “philsophy of science.”
“Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason, since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind.
God cannot deny Himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth”.
“In His Hand is the life of every creature and the breath of all mankind.”
(Job 12:10)
a strange story . . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tojOIhc1QCY
I think Bryon you will have to be better than that.
1) How many of those skulls are human (homo sapiens) which share our identical genetic DNA? What has not been proven scientifically is that any of these skulls are our genetic ancestors. The “leap” as it were is a “leap of faith” to believe that they are. If they are homo sapiens, then there are multiple reasons that their skulls are misshaped – often medical (look in any pediatrician’s office of babies who have developed badly) or self-mutilation. In fact it HAS been proven scientifically is that we all are genetic linear descendents from ONE female. Science wants to call her the mitochondrial eve. I will just call her Eve for short :-). The proof is in the pudding. Macro evolution has no verifiable certifiable absolute proof of existence – it has never been observed in modern life, can neither be replicated in the laboratory, and is merely conjecture using the fossil record that is subject to many reasonable interpretations. To say that adaptation within a species due to environment or the specific design by humans (animal domestication and/or agricultural need) is akin to macro evolution is like saying a Rolls Royce is on the same level playing field as a Flintstone car made with rock wells. Hubris – just plain Hubris. And I might add an act of faith.
2. Richard Dawkins, one of the foremost scientific shills for the Darwinist position claims that the “first cause” of life on earth was “genetic engineering” – an alien race seeded the planet with life which then evolved finally to the human species over time. I also claim “intelligent design” in the fact that God both created the worlds and then seeded life on a planet which before His activity was formless and void. I claim my belief as an act of faith. What does Dawkin claim his belief from? Personal experience? or “Faith”. He would claim my belief as neanderthal. What should I say of his? Both are beyond are personal experience and are thus by definition “a priori.” So yes, beyond the shadow of “a posteriori” experience we would have to be there to see it occur – otherwise any belief about these events we take (by definition) on faith.
3. I am “Christian” first – Southern Baptist second. The main stream of Southern Baptist understanding of the Scriptures I am self-identified with. There are many members of churches, but a few if not a many of them are not “Christian.” Christianity as you know is accepting as true the claims of Jesus of Nazareth who claimed to be the Son of Man who was the God of the Old Testament – who on His shoulders took away our sins of which we all are sinners. There are many in the history of the world who once they became involved in the things of the world have fallen away or become disillusioned to the point of disbelief – often angry and bitter disbelief – and would then use their disbelief to discredit or harm the claims of Jesus and His church. Charles Darwin came from such a family and upbringing like yours. So did Marx, Lenin, Nietzsche, Hume, and Dawkins (thought I would throw in a more modern example). You are not alone in your skepticism. You are not the first, nor will be the last. However I am wondering about you. What has brought you to be the unbeliever that you know are?
Rob
Hmmm, did the mitochondrial eve have siblings?
“I SAW ETERNITY THE OTHER NIGHT
LIKE A GREAT RING OF PURE AND ENDLESS LIGHT . . . ”
the concept of eternity eludes us, as we measure out our sunrises and sunsets into ‘hours’ ‘minutes’, ‘seconds’;
but we mustn’t forget that God is not bound by ‘time’ as we know it;
from the beginnings of Christianity, it has been said of God, this:
He is ‘From the Ages to the Ages’
“But, beloved,
be not ignorant of this one thing,
that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years,
and a thousand years as one day.”
(2 Peter 3:8)
“I SAW Eternity the other night,
Like a great ring of pure and endless light,
All calm,
as it was bright ;
And round beneath it,
Time in hours, days, years
Driv’n by the spheres 5
Like a vast shadow mov’d ;
in which the world
And all her train were hurl’d. ”
(Henry Vaughan)
For some recent macro evolution, check out Culex Molestus (new species), and research sheep and cattle — human guided macro evolution (speciation). Fun fact is that cattle’s last living genetic ancestors are extinct (very recently).
Dear distinguished gentlemen,
Evolution is a theory not a fact. If a fact when did it become a fact. Skulls have been played with for years, built, rebuilt, casted, and made up by the imagination. It takes more of a leap of faith to believe in evolution
that to believe in God who created all things.
Don’t forget the contest two British scolars had for funding, the one who found the most dinasour bones would get the funding. Many of these bones and species of dinasours were discarded because there was no way they could be something that ever to existed.
DNA, is something that is too complex to ever happen by chance. Remember many of these scolars are the ones that say there is life out there in space. LOL.
“Evolution is a theory not a fact”
I’m not arguing for evolution, but please don’t play this card. No scientific theory ever becomes fact. The theory of gravitation (and there are a few) are still just theories and always will be. Relativity will always be a theory. Scientific theories are never proven.
But eventually you can’t come up with any tests of the theory that have not been well done–so you stop deliberately testing the theory. Like so much of life, you always watch for things that might disprove the theory, but you don’t spend a lot of time on it.
It serves as a fact unless something truer comes along. 🙂
YEC has no credible data that support it–and so many observations that deny it. You can believe it if you wish, but please don’t try to support it with observations. That is so embarrassing.
“”YEC has no credible data that support it””
Even if that were true from a scientific perspective — and it is not — the most credible evidence for me is God’s unequivocal Word.
If you start with science you will not end up with truth.
All great scientists before the Modern Age felt they were discovering God’s Truth in the pursuit of science.
You have made your mind up. That is your privilege. You will see the evidence from the point of view of your presuppositions about the Word of God.
I see the evidence from my presuppositions. One of us is right. One of us is wrong. We both cannot be correct.
Neither of us can add one inch to our stature. So I humbly accept that I do not know, unaided by my faith, how the world came to be.
Frank: We’ve had some good discussions and this is not meant to be contentious, but a serious question. At what point do you think the science of the age of the earth becomes convincing to evangelicals? (let’s separate earth age and special human creation for the moment). At some point, the science of heliocentrism, became too powerful for Christians to withstand. They decided that their core beliefs were not endangered by heliocentrism. As it stands, the scientific evidence for an old earth is monumentally overwhelming, probably more so than for when heliocentrism was accepted. Majority rule does not determine truth, and science is not infallible, but more and more Christians are concluding that the age of the earth does not stand in the way of their faith. The day will come (if it isn’t already here) when young earthers are relegated to the same category as holocaust deniers or people who believe vaccines cause autism.
Bill Mac,
I’ve got to admit your comment here is quite shocking. Normally I find you to be quite gracious and level headed, but relegating YEC to the realm of holocaust deniers is beyond the pale. I personally don’t believe that one has to be in the young earth camp to be a Bible believer, but young earth advocates do have reasons for believing what they do.
John: I apologize for the analogy. I thought better of it 1.2 seconds after I hit submit. Please understand that it is not a link that I am making but that I fear the world will make. But please understand my underlying point: ie: Believing something to be true or false in the face of all the evidence to the contrary. Is there any scientific discovery or breakthrough that would convince you that the earth is old?
Let me point out one more thing. Marco Rubio was recently asked about the age of the earth. He waffled. Now I don’t know if Rubio is a young earther, but I doubt it. He is Catholic and I’m pretty sure Catholics are not generally young earthers.
I’m pretty well convinced, as are the commentators that I heard weigh in on this is that Rubio waffled because he hopes to run for president and equivocating on the age of the earth will endear him to evangelicals. Is this true? Would evangelicals really vote for a Mormon and not vote for an old earther, or perhaps someone who believes in evolution (theistic or not)?
Bill Mac,
First of all I want you to know that you have my respect. I always find you comments thoughtful and gracious. In regards to your question, I actually think that it’s possible that the earth is old. I don’t believe in theistic evolution nor do I believe that humanity is as old as some say.
Bill,
I have a friend who teaches and is just about finished with his PhD in some realm of science at GA Tech. He is active in the Veritas Forum at Tech and holds to a young earth. He even taught why he holds to a young earth which tells me he remains unconvinced by contrary scientific evidence.
Mark: No doubt such people exist, but they are a tiny minority. That doesn’t make them wrong, however.
For me, it is Occam’s razor. The universe looks old and acts old because it is old. God could have created the light of distant stars “in-transit”, so it wouldn’t take tens of thousands of years to reach us, but I don’t have any reason to think He did.
It isn’t my goal to convert young earthers, although I’m happy to discuss it. It is to hope that the age of the earth will not be made a test of fellowship (or voting), Ken Hamm notwithstanding.
The great interest accorded to Genesis is strongly stimulated by a question of another order, which goes beyond the proper domain of the natural sciences.
It is not only a question of knowing when and how the universe arose physically, or when man appeared, but rather of discovering the meaning of such an origin….
In my faith, God is the God of the Natural World, and science, properly done, reveals to us the secrets of God’s natural world.
And God is also for us the One Who has chosen to reveal Himself through sacred Scripture as Christ opens our minds and our hearts to understand it.
So if we look to the Scriptures for God’s revelation for understanding of His part in existence, we will encounter some verses of great meaning to us in our faith:
“He (Christ) existed before anything else, and He holds all creation together.” (Colossians 1:17)
and this:
” The Son is . . . . sustaining all things by His powerful Word.”
(from Hebrews 1:3)
and this:
“And He that sat upon the throne said,
‘Behold, I make all things new.’
And He said unto me,
‘ Write: for these words are true and faithful’.” (Revelation 21:5)
and this:
““In His Hand is the life of every creature and the breath of all mankind.”
(Job 12:10)
We are told many things in sacred Scripture, but not everything.
“Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.” (John 21:25)
well, in the interest of peace-making between YE and OE Christians, here is something that could be of interest to BOTH:
The only really interesting attempted resolution of the ‘young Earth-old Earth’ dichotomy, that I have ever seen done, was the work by Gerald L. Schroeder, an orthodox Jew and a physicist.
His book
‘The Science of God: the Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom”
is something worth looking at, if only for its brilliant attempt to dissolve the current ‘strict dichotomy’ of the two models in our culture.
Gerald Schroeder manages to do this with great respect for the integrity of each model.
I don’t agree with everything Schroeder writes, but his is an approach that draws a circle large enough to bring the two into convergence just enough to open a space for dialogue between those of both ‘old’ and ‘young’ Earth persuasions.
I like people who make a place for dialogue, where none existed before. They are much needed in our world, I think.
I myself have read Schroeder’s book and found it fascinating . . . it gets a bit technical, yes;
but a lot of it actually MAKES SENSE whether you agree with him or not.
Why can’t everything have been created in a six day span? Excuse me, but I’ll believe the bible. God certainly could have and did create mysteries that man can only guess at. The fossils, the stars that are billions of lightyears away, the oil that is 4,000 feet deep in the earth, salt layers that are 2,000 feet deep in the earth, coal seams that are various depths, and everything we see is made of nothing.
It doesn’t matter what scientists think they can prove, when God said let there be fossils there were fossils.
Jess: I trust you aren’t saying that God planted fossils?
Bill Mac,
That is exactly what I am saying, If you can prove me wrong, then I will agree with you.
Bill Mac,
God planted the trees, why not plant fossils.
Why would God want to deceive us about the age of the earth? Why make it look old?
Chris,
God is not deceiving us if He chooses to create something in a state of maturity rather than in its infant state. Consider, for example, that Adam was created, not as a baby in the garden with no one to care for him, but rather in a full grown and mature state. There is no reason to assume that God would not or could not also create the world in a state of similar developmental maturity, or to suggest that He would be deceiving us for doing so.
Rick,
It is not hard to understand why God created Adam as an adult, but there is no reason in the world to assume that God would create the world to look old. I am much more open to the view that fossils and such are not as old as scientists think, but I completely reject the idea that God created the world to look old even though it isn’t.
Well, what about people today who look five, ten or fifteen years older than they are? God created them, and they matured in a normal and natural way. However, they look older than they are. Is God deceiving us again?
If you admit that the fossils may appear older than they are, then why automatically exclude the possibility that the earth may similarly appear older than it is?
While I grant your assertion that there is no reason to assume that God would create the world to look old, I must counter that I cannot think of a single reason why He would be forbidden from doing so. It’s the old “Why” versus “Why not” discussion.
Rick: A better analogy might be if God created Adam with a scar over his eyebrow that made it look like he had been cut. The idea that God created and planted fossils is just way, way outside the pale of reason.
I honestly thought you were joking. Doesn’t the idea that God planted fossils kind of make him a big cosmic deceiver?
Bill Mac,
It does not make God a deceiver in any way, but it does make him a creator in every way.
For one to believe in evolution would mean we would be able to pick and choose what scriptures we want to toss out.
Why did God make the earth look old? ans. Does it look old to God? If the earth did look old to god, it would be because he wanted it to look that way. Only with man the problem exists.
Fossils are nothing new to me, I’m an old fossil myself.
I am an ex-underground coal miner, I have worked in seams of coal 2,000 feet down from the top of the mountain. I have seen fossilized trees, ferns and other plants embeded in the roof of the mine. The fossilized trees, what we miners called “horse backs” could slip out of the roof and kill a miner. Several did get killed by them.
With me being a mountain man, I’ve seen fossils of sea shells on the tops of the mountains.
When I would look at these wonderous things, all I could do is give God the glory.
Jess: Why would God plant things in the ground that look like the fossilized remains of once living plants and animals that aren’t really the fossilized remains of once living plants and animals?
Bill mac,
We should never change our view of the Bible because of carbon 14 dating. Carbon dating does not tell how old a rock is, it only tells us how much the atoms have decayed. Even with carbon dating there are factors that would not make this an exact science. It is thought carbon dating is only good for about 50 or 60 thousand years. Even at this point there is a great big “?”.
Jess,
But we also need to be sure we have a correct understanding of the Bible.
Jess: Most people believed the bible taught the earth was flat, until empirical observation proved otherwise. Many Christians held to what they believed to be biblically held geocentrism, until as late as the 19th century. Some still hold to a flat earth (theflatearthsociety.org) based on what they suppose the bible teaches. In each case many use the same argument that you do: “I just believe the bible”, “we shouldn’t change our view of the bible based on scientific evidence”, etc.
Scientific interpretation of empirical evidence is not infallible. But nor is human interpretation of biblical texts. All truth is God’s truth and science is not the enemy of religion. Of course we change our view of the bible based on science, if the evidence convinces us that our view of the bible is wrong, see Galileo and Copernicus for details.
Scientists can be elitist, arrogant know-it-alls, certain that their view is the only view and ridiculing all who oppose them. But unfortunately so can Christians. We must guard against this.
Bill Mac. How long does it take to make a fossil? Are you assuming millions of years?
How do you determine the age of a fossil? Are you assuming there is a sure-fire test?
Dating methods require assumptions. It is possible these assumptions (uniformitarianism) are correct. But it is also true they are not.
Evolution has been so widely accepted that these assumptions are simply ignored. Any contrary possibilities, and there are many, are simply dismisseded or redacted according to the prevailing assumptions.
This has happened often in science.
Frank: The issue (at least at the moment) isn’t how long it takes to make a fossil. It is about Jess’s theory that God planted the fossils. As to your original question: Fossils, I believe, come in a wide range of ages. Someone mentioned Carbon 14, but C14 is only one of many radiometric dating techniques. I seriously doubt that they are all wrong. Not that they are perfect, but they would all have to be catastrophically wrong for YEC to be true.
Bill – you’re spot on about the dating methods. There are about 20 of them, and while about 15 of them (from a quick bit of research) have a fair margin of error, but a few of them such as Uranium-Lead dating are precisely accurate and self-verifying — the only way to refute their accuracy is to refute the math behind the half-lives.
I suppose Jess would argue that to know believe in a half-live of 704 million years really exists to observe it, like macro evolution. Or that God has created these things to give the appearance of having happened naturally. — You can’t argue with people like Jess. He can counter any argument with “God is omnipotent”, and all you’re left with is your backslidden compromises on scripture — and to be judged by Dave and Rick (in that order 🙂
Bill Mac,
First, I don’t subscribe to Jess’s view of fossils, but he is correct that the creation was created with age, if the Bible’s record is to be believed.
Stars were created that are light years (actually a measure of distance not specifically time) away, but created by fiat not by evolution.
The same is true of Adam. He was created with “age included” (though we do not know exactly what that age was).
So, the fact that people would look at things and think, “wow these APPEAR really old,” is quite natural. It is like looking at the sun RISE. But, appearances are often deceiving.
Secondly, I’d ask, “How would a fossil be created slowly over an extended period of time.” Carbon-based matter decays rather quickly actually. A fully formed fossil would require some process–not an extended period of time as with uniformitarian theory.
Third, an ancient date for creation was not a part of the theory of evolution. It was part of the “spin.” Even evolutionists of the most hardened type realized that Darwin’s theory “necessitates” a long, long — just short of infinite almost — time.
So, first came Darwin, then came Old Age in regard to natural selection at least. The debate of the age of the earth is actually very old itself.
I don’t think most people realize that dating using whatever method requires starting with “some assumption.” For example, if one enters a room and a candle is burning, according to scientific investigation (inductive reasoning), at one quarter inch an hour, how long has the candle been burning?
Well, if I investigate the candle and see that it is manufactured by so and so, it looks like the same candle as so and so, and so and so candles are manufactured with a length of so and so, then it is quite easy using the scientific method to conclude how long the candle has been burning.
It only requires a few “assumptions.” All dating is like that.
But, there is another problem, and it is a problem that science cannot even attempt to answer — though many scientists do actually attempt to answer it — “Who made the candle, put it in the room, and lit it in the first place?”
Fourth, the age of the earth is not the crucial question and it is NOT the fulcrum upon which evolution teters. Evolution is an “acausal” approach to origins. That’s what Darwin’s heart longed for to quench the burining inside as he thought of his dear father and daughter burning in hell.
Creation is “acausal.” Regardless of the age of the creation (which nobody has proven, including even those who have supposedly discovered the “God Particle”), creation and evolution are mutually exclusive world-views.
Theistic evolution is an attempt to reconcile the irreconcilable.
Frank –
You’re wrong on a few counts. Not all dating methods rely on assumptions, unless you are arguing that the math behind half-life calculation is an assumption. See my previous comments on Uranium-Lead. EVEN IF these systems make their own assumptions, they all don’t make the same assumptions. However, when you use 20 completely different methods and get back the same answers, you can have a high degree of certainty. Does that mean we can pinpoint the exact day the earth was created? Of course not, but we’re on the right order of magnitude.
You are also worried about the degree to which the age of the earth and evolution are related. Of course they are. Evolution is an extremely slow process. If the Earth were 6k years old, well that’s probably not even enough time for the first molecular replicators in the primordial soup to have arisen.
FYI here’s a great video of an experiment to reproduce the primordial soup. It turns out that scientists were exactly right about what they thought happened.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ftpVA04_IFc#t=2871s
Hi Jess,
The reason you see sea shells at the top of the mountain is because most mountains were at one point just ridges between the tectonic plates under water. Since you are a YEC you probably do not buy that those plates and mountains were slowly created and moved over billions of years, but that is the scientific explanation, currently taught in 6th or 7th grade science class.
Bryon Polts,
I understand that science is taught in 6th and 7th grade, brain washing starts early doesn’t it. I’m sticking to the Bible, and that’s my story.
I don’t have to buy into science.
Science is new, the Bible is old, and has stood the test of time and always will. In the 1400’s man thought the earth was flat. Job said the earth hangs on nothing, The Bible speaks of ocean currents long before science discovered that ocean currents were real. The Bible teaches about weather systems long before there were Meteorlogists.
This is only the beginning, shall I go further?
Bryon Polts,
I know about tectonic plates, I know what science teaches. I also know what God teaches. That’s good enough for me.
Well. If it is taught in public school it must be true.
Byron Polts,
God is Omnipotent, I will always accept the Biblical account of creation, and deny any other account. F.A.I.T.H.— Forsaking All I Take Him.
That’s my story and I’m sticking to it. Faith is something we all need a little more of
Bryon Polts,
A person with an experience is never at the mercy of someone with an arguement. I have experienced God’s wonderful Salvation, and have his Holy Spirit in my heart. If anyone knows about creation it would be me, because my Heavenly Father created all things.
Let’s see you top that Byron.
I can top that 🙂 Here’s a video of the recreation of the early atmosphere wherein they produce the primordial soup with nucleic acids that form the basis of all life on earth. You can see it here with your own eyes. No faith required.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ftpVA04_IFc#t=2871s
In this, I fully support Jess. You can argue with my observations, but you can’t argue with my experience.
However, I am not convinced that my experience with God has much to do with the history of the earth.
Bennett Willis,
Of course it does, Faith puts Genesis in it’s proper perspective.
Thank you Bennett.
Just out of curiosity, how many guys on here subscribe to some form of theistic evolution? How many subscribe to an old earth view? If you’re old earth, what view do you hold (ie gap theory, day age etc)?
I am an old-earther. I have no doubts that the earth is old. I’m open to theistic evolution or progressive creation, but I’m less dogmatic about that. I’m certain evolution is possible but that doesn’t mean that we are the product of it.
John Wylie,
I’ll be the first to say I do not believe in theistic evolution, God don’t have to depend on evolution for his miracles to work. All God has to say is let there be, and there is.
John Wylie,
Maybe I am a dinosaur. For the life of me, O do not understand how this post which was posted as a lark by Rick Patrick has received this much attention.
I am amazed that some guys here seem to find it needful to give any credibility to the theory of evolution and placate a person who denies the creation story as recorded in Scripture.
By faith, conservative Christians affirm the first 11 chapters of Genesis as true as is the remainder of all Scripture. We cannot answer all of the questions of the universe, nor do we have to make such an effort.
We affirm the propositions of Scripture by faith and we proclaim the biblical revelation without apology or compromise. And frankly, we should let the devil take the hindmost parts wit the rest of it (any theory contrary to the biblical revelation). Why? Because the rest of it comes from the pit of hell in the first place.
“”Maybe I am a dinosaur. For the life of me, O do not understand how this post which was posted as a lark by Rick Patrick has received this much attention.””
It evolved.
Rick,
Always enjoy reading your contributions. Good pic of you and Dr Patterson.
I am a young earther because I believe that is the position that makes the best sense from a Biblical understanding. I won’t do through the linguistic arguments, but it seems that it is more consistent to read a literal day from the Genesis account rather than an age per day- reason 1. My undergrad was in engineering so I am not exactly a stranger to science, but at some point, the universe was a closed system and hence would hold to the model of the laws of thermodynamics such that order does not increase with time, but rather disorder- therefore, macroevolution is in violation of these observable laws- reason 2. God’s Word says that sin entered the man through one man(Adam)….Jesus affirmed the historicity of Adam….even accounting for lapses in the genealogies, we are only at several thousand years for the age of the earth– reason 3. The Genesis flood as explained by Henry Morris gives at the very least a rational explanation for the evidences we find in fossils and rock layers that is consistent with the YE position – reason 4. No matter where you begin, you have to have a First Cause. Mr Poltz can affirm evolution, but then he is left with the uncertaintyt of why we have anything in the universe rather than nothing. A simplistic but accurate phrase says – You can’t get something from nothing. Nothing ever creates something. Evolution says if you take electricity and the right makeup of elements, you will get basic life. No need going into how the atmosphere of the earth would be hostile to these conditions because it takes a huge amount of faith in the first place to say ” I trust in nothing getting me here, rather than God.” In effect, nothing becomes God to Mr Poltz, as nothing is his creator. There is no need for God to use (macro)evolution to accomplish His purposes, and I see no evidence for it, and thus no need for bilions of years(reason 5).
Kevin,
Thanks for weighing in and for your kind words. My position is the same as yours. In fact, I have been quite surprised at the existence of the old earthers and evolutionists on this comment stream.
As others have pointed out, I meant this post to be humorous. My simple joke resulted in a replaying of the Snopes Trial. However, I can hardly accuse them of hijacking the thread–it is most certainly about evolution.
The most I can say is that they hijacked the joke…and turned it into a very serious discussion.
Rick,
I am not as “surprised” that Old Age Dogma has become entrenched in Christian circles.
It has been indoctrinated into public school children without any equivocation or honest evalutation for 4 generations. Given that much time and no questioning allowed, is it surprising that the prevailing myth rules the day?
Frankly, that’s a good point, Frank.
But how do we know they have only been teaching this for four generations?
Quite possibly this has been handed down for BILLIONS and BILLIONS of years!!
Rick,
If I had enough time, I’d answer your question.
Kevin,
That’s great! thank you.
Bill Mac,
Why did God create fossilized remains? ANS. The same reason he created the earth and all it’s wonders.
I enjoy driving the Interstate Highways through serious hills and mountains. As the road cuts through the earth you see on hill after hill the same order of rock layers–rocks that were obviously laid down relatively flat and which have been rumpled by the movement of the earth’s surface.
Going across southern Arkansas you can see the same sort of rock layers but these are old–really old. They are obviously much older than the layers that you saw in other regions. If you teach your children YEC, and then drive from Texarkana to Little Rock, there is some probability that they are going to conclude that you are a teller of tales and that the tales you tell have no basis in fact.
Or perhaps Jess is right.
“”that they are going to conclude that you are a teller of tales and that the tales you tell have no basis in fact.””
Based upon obvious assumptions this makes an obvious conclusion, though a fallacious one.
There are other explanations for the geological column than a “random act of nature.” You may not agree with the evidence, but your disagreement aside, the evidence and plausible explanation is quite relevant.
I believe Darwin would be much more suspect to being a “teller of tales” than a parent who teaches God’s Word is reliable and science is fallable.
Bennett,
“As the road cuts through the earth you see on hill after hill the same order of rock layers–rocks that were obviously laid down relatively flat and which have been rumpled by the movement of the earth’s surface.”
Please take a few and watch this video. I heard Dr. Austin many years ago and saw his slides on the Mt. St. Helens phenomenon. Let us remember that no one of us in modern times, scientists included, were there to observe anything. So what we are doing is making scientific best guesses.
Dr. Austin’s “best guess” makes a lot of sense for sediment layers and his “best guess” is based on actual observation.
YEC,
Les
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flrhqjN5BHo
I listened to the whole 20 mintues of the video. I have been to Mt. St. Helens, flown over it (commercial) and read about it. What he says about the mountain and the eruption is (of course) correct. What he implies is simply not justified.
Another area that is of great interest regarding flash flooding is the “Scablands” of eastern Washington. I don’t understand why he did not bring that up since he is from the area and most certainly is acquainted with the geology that produced the surface of that area. During the ice age the glaciers blocked the flow of water out of Montana to the Pacific. They did this several times. Each time a significant fraction of Montana flooded. Of course the water eventually broke through and huge walls of water rolled across the planes of eastern Washington. This happened (more or less) 10 times.
When I drove through this area, it reminded me of the farm I grew up on in Western Tennessee. It looked like areas of the farm that had eroded except on a grand scale. There were gullies that were several hundred feet deep cut through the soil. There was no significant “hard rock” erosion that seemed to be associated with these (numerous and huge) flash floods.
In the video, the Dr. Austin keeps referring to the “Little Grand Canyon.” What he omits is the difference in the erosion of the rock layers in the Grand Canyon and the gullies that were cut into the soft pumice on the sides and base of Mt. St. Helens. He also conveniently ignores the fact that the structures on MSH are a few miles in length where as Grand Canyon is 200+ miles. MSH is a “hill” and everything he refers to flowed down the hill. It is an embarrassing performance by a man who is likely a solid scientist.
When you get to the Grand Canyon (if you have started at Arches) you can recognize and name most of the rock layers. You have seen them in numerous “Utah Canyons” as you have visited the various parks. If you have examined (via photos or personally if you have time) the layers, you have observed that the layers don’t have the same sort of fossils. The types of life become “earlier” as you move down the layers and when you reach the green rock at the bottom, there are no fossils.
This is not a video which credibly supports YEC.
Bennett,
I’m not a scientist. And certainly not a geologist. I want to sat that up front. You sound pretty informed. Are you a geologist per chance? Just wondering.
You say,
“During the ice age the glaciers blocked the flow of water out of Montana to the Pacific. They did this several times. Each time a significant fraction of Montana flooded. Of course the water eventually broke through and huge walls of water rolled across the planes of eastern Washington. This happened (more or less) 10 times.”
According to your understanding, when was this period? How long ago?
Thanks,
Les
I clicked the wrong button and got this reply in another place. I copied it back to here.
As I recall (and I have not been there in about 8 years) the signs said that it was about 10K years ago. This was the time when glaciers covered much of northern North America. The flooding of Montana seems to have been generically called Lake Mizoula (spelling in doubt).
Personally, I’m a 71 year old chemist who was the only chemistry major at the Baptist college I attended. But I am a “generalist” and find many (all?) things interesting. One of the fun things to do is to bring some fact from one area of study into the solution of a problem in another area.
I think that what Dr. Austin does not say is as interesting as what he does say. Listen carefully to the tone of his voice.
Bennett,
I’m just wondering if you are aware of any of the “problems” with the geological columns, particularly fossils in layers they are not supposed to be, etc.
I am not one proposing that YEC is not without gaps and difficulties. I understand the issues. You seem to imply — and feel free to defend against this assessment — that no problems exist for the geological column from a uniformitarian perspective.
You have implied several times that YEC proponents are bumbling polemicists. I have a whole shelf of books pointing out the problems with evolution, the geological column, etc. Many of them are written by scientists who do not admit to a Christian testimony.
You speak as if “Darwinian Evolution” is a settled issue beyond any question, sort of like the theory of gravity — oh, wait, that is still be debated.
It is a little “offensive” (for lack of a better word) that you speak so condescendingly in regard to YEC, as if none of us could possibly know anything about “real” science.
Michael Behe, for example, is a pretty well respected scientist, and he’s not an evolutionist. Ironically, you trust Darwin, and he was not even a formally trained scientist.
You also completely ignore the fact that Darwin had a philosophical motive for proving the theory of evolution to be true. Keep in mind, Darwin did not create the “theory of evolution” in his work, but a modality proving how it could work. He began with an assumption and set out to prove it is true.
I agree, we all do that, so that alone does not discredit Darwin, but it does go to the heart of what drove Darwin’s interests in evolution.
Bennett,
I’m not sure in that convoluted post that I made myself clear.
I am saying that I have, as honestly as humanly possible, examined the evidence from both a creationist point of view and an evolutionist’s point of view and found neither to be without any difficulties.
However, after taking all the possible conclusions into consideration and weighing the best evidence from each approach, I’ve become a committed creationist.
As to YEC v. OEC I am less dogmatic but the evidence for a young age is quite compelling for me, and even moreso, when the science and faith issues are taken together.
Follow-up.
One more thing if you will tolerate my thinking on my feet (or fingers).
I had to defend my views on creation (particularly in regard to String Theory) against three Ph.D.’s, one of which did not particularly like me or my thesis. So, either they just passed me because I paid my fees, or they felt that my thesis was at least credible at the intersection of science and theology.
So, when a convinced evolutionist, theistic or otherwise, simply scoffs, shakes his head and looks at me like I’m a hopeless polemic, that really does not challenge my beliefs much.
As I recall (and I have not been there in about 8 years) the signs said that it was about 10K years ago. This was the time when glaciers covered much of northern North America. The flooding of Montana seems to have been generically called Lake Mizoula (spelling in doubt).
Personally, I’m a 71 year old chemist who was the only chemistry major at the Baptist college I attended. But I am a “generalist” and find many (all?) things interesting. One of the fun things to do is to bring some fact from one area of study into the solution of a problem in another area.
The reply above this belonged above. Please read it in the context of the conversation I was having with Les.
Frank, bumbling is not a word I would chose to describe anyone who will work this hard in a discussion of what they believe.
I was an “experimental chemist” in my productive years. Currently, I teach in a community college–a productive activity and also experimental, but a lot more out of my control than the equipment in the lab was. When I would start on a project, I would always have expectations about how it should (might?) turn out. The first thing I would do would be several experiments and analyze the results. This allowed me to work out the techniques needed and procedures. During this time I would usually form some hypotheses (an improvement from expectations) about what was going on and why. This was the part of the work when I always felt I was “getting dumber” because things that I thought were true about the reaction or process were proven false. As time passed, I would revise my hypotheses, do experimental work, and eventually develop some understanding of what was actually going on. Eventually I would find a set of observations that were consistent and which largely explained what was going on. Sometimes this was all that was needed to understand what was going on and sometimes this became the basis of a lot of work as I would attempt to improve things.
I described my activities as “believing in my hypothesis but always being in doubt and always ready to abandon what I thought to be the right answer in favor of an answer that appeared to be more correct.” I would almost always have an expectation of how the experiment would turn out–but I always checked carefully to see if it really did turn out this way. This seems to me to be typical of the thought process that goes into any scientific activity.
I have spend many hours listening to YEC apologists explain how they can justify this belief. I cannot remember a time when the person went to the “facts well” that what they drew up was not in conflict with things I regarded as credible or in conflict with my personal experiences–and I lump “incomplete” and “half truth” in this same pile.
If you listen carefully to Dr. Austin (the link above that Les provided) you will notice that the narrator is the one who provides most of the YEC connections. You will also notice that Dr. Austin seldom offers the kind of enthusiastic agreement that you would expect if he was in full agreement with what the narrator is saying.
A significant portion of my industrial career was spend trying to help people understand what was going on in their chemical plants. Almost always they had a model of the plant that was not quite right (or I would not need to help). Any time I have the opportunity to read about how people come to change their minds, I do so. Based on the conclusions from those readings and my own experience–the fact (I keep looking for exceptions) that no one has ever changed their mind based on what they discussed on a blog is not surprising. Surely there is one, but I can’t remember seeing it. When confronted with provable facts, we simply become more determined that our belief is right.
Now, I think I’ll go read the comments on William Thornton’s rant. I’m sure I will have something to offer in that comment thread. 🙂
Byron, even if I accepted your premise that the earth is billions of years old, which I don’t take a hard line on either way, you have not dealt with the main issue of my argument: creation and evolution are mutually exclusive propositions about creation.
You also have not extricated yourself from the trap of “first causes” even if you give the creation billions upon billions of years. You simply have to do what some died-in-wool-atheistic-scientist work feverishly to do: find an acausal explanation for reality.
Science has not done this. The Big Bang (the prevailing theory offering an ancient age for the cosmos) is missing a significant part. Modern String Theory (my area of research) has been impotent in standing in as a “cause” for “acausal creation.”
So, the age of the earth is pretty much a red herring in discussing evolution in my mind. There are much more significant challenges.
Remember, I have already said that an old-age for the cosmos is not the “final nail in the coffin of creationism,” as you’d like to propose. Creationism as a cosmology has pitfalls to be sure, but no less so than evolution.
Faith is not a matter of “what does science say,” but simply a matter of what does God say? Salvation, my concern and mission in life, is not an intellectual matter. Unbelief is a moral stand, not an intellectual one.
You choose NOT to believe in or be submitted to God. That is a moral choice. You stack up evidence to support that choice.
I agree that my choice to believe in and submit to God (as much as humanly possible) is a moral choice. I have examined the evidence which is the same evidence you have examined (at least in part) and come to a different conclusion.
What does not work against my faith is for someone with a “moral agenda” to relegate my faith to a “scientific method.”
I say this with as much grace as a profound difference in world-views would allow. I am describing my world-view and how it differs from yours. I am not condemning you because you differ from me in how you have chosen to live your life.
If Jesus did not come to “condemn” then I don’t need to do so (John 3). You alone will stand in judgment for your choices. If I am incorrect and it’s all been a big joke on me — my final judgment will be exactly like yours.
On the other hand . . .
I appreciate your thoughtful reply. I don’t really get into the philosophy debate about why the big bang happened, but I take it on faith that it did. 🙂
The problem both of us have, (apart from your beliefs being traceable mack to the middle east and having nothing to do with science at all) is that if you’re going to argue that I’m saying the universe started without a cause, then where’s your argument for how God himself came to be?
I find it strange that you want science to explain causes (which I believe the big bang is), but when it comes to where your God came from you’re perfectly satisfied with taking it on faith that “He Was”. That’s a pretty hypocritical stance.
Byron,
It is clear that you would not want to converse with a “hypocrite” such as myself and as usual attempts at a rational discussion of matters between a Christian and an atheist inevidently break down into name calling.
I don’t wish to go there. Your question about “God having a cause,” is so easily answered as to be insulting for me to put it forth here.
We have gone as far as we can go, civily. So I’m just going to bow out.
As I said, we all must deal with our presuppositions and we must all own up to the consequences of our choices.
Good, then I’ll take the final word! 🙂
I’m not trying to generally describe you as a hypocrite. That was *not* a personal attack, but I’m suggesting your statement itself is. Your requirement that I explain the origins of the big bang, but you don’t have to explain where God came from. We both know that’s because you can’t, and certainly not with physics equations.
Nice chatting with you Frank!
Until that day,
Byron
Bryon Polts, In the beginning was God, That’s it. He always was, is, and always will be. God who created ALL things loves you. You might deny him but he cannot deny himself. Bryon if you and Jesus were walking the shores of Galiee, shoulder to shoulder, what do you think he would say to you. Think about it.
Did I miss in this tediously long comment stream where one of you quoted the chapter and verse where the Bible states the age of the earth?
Nope.
Making fun of evolution is wickedly funny. The real question it raises is whether an ambassador should make fun of the people he has been sent by the king to be a diplomat towards.
The main issue with evolution is that it frees science from the necessity of never seeking new information or understanding because the Bible is all the understanding we will ever need. Might I offer that even to someone who was raised by a Landmarkist father and mother that insisting scientists not depend solely on the scientific method for understanding of how the world works results in the kind of world where brutal suppression of thought is a common feature of the church?
Perhaps God inspired the Renaissance, the Reformation, and the Enlightenment precisely so that Baptists would invent the phrase “soul competency” as an expression of God’s design intention for us? And perhaps those periods of revolution seeded the ground for a nation that by design is the best opportunity to truly and freely–without any form of coercion–choose to worship and believe in God.
I think I can tolerate the compartmentalization that is required to keep both thoughts in my head at the same time. I believe God is Creator. I’m perfectly willing to accept that some of his creative effort could have been accomplished through a system–including mutable genetic code which provably exists and provably suffers mutations and is shared among all known life on earth–that self-perpetuates.
Now I’m also a believer in the account of Genesis and especially believe that ONLY a historic Adam and Eve need a historic Jesus to rescue the human family from sin. The idea that there are pre-human hominids of which some are morally innocent while only Adam and Eve are morally accountable strikes me as unlikely. Which is the best human logo for the necessity of special creation of man.
But you can’t look at the later skulls in the photo and wonder which are and are not morally accountable. At least I can’t. Does anyone think God holds chimpanzees and baboons morally accountable for their sins? Does anyone think they are souls? Or from an even broader perspective, do they reflect God’s image and has he placed eternity in their hearts?
The only thing Christians should spend time defending is God’s involvement in creation, not his method. And trying to convince those who are not willing to believe is an honorable fool’s errand. But it’s still a fool’s errand.
I personally believe the reach for provinciality suggested by the image of a baboon reading Darwin is inappropriate. But it definitely IS funny. Has Patterson secretly desired a career in standup? I have a friend in Austin that could get him into the improvisation circuit there if he’d like a recommendation.
“Which is the best human logo for the necessity of special creation of man.” Logo ought to have been “logic”.
I still kinda wonder if he ate the baboon. Who kills baboons?
Greg: Quit making sense. We’re Baptists.
I keep trying, Bill, but I can’t quit.
Greg Harvey,
I quite often agree with comments you make here. However, something in your comment above that I wonder about is the reference to Dr. Patterson. Therefore, I shall take the role of antagonist here for a moment.
If I am correct, I think I met your father at the BSSB years ago. I may be wrong.
Nonetheless, is it possible that your statment that your reference to the “baboon reading Darwin is inappropriate” a revelation of your “secret desire” to be critical of most all things Patterson?
You’ve mentioned my dad by name in the past, CB, and I acknowledged you were correct. Yes, he was at the BSSB in the late 80s and early 90s.
I’m not sure this criticism would have come out differently if the protagonist of Rick’s story had been either Mohler, Akin, Iorg, or Kelly.
My last paragraph is designed to recast the derision of the baboon reading Darwin into a pointed barb at the person that created it so that those who are fans of his can kind of see the point I’m making. I’m rather glad you got it, CB.
Greg Harvey,
Your father was a stand up guy. You seem to be as well. However, it seems obvious to me that you do differ in some positions from your father. I did reference him here to be sure I did not have you confused with someone else. I trust you take that at face value.
Now, to the substance of my question toward you and your response.
You mentioned that the criticism would have been the same if the protagonist had been Mohler, Akin, Iorg, or Kelly. Yet, I think we both know that none of those guys could have been the protagonist in Rick’s post. I know for a fact that Akin has never fired a weapon of any kind in his life. In all probability the other three do not hunt and may not even own weapons, although Mohler might just fool us on that one.
As to the point of you barb; Yes, I got it. My question is; Why? Why make that which is obviously a lark an object to use to cast a backhanded insult to a man who has stood on the strong side of many issues wherein others kept silent and would have watched the SBC self destruct? Why cast a light of derision on a man who rather than grasp any part of evolution, made a decision long ago to place his faith in the propositional substance of the Scripture instead?
I trust you get my point.
BTW, I have a suspicion that had the office of Mohler, Akin, Iorg, or Kelly been the home of the stuffed, Darwin reading baboon, this thread would not have had this much attention drawn to it. Of course, I may be wrong. That is, after all, just a theory on my part as is evolution just a theory on Darwin’s part. But one thing is for sure. The Scripture is not wrong in any part and that includes the first 11 chapters of Genesis.
I would like to point out that there are a lot of stuffed baboons teaching in many of our universities. Some of which even make fun of Christians.
When one denies the son of God, nomatter how many degrees one has earned, their ignorance begins to show.
Friends, please do not believe God has to have evolution to create a fossil, bone, or species of animal. God didn’t have to have evolution to create you.
Sometimes I think many of our Professors are direct decendants of the common Baboon. I think it, but don’t believe it. Even though their intelligence indicate they are only a couple of generations away from their common ancestors. Friends our professors need Jesus.
I found this interesting chart over on an Orthodox blog, which covers the ‘range’ of ideas discussed on this post. I think my own faith falls somewhere within the category “theistic evolution”, as we believe that ‘the soul’ was given to ‘Adam’ directly by God; that the ‘soul’ did not ‘evolve’ through some natural process at all.
Hope this chart is beneficial to those involved in this discussion. 🙂
http://i0.wp.com/www.orthocuban.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Creation-Evolution-Continuum.gif?zoom=1.5&resize=640%2C389
The most pressing questions still haven’t been answered:
Who kills baboons? Why?
Did the baboon attack him?
Did he eat the baboon?
Sportsmen kill all kinds of animals. I’ve never hunted before, but I know many people who enjoy it. I have killed a variety of domestic pests, bugs and rodents.
I never ate them.
Baboon tastes like chicken. Or does chicken taste like baboon?
The fact that everything tastes like chicken is proof of common ancestry: we are all descended from chickens.
Chris Roberts
Actually, You have made more sense than some of these guys rolled all into one.
True story,— Back in the mountains of Eastern Kentucky, a gentlemen bought a small monkey for a pet. The proud owner took the Monkey outside to play with it. Well, the monkey must have went crazy, he headed for the mountain behind his house.
While the monkey was squeeling, jumping from tree to tree, and getting higher on the mountain,The owner hears a loud boom.
Did mention it was squirrel season? The poor guy never saw his monkey again.
Actually, it’s proof that we’re descended from alligators, who like to eat chickens 🙂
That is the difference between sportsmen and hunters.
I have eaten grasshoppers before. Kind of like popcorn.
Bill Mac,
A note of encouragement: I agree with you that there is something, “just not right” about shooting a baboon “for fun” — or any animal for that matter.
I have many, many friends that disagree with me on this and hunt regularly. Most, however, do actually eat what they kill. Most true “hunters” do not kill for thrill only.
For a “man of God” to not only kill, but then display the baboon in this fashion seems insensitive to life in general.
I’m generally a fan of Dr. Patterson, but not impressed by his safari skills.
Have you Tree-huggers ever heard:
1). The lack of predators brings about sickness, disease, and death in the animal kingdom? 2). Over population is a bad thing?
3). Had it not been for sport hunters, there would be far less wildlife on the planet?
BTW, baboons can go rouge and be dangerous. Sometimes hunters are paid bounty on baboons.
Did you know there is a bounty on Pythons in FL?
Did you know that thinning the herd is necessary for health of the herd and the environment?
T
In another life, I was paid to kill things I did not eat.
After I was converted and went to a Bible college, the president of the college hired me to kill feral dogs on campus.
I did not eat any of those dogs, but I did, without shame accept my check for killing them.
However, I have eaten dogs in other countries. I have also eaten monkeys. And I am pretty sure I have eaten rats.
Were they bulldogs?
Not a very good analogy. You did not kill them for sport or show, much less to abuse their dead bodies.
I think you have an apple and orange on that one.
“. . . abuse their dead bodies.”
Frank L.,
What does that mean? How is it abuse to send a dead animal to a taxidermist to have it cured, stuffed, and mounted as a trophy display? The animal is dead for crying out loud.
Have you ever eaten a lobster? Do you know how to cook a lobster? Have you ever cleaned a catfish?
CB. I’ve grew up hunting and fishing.
I was never a trophy hunter. Posing a baboon carcass for a joke demeans life in my opinion and needlessly brings disdain on the faith.
Not a hill I am willing to die on — and end up on Dr. Patterson’s wall.
Abuse may be too strong a word.
Again, how is this analogous with making sport of killing for none of the reasons that you state; and then, to put the carcass on display for jest?
I’m not a “tree-hugger” for the most part. But, when I watch a “hunting show” and see the hunter hold up the latest kill and say, “Isn’t that the most beautiful creature you’ve ever seen,” it does have a bit of a ring of irony to it.
Take a picture and hang it on the wall, not the creature’s head.
I don’t hug trees unless I’m in one and my treestand has just fallen out from under me.
I was taught the difference between hunting and killing. Hunters kill things and use what they kill. Killers kill things because they can. I can’t imagine paying someone to drive me out to a certain location, showing me some animals, killing one, and then stuffing it as if I have done something worthwhile.
I have good friends who have deer heads mounted. Not my cup of tea, but I don’t get too worked up over it. They hunted the animal, dressed it, butchered it, and ate it. As it should be.
Frank L,
I am in agreement with you, I have to say animals should only be taken for food not sport. Picture this if you will, a deer hunter sitting in a stand with a high powered rifle, a scope mounted on that rifle and the gun zeroed in to a quarter of inch accuracy at 200 yds. Where in the world is the sport in that.
If one wants to be sporty go after that deer with only a knife. If you get that deer with only a knife, then you have bragging rights.
Sportsmen will hunt rabbits with a 12 ga. automatic shotgun.
What is wrong with this picture? Mr. Sportsman use a rock, then you will have bragging rights.
Sportsman hunt elephants with a elephant gun. Come on, get real. Go after that sucker with a ball bat, then you will have bragging rights.
That poor baboon should have been caught bare handed, one on one, then Mr. Patterson would have bragging rights.
Jess:
Part of the reason hunters use guns and not rocks is that if we are going to kill and animal, we owe it to the animal to kill it as cleanly and quickly as possible. So we use weapons appropriate to the animal and hunting situation.
PS: I doubt anyone uses a 12 gauge automatic shotgun.
LOL.
You are right, Bill Mac. An automatic 12 would be somewhat overkill for rabbits.
However the Rhodesian Army and such other units did use a 12 gauge called a Street Sweeper with a 12″ barrel.
Today, there is a 12 auto on the market for specific purposes. It is a bad boy, but it would also be somewhat an overkill for rabbits.
You amaze me, Bill Mac. It is obvious to me you have a specific knowledge of weaponry. Yet, you have a somewhat different code of conduct about their uses.
Nonetheless and quickly, allow me to state that I enjoy reading your comments and consider you a thinking man and not a member of any “group think tank” that seems to be common in Baptist circles today.
I tip my hat to you, Bill Mac.
Jess Alford,
If you ever go after a Baboon barehanded, please have some to video the event and post it on SBC Voices. I think it would be in the Top Post of the Year category.
Many years ago, my brother and I were rabbit hunting. He was much better than I at seeing rabbits. As we walked through the field, he quietly said, “There was a rabbit under that clump of grass.” We walked on for a few feet and then stopped to discuss how we were going to take the rabbit home with us. Since he had seen the rabbit, I agreed that I would kick it up and my brother would shoot it.
He described carefully exactly where the rabbit was and I positioned myself for the run and kick. And I charged. And kicked. The rabbit flew about 25 feet, bounced twice, and did not move.
It became supper. That seems to me to be an improvement on the catch and hit system–and it has been tested on a real rabbit.
Bennett Willis,
I just learned today that you are a chemist. Hat’s off to you. Takes a pretty brainy guy to be a chemist.
Oh yeah, I almost forgot.
In reading your rabbit hunting story a question arose. Were you a field goal kicker in school? If not, you may have missed your real calling.
CB: Any feral pigs in your neck of the woods? I’d love to come down and have a crack at them. I hear they are often pretty destructive in the South. We could argue about evolution over pulled pork sandwiches. You choose the sauce.
Bill Mac,
I am learning about this new territory I am in along with the culture of the natives. I am finding out there are a lot of wild hogs here and they are a problem for many of the farmers. There are many hog hunters here. I think they are about as plentiful as deer hunters in this neck of the woods.
As a hog hunter, I’ll guarantee you that many of those hogs don’t get eaten. The bigger ones are inedible, especially the large boars. They’re killed for the simple fact that they’re terribly destructive and they breed like rabbits.
However, a nice 80-100 lb. hog, slow smoked or pit cooked is hard to beat. The last one I cooked was like pork-flavored brisket. The BBQ we had from it was a fine meal for our church Thanksgiving lunch.
Dale: I wonder if those big ones could be turned into sausage? Sausage and bacon are really the only reason pigs exist.
In my opinion, no. The meat is so powerfully vile that it wouldn’t be worth the effort. I suppose one could try it, though. There’s certainly no harm in the attempt. The big ones I’ve been around can be smelled from quite a distance, and that smell permeates the meat.
The killing of these big guys is a service to landowners, not a meat gathering hunt. We hunt the smaller ones up to about 150 lbs. for their meat. Very tasty! One only need get on Youtube or Google images to see the destruction that a handful of hogs can do to a crop. Around our area here in Texas, some ranchers have started paying a bounty on hogs.
Getting an education doesn’t take the redneck out of the country boy.
For the record: Killing destructive animals to protect life and property is unfortunate but often necessary.
We have a large population of coyotes up here. They are not nearly as dangerous as some people think they are, but they are predators and sometimes livestock or pets are in danger. If I had coyotes threatening my sheep or goats then I would shoot them, and not eat them (although I would probably take the pelt).
However we have a lot of folks up here who think it is their mission to eradicate coyotes because they prey on deer. If they see them when hunting, they kill them. They poison them, sometimes by dousing deer carcasses with antifreeze. I’ve heard of, but cannot verify, people hanging meat on hooks that the coyotes have to jump and grab and thus die a horrible death. Such things are way, way out of bounds.
I am in Brazoria County (directly south of Houston) and we have many feral hogs. The sign on Highway 288 simply says, “Watch for Animals.” If you hit a large hog, it is both heavier and a lot more “in front” of your car than if you hit a deer.
They would occasionally get into my Mother-in-law’s yard and look for grubs (maybe). They would make the yard so that she could not safely walk on it. She let some teen-agers trap (live trap) hogs and they caught several small ones (~30 pounds). They were ugly–and this comes from a person who helped with the hogs back on the farm.
It seems that domestic pigs revert in a couple of generations (maybe in one) back to the ugly wild hog. We have enough that anyone who wants to hunt them can find a place easily.
CB, I was wearing a pair of “buckle up” overshoes (it is cold and wet in Tennessee in the winter). You could kick a good sized pig a fair distance while wearing them–if the pig would hold still under a whisp of grass.
here in Arkansas, Game and Fish has said of feral hogs: hunters are encouraged to kill all feral hogs they encounter. Hogs can then be harvested or left, even on state lands.
In other words: we don’t want these nuisance animals, somebody shoot them!!
And the farm guys around here are very watchful of them. They are okay with a few coyotes because the coyotes will keep the hogs down for a while. There’s the Great Almyra Panther, too, but we haven’t seen him this year.
In this case, I am inclined to favor Dr. Patterson’s side. After all, as the monkeys say, “Man, descended, the cuss, indeed, but he sure didn’t descend from us.”
OH! And I should add, I am no fan of Patterson, so this is a time of quiet reflection that I should come out for his side in this matter.
Bill Mac,
FYI, You catch the rabbit, then hit it on the head with the rock.
This has truly become bizarre, but Bennett’s story about kicking a rabbit is among the strangest stories this blog has seen.
Comic relief is probably what you are seeing on the thread. My brother and I were both surprised by the flight of the rabbit. It is one of those “head shaking” family laughs when one of us tells it.
A ‘hill on which to live’ . . .
“they will not hurt or destroy
on all My holy mountain,
for the earth shall be full
of the knowledge of the Lord
as the waters cover the sea”
(from Isaiah 11)
On the subject, I just came across this great piece. This is something you will never see happen in a church, despite the demands creationists make on schools.
http://i.imgur.com/L1y66.jpg