R Cowie "Theistic Evolution" 2021 responses
Challenges to Faith Conference — Ron Cowie: "Theistic Evolution"
Note to people who arrive here from search engines: the purpose of this website is to explore reconciliation of the Bible and Science; this talk illustrates a contrary view.
from Bruce —
Why choose Weymouth's version for Jude 3-4? Might it be because the vast majority of translations don't talk about "defending", but about "contending"? Whether brother Ron wants to be defensive or contentious, he sets a high standard for himself, in walking in an apostle's shoes.
1 John 4:1 tells us:
- believe not every spirit, but . . .
- try the spirits whether they are of God: because . . .
- many false prophets are gone out into the world.
So the standard for the "trial" of this "spirit" is truth. Not bluster, not persuasion or concern, but truth. Bring it on!
from Ken Gilmore —
- The comment that the “one true faith is not evolving” comes across as a gratuitous remark designed to poison the well.
- It is also a category error as theology and evolutionary biology are separate disciplines.
- Finally, it is trying to frame those who accept the fact of common descent as people who are changing genuine theological fundamentals.
from Sundaes —
The one true faith has evolved, for all of us, as we mature.
from Bruce —
These verses are from 2 Timothy chapter 2 (q.v.).
Well there's no backing away here, from the standard of truth! So how is he going to demonstrate the truth of his claims against his brethren? I'm not expecting a miracle to back up his pseudo-apostolic authority, but I do expect a water tight line of argument from the Bible. I strongly resent the implied smear in this quotation, and that's all the more reason to expect him to engage with the Biblical case for evolution, and to watch closely as he tries to prove his counter-claims from Scripture!
from Ken Gilmore —
- The reference to “rightly handling the word of truth” is another category error as it seeks to equate an acceptance of the fact of evolution with a failure to properly exegete the scriptures.
- In passing, there is an obligation for believers to “rightly handle” everything including the science. Evolution denialists fail to properly handle the science by denying one of the best-attested principles in science
- The 2 Tim reference again poisons the well by seeking to equate those who sincerely believe that the evidence overwhelmingly attests to the reality of evolution with those whom the author of Timothy regarded as heretics.
from Jonathan —
The first and most elementary quality of any claim to the Truth is that the matter be true. This is where Ron Cowie fails. A false understanding of God's word is no more truthful than a false witness, or for that matter a false scripture, and both are meant to be put to the test of truth.
from Sundaes —
Why underline "but that He did so using an evolutionary process"?
The BASF is a historic document, not for all time.
from Ken Gilmore —
- Cowie is strictly correct in declaring that his interpretation of the BASF/CCA is “directly challenged” by evolution; he is in error in assuming that his interpretation is normative.
- Many in the community who do not accept evolution nonetheless believe that Adam was created mortal and that there was no physical change in nature post-sin
- Ultimately, the evolution controversy is merely a proxy battle in a long-running atonement debate between fundamentalists and moderates in the community
- The reference to those who accept evolution remaining ‘unchallenged in many ecclesias’ betrays a frustration by Cowie that he is unable to override ecclesial autonomy and hunt down those whom he regards as heretics.
from Bruce —
"there is currently a debate in the brotherhood . . . " — well, in a loose sense of the word "debate"! It is not, or not yet, a rational debate. It is not yet a God-honouring debate in which well-intentioned and well-behaved participants listen to each other and respond to each other in pursuit of a shared goal to which they all aspire. We invite brother Ron and his supporters to defend his views, based on Scripture, in this wiki.
from Jonathan —
No EC has ever used the title phrase "God Directed Evolution" or preached it as a doctrine. And it isn't important; the critical fact is that evolution has occurred, not whether God has directed it.
- The debate is not terrific.
- There was considerable debate about evolution online for a decade or so, but it died once the questions were all resolved in favour of evolution being true. Most of the debaters (if not all) started off opposed to evolution but were ultimately persuaded to change their minds by the evidence.
- This is true. This is why we raised it as an issue that needed to be worked through and resolved in a calm, sincere, brotherly and scholarly manner. We were wrong in the past, our understanding of creation has been proven wrong, and so any doctrines that are derived from a false understanding of creation are also liable to be wrong, even when they appear in the BASF and/or CCA. There should be no shame in admitting past wrongs, but it is greatly shameful for a community that was once devoted to searching out the truth to now deny it in order to perpetuate proven false beliefs.
- Some do, some don't.
TEMPORARY REMMED OUT
See Colossians 1:5-6 and James 1:18
from Sundaes —
Truth is not about facts, it's about wider things than just being correct.
There are different kinds of truth, not just absence of error.
from Bruce —
Yes, truth is a high standard! Let's see him actually engage with the scriptural case for accepting the truth of evolution, and present a scriptural case to justify his attack on our Christadelphian faith and fellowship. John 5:39, after all!
Note that these verses in Colossians and James are not relevant to the present disagreement unless Ron's "we believe . . . " is proof of truth on his personal authority, or if he actually makes his case by appealing to a higher authority than himself, such as the Bible.
from Jonathan —
The first and most elementary quality of any claim to the Truth is that the matter be true. This is where Ron Cowie fails. A false understanding of God's word is no more truthful than a false witness, or for that matter a false scripture, and both are meant to be put to the test of truth.
See Galatians 1:6-8
from Bruce —
He's raising the stakes even higher, with a curse! I am not willing to claim the status of a prophet for myself, nor to accord it to brother Ron. Brothers and sisters should judge this question of authority for themselves, remembering that:
but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety." Proverbs 11:14
We Christadelphians who have come to accept that the modern scientific world view is true should avoid responding in kind. We must be truth seekers, not prophets.
from Jonathan —
The first and most elementary quality of any claim to the Truth is that the matter be true. This is where Ron Cowie fails. A false understanding of God's word is no more truthful than a false witness, or for that matter a false scripture, and both are meant to be put to the test of truth.
See 2 Peter 3:16-18
from Ken Gilmore —
- Those who accept evolution have no quarrel with the principle that Biblical truth and true doctrine matter.
- Cowie is in error however by equating evolution denialism with Biblical truth.
- This is strikingly reminiscent of T Griffiths, an early 20th century Christadelphian who insisted that rejection of belief in a flat Earth was rejection of Biblical Truth:
“Seeing that the veracity and verbal inspiration of the Scriptures are denied by many on the basis of the revolving globe-earth theory, even to the extent of rejecting the ascension of Jesus into the heaven of heavens as a “geometrical impossibility” the matter surely cannot be set aside as of no importance, and beyond the province of a magazine devoted to the defence of Biblical teaching and the overthrow of pagan and papal dogmas.
The globe-earth theory is essentially pagan in its origin, and no amount of ingenuity has yet succeeded in harmonizing it with the cosmogony of the Bible. [. . .
There may not be much danger of a brother being led astray by the perusal of modern rationalistic literature, for in that case he is prepared to antagonize the fallacies of modern thought, but morsels of error, in the form of “scientific” tit-bits, daintily wrapped up within the covers of a Biblical magazine, devoted to the defence and advocacy of Scripture doctrine, may not give rise to suspicion that there is anything wrong. The wrong is there all the same, and its effects become manifest when he who has swallowed the morsel finds, as the logical outcome of an adopted bastard theory, that the Bible and modern science are at variance, and verbal inspiration a farce. . . .
— — Letters: “Modern Astronomers and the Dots in the Heavens” The Christadelphian Magazine (1913) 50:346.
Cowie is making the same error as T Griffiths did in conflating rejection of a well-established scientific fact with rejection of Biblical truth.
from Sundaes —
Is he accusing Christadelphian evolutionists of being "ignorant and unstable"? They're not: I know quite a few of them. They are not lawless. (And "lawless" is not about beliefs!)
from Jonathan —
Ron Cowie openly admits his ignorance on matters of science (which is the study of creation, and by extension, God's witness to reality). We agree that Ron in his ignorance is twisting Scripture and is unstable.
from Sundaes —
The third point is false. Darwin believed in God, and Darwinism is not about "life coming".
from Ken Gilmore —
- Cowie fails to accurately summarise what evolutionary creationists believe.
- I do not postulate a hybrid model of evolution in which God constantly intervenes any more than I postulate a hybrid model of thermodynamics in which God constantly intervenes in the motion of individual molecules.
- The term ‘God-Directed Evolution’ is one coined by Christadelphian evolution denialists and is one I reject. I don’t believe in God-directed atmospheric physics, God-directed general relativity or God-directed quantum chromodynamics.
- I too would give nothing for a theory of natural selection that required miraculous intervention at any one stage of descent. I would say the same about any scientific theory which required divine intervention to make it work.
- Cowie’s statement that ”Darwin had no time for these ideas – he thought God had to be excluded”, apart from betraying the usual creationist obsession with Darwin as the high-priest of evolution, also misunderstands Darwin’s position on the subject.
from Bruce —
There are some errors here.
- God is the Creator, not was the Creator. His work of creation is continuing, as Genesis says (see The Redundant Final Word); also at Psalm 102:18.
- As I understand it, evolution has only taken place in the most recent period of God's creation. There was no "gradual evolutionary process" over billions of years.
- "TE" is not capable of accepting anything: it's a concept, not a person. Even as a concept, "theistic evolution" is pretty incoherent, in my view, meaning something like "evolution, and just in case you've been misled I'll tell you I do believe in God".
- I believe in God and I believe in miracles, and I believe in the observable world: what's wrong with that? Bro Ron should show some awareness of the Bible-based reasons for believing that God made the actual world as understood by scientists.
- There is no "they". I don't label myself as an "Evolutionary Creationist" or talk about "God-Directed Evolution".
- It should trouble no minds to appreciate that a theory of natural selection would fail if it required divine intervention: in that case it would become a theory of miraculous selection, no?
from Jonathan —
Ron Cowie is perhaps the least qualified person in the world to define what TE/EC believe, but never mind...
- OK, but its not a "belief" held in religious terms, its just an acceptance of the facts
- Darwin's theory is not about "upward progression of the species" so the premise is wrong
- Darwin's theory is not about life's arrival, rather he is concerned with the evolution of the species. In his concluding statement he says "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.”
- Whilst some take on the term "Evolutionary Creationist" (EC) the term "GDE" is universally despised because of its deceitful origins. None of us identify with it, so this statement by Ron Cowie is merely imagined and untrue.
- Darwin no more excluded God than included God. Darwin was an observant scientist who thought deeply and wrote about what he observed.
Much of which is beside the point. It doesn't matter a hoot what Darwin thought; the facts of evolution speak for themselves via the infinite number of independent witnesses that make an incontrovertible case. Darwin was just the first to pull the pieces together into an evolutionary framework, which quickly proved so successful there was no turning back. And that was true 100 years ago. Today the evidence is so overwhelming and comprehensive there is simply no excuse for denialism.
TODO
| ← back ← Index |
 |
forward → |
|---|
<audio controls> <source src="File:008.mp3" type="audio/mpeg"> </audio>
This page, with comments, is included in the printer-friendly page R Cowie "Theistic Evolution" 2021 responses.
If you do not have an account to edit the wiki, or need help to do so, send us an email. The address is under "Help needed!" on the Main Page.
from Ken Gilmore —
- Cowie’s statement that ”Darwin had no time for these ideas – he thought God had to be excluded”, apart from betraying the usual creationist obsession with Darwin as the high-priest of evolution also misunderstands Darwin’s position on the subject.
- Historian of science Ted Davis in his article “The Evolution of Darwin’s Religious Faith” quotes Darwin’s 1844 essay:
- I must here premise that, according to the view ordinarily received, the myriads of organisms, which have during past and present times peopled this world, have been created by so many distinct acts of creation. It is impossible to reason concerning the will of the Creator, and therefore, according to this view, we can see no cause why or why not the individual organism should have been created on any fixed scheme. That all the organisms of this world have been produced on a scheme is certain from their general affinities; and if this scheme can be shown to be the same with that which would result from allied organic beings descending from common stocks, it becomes highly improbable that they have been separately created by individual acts of the will of a Creator.
- “For as well might it be said that, although the planets move in courses conformably to the law of gravity, yet we ought to attribute the course of each planet to the individual act of the will of the Creator. It is in every case more conformable with what we know of the government of this earth, that the Creator should have imposed only general laws. As long as no method was known by which races [biological types] could become exquisitely adapted to various ends, whilst the existence of species was thought to be proved by the sterility of their offspring, it was allowable to attribute each organism to an individual act of creation. But in the two former chapters it has (I think) been shown that the production, under existing conditions, of exquisitely adapted species, is at least possible.” (Emphasis by Davis)
- Darwin (an agnostic) argued strongly against special creation, but argued for the ‘origin of species’ via a general law.
- The historian of science Ted Davis puts it well:
Contrary to what is often said, Darwin’s theory wasn’t atheistic, and it didn’t destroy natural theology. It was all about creation by natural laws—essentially the same view that BioLogos calls Evolutionary Creation—and left the door open for others to formulate newer, even more powerful, arguments from design.
— Ted Davis ”The Evolution of Darwin’s Religious Faith” BioLogos Nov 3 2016
https://biologos.org/articles/the-evolution-of-darwins-religious-faith/
from Bruce —
Re the confused questions surrounding Darwin's religious beliefs throughout his life, and what he actually wrote about them:
- What Ted Davis describes in the passage quoted above as the "view that BioLogos calls Evolutionary Creation" is clearly not atheism, and not "agnostic" either.
- For evidence that Darwin believed that life originated miraculously, see at Beliefs re the Origin of Life#Darwin — "We must under present knowledge assume the creation of one or of a few forms in the same manner as philosophers assume the existence of a power of attraction without any explanation."
- The sequence of events in 1859-1860 including Darwin's correspondence with Lyell about ultimate origins, the publication of On the Origin of Species (not "the origin of life", as sometimes imagined, misleadingly), and the second edition with the explicit mention of "the Creator", is outlined in this wiki at Beliefs re the Origin of Life#Darwin; and the entire last paragraph of On the Origin of Species is at Entangled Bank. A modern reader might misunderstand this paragraph, by making too much of the change to an explicit mention of "the Creator", or by dismissing it as a response to religious objections, especially if s/he forgets that the book is about how species originate, not how life originated. Another way to misunderstand it is not to read it at all, and listen to what others say about it.
- See also Origin of Species, 6th Edition ending — ". . . the laws impressed on matter by the Creator. . . "
Re "a theory of natural selection": of course this would not make sense if in involved miracles! That would be a theory of miraculous selection! Duh, frankly.
from Jonathan —
Well of course not! To do so would be absurd.
PS. Does anyone check these slides for Ron? Does Ron have no friends?
from Ken Gilmore —
- Cowie is incorrect when he asserts evolutionary creationists ”alienate themselves from most scientists because God is still there in TE (sic) doctrine”
- As mentioned earlier, ECs do not postulate a hybrid form of evolution with God intervening to make it work, any more than they postulate divine intervention in any other scientific theory
- Cowie’s reasoning betrays a conflation of methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism. Given this, his objections can be readily dismissed as he has failed to grasp the epistemological basis of science.
from Sundaes —
I don't care what "most scientists" or scientific institutions say about God. It's irrelevant. Christadelphians believe in God.
from Bruce —
"Trying to align with science" is unscriptural language. The Hebrew Bible calls it "considering the work of God's hands". You can follow the link from Isaiah 5:12 in this wiki through Beliefs re the Nature and Role of Science to an answer to the question of why so many Nobel Prize winners are Jewish! In the New Testament, you can follow the links to see how Dr Thomas paired Romans 1:20 with 2 Timothy 3:16-17 when expressing his belief in God's "Two Books".
from Jonathan —
There is a world of difference between "God must intervene" and "God did intervene" for any apparently natural event to occur, as the Intelligent Design movement discovered when it attempted to publish biochemical and bio-mechanical evidence of God (Irreducible Complexity). Really the issue is no more complex than the weather; the wind and the rain arise via natural forces, but who is to say whether at any point God has intervened? We cannot say, and it would be worse than useless for the meteorologist to speculate.
So far as alienation from scientists is concerned, this is errant nonsense, Ron Cowie's imagination at it again. Alienation from science occurs when one abandons the scientific method of enquiry and inserts a miracle in its stead.
The basic problem here is that Ron Cowie imagines what it means to be a "Theistic Evolutionist" from his own interventionist/creationist viewpoint. But one might as well be a Theistic Meteorologist, a Theistic Chemist, or for that matter a Theistic Plumber. The term is absurd, as are the assumptions that follow.
from Bruce —
It is true that the debate, such as it has been, is inadequate. That is why these pages are were so hopefully entitled "In dialogue . . . ". We need genuine, respectful engagement with the ideas, especially the arguments from Scripture.
from Ken Gilmore —
- Cowie’s information is quite out of date. Both Berea Portal and the Watchman e-mail list have been defunct for a number of years
- The discussion has taken place online given the refusal of many to allow honest, open, informed discussion of the subject to take place in the traditional fora.
- I would question his assertion that people are “speaking openly on TE (sic) concepts from the platform”. That is not my experience
- Cowie’s reference to John Walton as a ”Biblical revisionist” betrays his fundamentalist antipathy towards contemporary scholarship. Walton is a highly regarded OT scholar whose insights on the ANE context of the OT have been well-received
- When Cowie laments that ”some who once held clear views on Creation have now been convinced to accept these new ideas”, he fails to grasp that the reason people accept evolutionary creationism is because the Biblical and scientific evidence firmly support it.
from Sundaes —
"Some who once held clear views . . . have now been convinced to accept . . . " This weasel-worded passive voice suggests a brainwashing: "now accept" would do. "Clear views" is biased language, just meaning "agreeing with him".
from Ken Gilmore —
- In seeking a reason for why EC has emerged, Cowie seeks to blame technology, people with odd ideas seeking out others, evangelistic science, post-modernism, a respect for science by the younger generation, the technological illiteracy of an older generation, or the desire for prestige by those in the community without influence
- What he fails to consider is that EC is correct
from Bruce —
Re the concern about "people who once had limited influence" finding a platform within our very small denomination: meseemeth the brother doth protest too much. Some who have published against evolution themselves have refused to defend their views because, they say, it would "give a voice to error" — thus one-way communication from bully pulpits is supposed to be the only way to honour God and his truth! Meanwhile there are those who have given up waiting for rational discussion and drifted away from the ecclesia.
from Sundaes —
"People with offbeat ideas easily find each other"? — people with ON-beat ideas do, too.
Science has what? Science has made medical treatments to save lives, used conclusions reached from evolutionary science to do good things.
Older people don't have to keep up. The just have to learn to read the Bible for what it is.
What crap that last line is — just a big fish in a little pond.
from Bruce —
"Theistic Evolution Believes" — what?? People believe, ideas don't. Beliefs can't believe.
". . . or are just ways to indicate . . . " — biassed, dismissive language doesn't strengthen his case.
These are all interesting ideas, worth being described clearly and considered. I wouldn't put a tick against any of them as they stand, though.
from Sundaes —
Does this brother know anything about stem cells?
As I read the six days of creation, they are poetry in a symmetrical form.
The 7,000 year plan is a metaphor.
More correctly, Adam has not been changed physically yet.
from Ken Gilmore —
- Cowie’s summary of what he believes ECs believe certainly is not an accurate reflection of what I maintain.
- It also refers to the curious notion of a 7000 year old plan, one which is immediately ruled out by the fact anatomically modern humans have been on Earth for nearly 300,000 years
- In addition, his referral to ‘hominid’ or “evolved man-like creatures” when ‘human’ is the term he should be using is puzzling. By the time Adam and Eve were created, the only human species alive was our own – Homo sapiens – with other human species (H. neanderthalensis, H. floriensis, H. naledi, Denisovans) extinct.
- The Australian Museum provides a helpful definition of the terms hominid and hominin:
- Hominid – the group consisting of all modern and extinct Great Apes (that is, modern humans, chimpanzees, gorillas and orang-utans plus all their immediate ancestors).
- Hominin – the group consisting of modern humans, extinct human species and all our immediate ancestors (including members of the genera Homo, Australopithecus, Paranthropus and Ardipithecus).
- So what do ECs believe? I can speak only for myself but I see no reason to doubt what cosmologists, astronomers, geologists, and biologists have discovered:
- The universe formed around 13.8 billion years ago in the Big Bang
- The solar system formed around 4.6 billion years ago
- Life emerged via abiogenesis as early as 4.5 billion years ago
- From this life the process of evolution has produced the diversity of life we see both now and in the past, including humans
- Adam and Eve, I believe, were created around 10,000 years ago. (The domestication of animals and plants in the ancient Near East around this time allows one to set an upper limit for this date.)
- The evidence against a recent creation in six literal days is overwhelming so this option can be immediately discarded.
- The days however are literal days – attempts to read them as six ages are unconvincing and can also be discarded
- That leaves a number of possible options:-
- Days of revelation
- Days of fiat creation
- Literary framework
- Creation seen as a divine temple created/inaugurated over seven days
- The last option is the one I find most convincing.
- Additionally:
- The flood was both geographically and anthropologically local – just the genomic evidence alone precludes the human race being any smaller than several thousand people
- Adam was definitely created mortal and there was no physical change of nature; this form of Original Sin has zero scriptural support
- It is worth quoting L G Sargent on this point:
“The bare terms, stripped of the qualifying and amplifying phrases with which Dr. Thomas defines his meaning, have sometimes been thrown into the bald proposition that “Adam before the fall was neither mortal nor immortal”; which (to quote Euclid and Dr. Thomas) is absurd. A thing is either X or not-X: there can be no “neutral” position between. A man cannot be neither mortal nor not-mortal; and he cannot be neither not-mortal nor not-not-mortal. A thing is either black or not black, white or not white; it is either in the class of objects which have in common the quality of blackness, or it is in the class “not-black” which includes every other kind of colour, shade or tone. But it must come in one class or the other: there can be no neutral position between those two classes.
“If, then, we take “immortal” to mean “incapable of dying” (as Dr. Thomas does in the passage quoted), we must say that Adam in his novitiate was not incapable of dying, therefore capable of dying, and therefore “mortal” as a simple antithesis to immortal, and using the widest sense of an ambiguous term.” [1] (Emphasis mine)— — Adam in Innocence,The Christadelphian Magazine (1941) 78:14
Pffft! As if Ron Cowie could describe what a scientist believes! Ron doesn't understand science, or evidence, can't hear, won't reason, and wouldn't comprehend even if research was written up in black and white and illustrated with photos (which it generally is).
from Sundaes —
I'm pleased to hear that Bro Burke is still a Christadelphian.
from Ken Gilmore —
- It is indeed true that the problem lies with Cowie’s interpretation of the Genesis creation accounts; the scientific evidence for an ancient, evolving planet is beyond dispute
- This is not unquestioning worship of science but an honest appraisal of the evidence
- Proper exegesis demands that we pay close attention to the genre of any Biblical passage to avoid making the errors of exegesis fundamentalists make in reading the creation narratives as a scientifically accurate account of how and when the universe was created.
- Appealing to how generations past have traditionally understood it is an invalid argument; it is possible for mistaken exegesis to be inherited.
from Bruce —
- . . . our interpretation of Genesis is the problem . . . — yes, that's one problem; the other is his interpretation of the Bible. He's talked for 15 minutes and the only times he's referred to the Bible is to misquote it, smearing the people he targets.
- The second point is correct also. A wonderful example is the question about where the Sun goes at night time. We know from Ecclesiastes 1:5 that after it sets, the sun "hurries to the place where it rises" (NRSV) but in ancient times nobody was sure if it goes on down all the way under the earth before it heads east, or (as seems more possible!) if it does a U-turn after setting, and crosses over above (i.e. behind) the firmament, doing another U-turn to come up in front of the firmament at dawn. See the page The Sun's Path at Night in this wiki for a link to The Sun's Path at Night – The Revolution in Rabbinic Perspectives on the Ptolemaic Revolution, an introduction to the fascinating historical debate by Rabbi Natan Slifkin. If we are wise, we will learn from this.
from Sundaes —
I agree with the first point.
Second point: yes, there's so much allegory and symbolism in the Bible!
from Ken Gilmore —
- Cowie is correct to assert that the Bible is not a science manual.
- Given this, it is entirely unreasonable to ask people where in the creation account it refers to the mechanics of how the universe and life on Earth was made
- The clear references to an ANE cosmogeography (solid firmament in which stars were set, separating waters above from below) alone show that the creation narratives are not relaying the how of creation
- Cowie presupposes a modern cosmogeography (without any justification) with his reference to the rising sun. There is nothing in the Bible which would lead one to infer a heliocentric cosmology.
from Sundaes —
No Christadelphian is trying to prove the Bible wrong. They're trying to read it as God intended.
People who interpreted the rising of the sun as a literal rising were right about the Bible. This is just being wise after the event.
from Ken Gilmore —
- Cowie misrepresents the EC position in his first point. I have never asserted that the six days are six stages of evolution.
- The reference to six days of revelation is the position advanced by P.J. Wiseman and is not contingent on accepting evolution
- The second point is also a misrepresentation. ECs do not believe God remained ‘detached’ from creation for billions of years. They see the hand of God everywhere from beta decay up to the formation of the large-scale structure of the universe
- It is a fact that there are many examples of sub-optimal design in nature (inverted vertebrate retina, circuitous path of recurrent laryngeal nerve, inability to synthesise vitamin C, genome filled with junk) but these are exactly what one would expect in creation via evolution.
- Science never claims to have ultimate truth but it is a remarkably effective way to understand how things were made. It has shed much light on the origins of the Earth and to deny this is to lapse into obscurantism and denial of objective reality
- Cowie’s claim that we have to re-interpret the Bible to fit evolution contradicts his earlier statement that the Bible is not a science manual; given that the Bible is not a science text we should not expect to see it discuss material origins in a scientifically-precise way
- Given the robust nature of the evidence for an ancient, evolving creation, any conflict with Bible and science will arise from a fault interpretation of the creation narratives.
- This does not mean that one interprets Genesis to ‘fit’ evolution as that presupposes a concordist hermeutic.
- The fact Gen 1 reflects an ANE cosmogeography (solid firmament) alone tells us that we do not interpret the creation narratives as per a concordist hermeneutic
- We need to interpret Gen 1 in its ANE context, not as a modern scientifically accurate account.
from Bruce —
- Re the rising of the sun, etc. Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge? It's astonishing that he denies the Bible's geocentrism, and treats it as an incorrect "interpretation" in the past. Check the following verses, and links from them: 1 Samuel 2:8, 2 Samuel 22:16, Job 38:4-7, Psalm 18:9-11, 15-18, Psalm 24:1-2, Psalm 104:5, Proverbs 8:25-29, Ecclesiastes 1:5, Isaiah 24:18, Isaiah 48:13, Isaiah 51:12-16, Jeremiah 31:37, Jonah 2:3-7, Zechariah 12:1, Romans 1:18-25.
- An apocalyptic understanding of the seven days of Genesis 1, reading them as "six days of revelation" plus a sabbath rest, mirrored in the "sevens" of Revelation — so that Moses and John book-end the entire Bible — was suggested by Ralph Lovelock and Alfred Norris in A prologue to Revelation, was published in The Christadelphian Magazine in 1940
from Sundaes —
Those first two points: nobody says that!
The third point is fair enough — e.g. children born with genetic disorders.
It's not about re-interpreting the Bible "to fit evolution", it's to read the Bible the way it was meant to be read, and respecting scholarship.
from Bruce —
That "NOTE:" in purple is inexcusable: a malicious misinterpretation of plain English. To get Genesis is now only a list of "parameters" from "Another way to look at this is to see a Divine hand at work setting the parameters to allow life as we know it to appear" requires overlooking the miracle of creation, in the "Divine hand at work", and the marvel of the creation of life itself. There is nothing demeaning in the original statement, assuming it is accurately quoted, that might justify the addition of only: — "Genesis is now only a list . . . ".
comment from Jonathan Burke
[from Jonathan Burke's personal correspondence to brother Ron Cowie (October 2015) copied to me 9 May 2021 —BP]
from Sundaes —
That "Note.." is misquoting him, putting words in his mouth. It's not even nit-picking, it's just fallacious.
from Sundaes —
"Six days could be anything"? No, six days is six days in the metaphorical week.
Adam was not the first human, he's an archetype.
"Very good" includes mortal beings? Of course it does.
"There was no literal serpent"? True, serpents don't talk.
It makes no difference if Moses did or didn't write Genesis.
from Bruce —
- Correction: "created" does not mean "evolved". Evolution is one means of creation.
- Correction: six days are a working week in the Old Testament, leading up to a day of rest on the Sabbath. It is obvious what they represent.
- Correction: given that "adam" means "human", it is meaningless to say "Adam was not the first human."
- Correction: When we learn what "Adam" means, we understand that "Adam" is created mortal.
- Correction: "Very good" in the Bible is not the pseudo-theological term it has become for some people. (It is obvious what Genesis 1:31 means, but you might be interested to click on that link and see if John Thomas and L G Sargent would agree with Ron!)
- Correction: "dying thou shalt die" isn't just anything.
- Correction: There is a serpent in the narrative which is either miraculously endowed or impossible: this is one of the indications of how a serious and respectful reading of the text will proceed. The heading of this slide is wrong.
- Comment: The authorship of Genesis has nothing to do with "Theistic Evolution", but is a matter of interest to all Christadelphians, including those referred to by brother Ron as "the TE".
from Ken Gilmore —
- Cowie again offers his misinterpretation of what ECs maintain
- “Created means evolved” Cowie errs by conflating special creation with creation. Evolutionary creationists accept what mainstream scientists have shown; the origin of species is evolutionary. Therefore, the mechanism of creation God used was an evolutionary one.
- ”Six days could mean anything”. Incorrect. The days are literal days, but could be days of revelation / fiat proclamation / literary framework / days of inauguration of creation as divine temple
- ”Adam was not first human” – the evidence shows anatomically modern humans first appeared around 300,000 years ago. Adam was the first human to whom God revealed himself
- “Adam was created mortal and prone to sin” This is correct, and no less a person than former CMag editor LGS stated Adam was created mortal. (This reflects a theological peculiarity of the fundamentalist community of which Cowie is a part which preaches a Christadelphian form of Original Sin.)
- “Dying shalt thou die” – infinitive absolute. Functions idiomatically to emphasise certainty of event.
- NRSV – for in the day that you eat it you shall die
- NASB95 – for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die
- NIV – for when you eat from it you will certainly die
- LEB – for in the day that you eat from it you shall surely due
- Tanakh – for as soon as you eat of it, you shall die
- NET – for when you eat from it you will surely die
- CEV – if you eat any fruit from that tree, you will die before the day is over.
- CEB - because on the day you eat from it, you will die!
- No evidence that this verse means a change of nature post-sin! Note Hamilton’s comment: ‘Yet another alternative is that 2:17 means “on the day you eat of it you will become mortal.” This approach assumes that God created man immortal, a fact that is not explicitly stated in Genesis and seems contrary to 1 Tim. 6:16, which states that deity alone has immortality. Indeed, in no OT passage does the phrase môṯ tāmûṯ mean “to become mortal.”’ - Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1–17, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990), 173.
- You shall die is the same Hebrew double verb construction as is translated “freely eat” in verse 16, and here the meaning is “you will certainly die,” “you will die for sure.” The emphatic statement may also be translated “you will die on the day you eat it.” - William David Reyburn and Euan McG. Fry, A Handbook on Genesis, UBS Handbook Series (New York: United Bible Societies, 1998), 70.
- Likewise, there is not the slightest indication that man was already immortal before his Fall; on the contrary, it is clear from 3:24 that he could not have achieved this condition save by an additional act on his part, to wit, by stretching forth his hand and eating of the fruit of the tree of life. The natural meaning of the words requires us to understand them in accordance with what I have stated above: when you eat of the tree of knowledge it shall be decreed against you never to be able to eat of the tree of life, that is, you will be unable to achieve eternal life and you will be compelled one day to succumb to death; you shall die, in actual fact - U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis: Part I, From Adam to Noah (Genesis I–VI 8), trans. Israel Abrahams (Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, The Hebrew University, 1998), 125.
- Second, we need to examine the uses of môṯ tāmûṯ in Scripture. In addition to its appearance in 2:17 and 3:4, it appears twelve other times in the OT (Gen. 20:7; 1 Sam. 14:44; 22:16; 1 K. 2:37, 42; 2 K. 1:4, 6, 16; Jer. 26:8; Ezek. 3:18; 33:8, 14 [All these can be found at "thou shalt surely die", with a variety of comments. –B.P.]). All of these passages deal with either a punishment for sins or an untimely death that is the result of punishment. — Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1–17, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990), 173–174.
- Mortality of Adam implied by the existence of the Tree of Life, “text presupposes a belief that man, created from perishable matter, was mortal from the outset but that he had within his grasp the possibility of immortality” Nahum M. Sarna, Genesis, The JPS Torah Commentary (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989), p 18-19
- Sarna notes of v17 “As noted in the Comment to verse 9, man was mortal from the beginning. Logically, therefore, the transgression should incur immediate capital punishment, not mortality as opposed to immortality. But man and woman did not die at once, and it is not stated that God rescinded the death penalty. For these reasons, “you shall die” must here mean being deprived of the possibility of rejuvenation by means of the “tree of life,” as existed hitherto—in other words, inevitable expulsion from the garden. Ibid, p21
- ”Moses didn’t write Genesis” – attempt to poison the discussion by introducing (to fundamentalists) controversial source-critical issues when the question is primarily one of exegesis.
- It is theoretically possible to believe every word in Genesis was written by Moses but maintain a non-literal interpretation of the creation narratives.
from Ken Gilmore —
- Again, will not comment on views attributed to people other than myself
- Will once more comment on spelling error. Surely if one is going to the trouble of criticising someone’s view, getting something as simple as their name spelled correctly should not be too difficult.
- It is not unreasonable to infer from spelling error a cavalier attitude towards accurately representing the position of the person being criticised.
from Bruce —
comment from Jonathan Burke
[from Jonathan Burke's personal correspondence to brother Ron Cowie (October 2015) copied to me 9 May 2021 —BP]
See Hominids.
from Ken Gilmore —
- Harlow is correct – it is impossible to honestly read the creation narratives in Gen 1 and Gen 2 literally and have them harmonise. See Daniel Harlow ”Genesis in an Age of Evolutionary Science” Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith (2010) 62:179-195
- Fundamentalist attempts such Cowie’s to harmonise the narratives (Gen 1 covering 6 day creation, Gen 2 “vital (educational) detail” on 6th day are patently unconvincing as they completely fail to address the differences in creation duration and sequence, method of creation, and description of God and humanity:
- Harlow, op cit p 186:
- It is also worth noting that Harlow early in his article points out the main issue – the overwhelming scientific evidence for an evolutionary origin for humanity – makes a literal reading of the creation narratives as a scientifically accurate account of human origins – impossible:
- “Modern science has amply demonstrated that phenomena such as predation, death, and the extinction of species have been intrinsic and even necessary aspects of life on earth for billions of years, long before the arrival of Homo sapiens. For this reason, many Bible-believing Christians have long found it difficult to read Genesis 1–3 as a factual account of human origins.” – Harlow, op cit p 195
from Sundaes —
Genesis ch. 1 is about the seven days, actually.
Ch. 2 says nothing about which day(s) it refers to.
from Sundaes —
I agree with these.
from Jonathan —
Well of course. Its self-evident from the text. For a more accurate and full quotation see below, taken from here.
Second, we’re all familiar with Eden’s imagery and literary devices; a talking snake who beguiles an innocent woman with a lie, a tree of knowledge of good and evil whose fruit magically opens the eyes to make one wise, the mother of all living miraculously formed from a sleeping man’s rib, another tree with supernatural power to grant immortality to the eater, the tragedy for all creation when the young woman (who didn’t even have a mother) was tempted and ate the forbidden fruit. On such a slender thread the fate of all the world hung!
As an allegory Eden’s story is deep, powerful and profound, an inspired revelation of the first most basic principles of temptation, sin and redemption. On this we all agree. As a literal historical record however it is weak, for like other divine revelations it employs highly symbolic and fantastic imagery to convey its message.
Some may be shocked by the idea that Eden is more literary revelation than literal historical record, much as orthodox Christians are horrified that we do not believe a literal supernatural devil tempted Jesus. But in view of the fantastic elements woven into the story it should come as no surprise if mature Bible students skilled in the Word of righteousness discern[1] that “literal historic record” is not the defining genre of these early chapters in Genesis, and seek a better explanation.
A serious scholar will follow all the evidence, and we have only begun to draw attention to what is obvious from the text. Dig a bit deeper, and all attempts to read early Genesis literally prove impossible. Whatever our personal views on Eden (and there are many), surely we can all agree that the primary value of Eden is its allegory, and respect the decision of more cautious scholars should they choose to leave it there.
from Sundaes —
If these are "at the extremes", I'm an extremist!
- Not "just" fables — it's dismissive.
- "There was no literal serpent–it was just a parable . . . It's a metaphor, not a parable. What does it say in the New Testament about the devil?! Good grief!
- Does it matter if Moses did not write the Pentateuch?
- . . . just a collection of stories . . . — Ignorant!!
from Ken Gilmore —
Cowie again takes an extreme position with the implication it is normative for all ECs
- Gen 1-11 just a fable given to Jews in Babylon
* Genre of Gen 1-11 differs from rest of book. Resemblances to Atrahasis and other ANE creation narratives strongly indicate narrative took final form in exile - No literal serpent
* Christadelphians who do not accept evolution have argued for a non-literal serpent.
* Existence of a talking snake is a strong indicator of genre given animals don’t talk - Moses did not write Pentateuch
* Strong evidence Moses did not write all of Pentateuch (Moses’ death, Moses being meekest man, etc)
* As said earlier, the primary concern is questions of proper exegesis rather than source critical issues. Possible for person to accept Mosaic authorship and believe that Gen 1-11 is not literal history - Genesis just a collection of stories for uneducated Jews in Babylon
* Criminally risible misrepresentation of the position of those who read the creation narrative as a polemic against ANE stories. (Not a collection of stories but a carefully constructed riposte to ANE myths, written by highly educated Jews to an audience whose faith was under severe challenge by contemporary Babylonian religion) - Creation has many mistakes and deficiencies so is still evolving
* Blatant misrepresentation of EC view. There are many suboptimal aspects in nature which are impossible to explain by special creation but are readily explained by evolution.
* Emergence of new species alone confirms evolution is ongoing
from Bruce —
The title says "extreme", and the whole slide is extreme! Here is a personal response, from an old English teacher:
Ron is exposing more than he might be aware of, here, in his language. It's obvious that he's using insulting, dismissive language about the beliefs of brothers and sisters to whom he gives the term "the TE", but he's also showing a similar attitude to the Bible itself. Is the story of the Good Samaritan "just a parable"? Is the parable of the Good Samaritan "just a story"? Were Abraham's wives "just an allegory"? Were the vast oral traditions of ancient times "just collections of stories" for "simple uneducated Jews" and Greeks and others? If the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now, is that to be ignored? The Bible is the Word of God, not limited to a simple catechism or tradition; it speaks in many modes of text, in multiple languages evolving through time, through many prophets and scribes down the centuries, and variously translated by highly skilled people who have devoted their lives to it. It is not the raw material for stump speeches: it is a two-edged sword, and we should take care with it.
He speaks of how "abhorrent" he finds it that brothers and sisters see "mistakes and deficiencies" in the creation around us. Well, some of us "have seen an end of all perfection . . . and hate every false way." (Psalm 119)
Ron, we want to talk to you about the Bible and science. Look at the Bible references in this table — surely you can do better.
from Bruce —
Aw, shucks. . .
Seriously, the real reasons are more like this:
- Obedience to Scripture
- Belief in the Creator
- Respect, admiration, love and fascination for the glorious witness that the Creation is
- Gratitude for life-giving applied biology informed by evolutionary theory
from Ken Gilmore —
- The emphasis on human is a transparently obvious attempt to denigrate science while grudgingly acknowledging its many achievements
- It is fair to point out theology is also a human endeavour and subject to the same human failings.
- The proper position Christadelphians should adopt when engaging with what Cowie admits are “highly complex topics” is to acknowledge that mainstream science just may know what it is talking about when it comes to human origins, as well as refrain from uninformed criticism of these highly complex topics, particularly when Christadelphians are not scientifically literate.
- ECs do not accept the scientific consensus to ”accommodate” the science. They do so because they realise the evidence firmly points towards evolution and the intellectually honest position is to
- accept this, and
- discard human interpretations of the Bible that are inconsistent with the known scientific facts.
from Sundaes —
- Not wisdom: education, and opportunity.
- They don't have to. I just have to read Genesis as non-literal.
- I'm not trying to appear anything. It's about personal integrity.
from Bruce —
Twenty other anonymous Christadelphian Evolutionary Creationists tell their stories here.
from Ken Gilmore —
- The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. An intellectually honest stance will recognise this:
“Over the past 150 years, [Darwin’s] initial list has been supplemented by countless observations in paleontology, comparative anatomy, developmental biology, molecular biology, and (most recently) comparative genomics, and through direct observations of evolutionary change in both natural and experimental populations. Each of thousands of peer-reviewed articles published every year in scientific journals provides further confirmation (though, as Futuyma… notes, “no biologist today would think of publishing a paper on ‘new evidence for evolution’ ... it simply hasn’t been an issue in scientific circles for more than a century”). Conversely, no reliable observation has ever been found to contradict the general notion of common descent. It should come as no surprise, then, that the scientific community at large has accepted evolutionary descent as a historical reality since Darwin’s time and considers it among the most reliably established and fundamentally important facts in all of science.”
— T.R. Gregory “Evolution as Fact, Theory, and Path” Evo Edu Outreach (2008) 1:46-52
- Dismissing this as "science falsely so called" merely indicates the exegetical and scientific deficiencies of the person issuing this rejoinder.
from Ken Gilmore —
- Worth noting that ECs are not likely to quote Darwin chapter and verse given he published his book over 150 years ago
- Evolution is both fact and theory, therefore it is entirely reasonable to assume that the mechanism of creation is evolutionary.
- I have not heard an EC argue that evolution supports key biblical principles. It however does falsify theological doctrines such as Original Sin and any reading of the Bible that demands universal human descent from Adam to inherit a fallen/changed nature. Those interpretations of the Bible have been falsified by evolution.
from Bruce —
There's a missing point:
- The Bible encourages us in a path of wisdom that will embrace all of science, including biology, as well as every other fields of human endeavour to the glory of God.
from Ken Gilmore —
- Declaring scientific claims to be unfounded implies scientific expertise on the part of the person making that claim. It is hard to reconcile this dismissal of one of the best-attested principles in science with the previous acknowledgement that they are highly complicated topics
- Cowie misrepresents why ECs accept evolution. They do not venerate human qualifications. What they do accept is the overwhelming nature of the evidence. (One could point out that anti-evolutionists venerate the (irrelevant) scientific qualifications of those in the community who have attacked evolution.
- Cowie fails to understand what consensus means. It is not a popularity contest:
Just as the term “theory” has a different meaning in science than its colloquial usage, the term scientific consensus means something different than “consensus” in the usual colloquial sense. The latter typically refers to a popular opinion, and needn’t necessarily be based on knowledge or evidence. On the other hand, a scientific consensus is, by definition, an evidence-based consensus. A convergence of the weight of existing evidence is a prerequisite which distinguishes a knowledge-based scientific consensus from mere agreement. This is critical, because the scientific enterprise is essentially a meritocracy. As a result, it doesn’t matter if a few contrarians on the fringe disagree with the conclusions unless they can marshal up evidential justification of comparable weight or explain the existing data better. The weight of the evidence is paramount. — crediblehulk.org
- The ”inability to understand or unwind all the very complex scientific reasonings” should instil in special creationists a sense of humility and recognition that people with hard-won genuine expertise in areas directly related to the subject of evolution actually know what they are talking about. Cowie would not dismiss expert opinion from medical/engineering/legal professionals, the details of which are also very complex.
- Cowie misunderstands why ECs refer to the peer-reviewed literature. Peer review does not grant a paper the status of gospel truth. It exists as a form of quality control. Nonsense has slipped by peer review, though this is not an argument against peer review but for more robust peer review.
- When we refer to the peer-reviewed literature, we are referring to material that has been vetted for originality, validity, and quality and therefore more likely to be truthful than amateur opinion.
- Cowie is incorrect when he alleges ECs want to appear ‘relevant’. What they want instead is the truth.
from Bruce —
It is outrageous that Ron claims that some unnamed pro-evolution Christadelphians "will not even talk to you unless you can list your qualifications!" He is the one who will not talk, and not because of lack of qualifications. It's his lack of actual Scriptural justification for his claims against the witness of God's Creation, and that's what I want him to talk about.
Taking his dot points one by one:
- Science doesn't claim: it cannot. Look it up in a dictionary.
- Nonsense.
- Science is vast: scientists have trouble staying up to date with their own fields. Anyone who thinks he can "understand or unwind all the very complex scientific reasonings" is deluded.
- It is true that a small number of Christadelphians have expertise in biology and can explain evolution on their own authority, but as far as I know most of them have lost interest in doing so.
- Nonsense.
- Let's not judge each other's motives, huh?
Two other factors:
- Overwhelming proof, to the glory of the Creator, and acceptance of it by educated Christadelphians
- Strident condemnation of biological science, along with a lack of a sound Scriptural basis for it, as witnessed here.
from Sundaes —
"Why this has surfaced now" — not now.
. . . respect for unfounded claims . . . undue respect for human qualifications — Crap. I'm glad my doctor has training and qualifications.
from Ken Gilmore —
- Adam was most definitely not the first person created – Adam can be placed no earlier than the domestication of animals and plants in the ANE (around 10,000 years ago) while the earliest Homo sapiens fossils date to close to 300,000 years ago.
- Adam was created mortal – there is no credible evidence to suggest he was created immortal and the idea of an intermediate state is nonsense as L G Sargent pointed out
- Cowie uses the term hominid in a clumsy manner. The term he should use is human.
- The idea of an inherited change in nature owes nothing to scripture and everything to Augustine.
- Mortality predated Adam’s sin. The fossil record is one eloquent testimony to death existing for thousands of millions of years
from Sundaes —
Nobody is changing "God's clear statements"! This "clear" is deceptive, coloured language.
from Ken Gilmore —
- Cowie’s assertion that ”God ignored the evolving humans for 150 million years” and “gave them no hope” is wrong for two reasons
- The time frame is completely wrong; the human-chimp common ancestor lived no more than 6-8 million years ago”, while the genus Homo has been around between 2.5 – 3 million years ago. Errors such as this erode confidence in the factual accuracy of the rest of Cowie’s presentation
- Pre-Columbian native Americans and pre-colonisation indigenous Australians according to Cowie’s reasoning also had no hope as they were completely unaware of the gospel message.
- “Creation is flawed and still evolving.” Cowie’s remark here is both misleading and irrelevant. There is abundant evidence of suboptimal design in nature which is precisely what we’d expect to see if the mechanism that generated the diversity in nature was evolutionary. That creation is still evolving is a fact; speciation has been documented.
- Cowie’s allegation that living in an ‘educated scientific world’ (the anti-intellectualism in the phrase is palpable) one no longer “stays with simple Bible stories as facts” makes the fundamental error of confusing a theology of creation (which is marvellously taught with the simple Biblical stories) with a science of creation (about which the Bible is silent). Cowie has already acknowledged that the Bible is not a science textbook. Therefore, we should not expect it to speak to the mechanism of creation, something about which our educated scientific world has been able to inform us.
- EC has not introduced a new pattern of reading. That began when science discovered that the sun did not revolved around the Earth (one cannot divine a heliocentric cosmology from the Bible) and references to a fixed earth were reinterpreted.
from Bruce —
- Pot, meet Kettle! Does God "ignore" heathens? See DTBR no.22
- Creation is not still evolving because it is flawed, it is still evolving because God made it that way. See here.
- Too sarcastic.
- The question should be "what does the Bible say?" If we judge by this talk, it doesn't say much at all about evolution.
from Sundaes —
Sometimes we do have to rethink our interpretation of the Bible. We need to read it in its context and consider its original audience.
from Ken Gilmore —
- Cowie again misunderstands the EC position. No one is expected to “sort out the mass of scientific conclusions”. The overwhelming majority of Christadelphians are not in a position to be able to comment authoritatively on scientific matters. An intellectually honest and humble believer will:-
- recognise their lack of expertise;
- acknowledge genuine expertise; and
- recognise that when the overwhelming majority of experts declare something to be true they are more than likely to be right.
- “If we can’t defeat the scientists then science must be right about how life began”. The truth of how life began is not contingent on whether a handful of fundamentalists are able to ”defeat the scientists”. If Christadelphians cannot “defeat the scientists” what it does means is that irrespective of how life began, it is not likely to be how a handful of scientifically illiterate fundamentalists think life began.
- If our reading of the Bible contradicts well-established facts then those readings have indeed been falsified. (Substitute flat earth or geocentric cosmos for evolution to see the force of the argument).
from Bruce —
- "Prove" in the King James Version of 1 Thessalonians 5:21 doesn't mean prove as in "Prove that e=mc2." It means "try the spirits". Try them, test them, examine them: that is why bully pulpits are unsatisfactory, and why we invite respectful engagement with Scriptural arguments in this wiki. John 5:39. Please see 1 John 4:1 and ask yourself if a sound Biblical case has been made against biological science.
- Proof by implication is not proof; proof by induction can be — but in any case it is not relevant.
- Why not just stick to the witness of the Creation? What does it tell us? Scientists are just the footsoldiers.
- Almost correct. If our current reading of the Bible results in obvious error and contradiction, we should listen to more literate readers. More importantly, if people can't find anything in the Bible to back up their claim that the Bible rules out evolution, they have to reinterpret the Bible.
from Bruce —
Hey, this is it! Behold, Ron is citing a verse from the Bible against . . . well, not exactly against evolution, but in favour of instantaneous creation. It's the one and only directly relevant appeal to Scripture in his whole presentation. (If this doesn't seem credible, the table on this page should make it easy to check.)
See discussion at Psalm 33:6-9, especially regarding taking v.6 out of context like this. Verse 7 gives praise for ongoing creation!
Bro Ron claims to "test all doctrines against the Bible", relying on what is almost certainly a misreading of Isaiah 8:19 (q.v.), but does not address scriptural arguments advanced by brothers and sisters who accept evolution, as found in this wiki, with the exception of his dismissal of Psalm 19 as an evolutionist's "tactic". Dr Thomas had the same understanding of it, by the way — see here.
It is immensely frustrating to see a talk like this, hardly looking at the Scriptures and what they actually say, and then making these blunders when it does attempt to take notice of the Bible! All the while attacking brothers and sisters who try not to fall foul of Isaiah 5:12.
from Ken Gilmore —
- The Bible is useful to ”preach truth and fight error”, and all doctrines are tested against the Bible. However, as the Bible is not a science textbook and scientific facts are not religious doctrines, any attempt to dismiss well-accepted scientific facts because they conflict with human (mis)interpretation of the Bible is fallacious.
- The Bible states God’s view of the facts relevant for salvation. Again, it is not a science textbook, and at places reflects the pre-scientific view of those to whom it was given.
- “We are not required to be able to undo all the complicated scientific theories of men”. We are also not required to teach as fact views which those theories show to be false.
- There are not ”many eminent scientists who support creation”. There are a handful of people with terminal degrees in subjects directly relevant to the subject of evolution who deny it, but whose dismissal stems primarily from their religious faith, rather than a dispassionate examination of the facts. Most believing scientists accept evolution.
- “We do reject speculation on origins which are ruthlessly and dishonestly marketed as facts.” Cowie provides no evidence to back up this sweeping statement. Evolution is both fact and theory and while the mechanisms of evolutionary change are still being actively researched, the fact of common descent and large-scale evolutionary change has not been in doubt for over a century.
- Bible says nothing about gradualism because (once again) it is not a science textbook. The Bible is not given to teach one about material origins. No one denies that God could create the universe instantly. The question however is what does an honest, informed examination of the scientific facts show, and they attest to an ancient evolving creation.
- Literal readings of poetry don’t falsify well-established scientific facts. The Bible refers to the pillars of heavens. Does this mean the sky is held up by pillars. Cowie’s hermeneutics would lead to this. (Note error in Biblical reference – Psalm 33:9.)
from Sundaes —
If we cherrypick the Bible we can find anything we want. This cuts both ways.
If the Bible "states God's view" why does God assume that the earth is flat, then?
"God's view of the facts" — it's not about facts, it's about teaching.
from Ken Gilmore —
- Believers in demons can readily employ Cowie’s argument and use it to criticise us for ”engaging in complicated reasonings to explain away so many simple Bible passages”.
- The truth is that when read plainly, the Bible appears to teach the reality of demons and spirits. Ditto for the references to a flat fixed earth. Sometimes, a simple reading is false
- “The Bible is written in such a way that those who determinedly resist seeking for Truth - will find some support for their delusions by interpreting the Bible wrongly” – Cowie provides no evidence to back up this assertion, mischaracterises the motives of ECs, and assumes without any justification that they are interpreting the Bible wrongly.
- “[S]o many simple Bible passages” attest to a fixed earth, the heart being the actual centre of human thought, and the firmament being a solid barrier in which stars are set. As said before, sometimes a simple reading is wrong.
from Bruce —
Thou seekest to know how I read? I read these thine outpourings thus:
- Agreed
- Agreed
- This is true of any communication. So what, brother? It doesn't prove that you are wrong or right about anything between Genesis 1 and Revelation 22 — unless you truly have the apostolic authority that you arrogate throughout this talk, to declare what is true on you own authority with nothing but superficial references to the Bible. When we actually look at the passages of the Bible that supposedly oblige us to deny physics and biology, look at the actual Bible without "determinedly resisting seeking for Truth", — not just a few pet verses used as slogans — we find that it doesn't oblige us to deny science at all.
- Evolution is about the origin of species, not the origin of life. Someone who can't even understand that distinction shouldn't talk too much about people who read to "find support for their delusions"!
from Sundaes —
". . . those who determinedly resist seeking for Truth . . . " — this is not the people who have climbed out of their Christadelphian comfort zone. They are not resisting truth, they are seeking it. The ones who want to stay in their little club and exclude others are the ones who are resisting truth.
from Bruce —
The "however" is bogus: there is no "however": today's discussion is the same as ever. People since long before Francis Bacon's day have looked into "the book of Nature" for whatever they have been interested in, and faced opposition, even persecution, from misreaders of the Bible, who were confident that their interpretation of the Bible was true. Today is no different. See discussion and scriptures at Psalm 104:5 and Does the earth move?
Christadelphians have accepted the "Two Books" reading of this psalm since the days of Dr Thomas. See at "Two Books" in this wiki, and more of John Thomas's beliefs on the subject at Romans 1:18-25.
from Ken Gilmore —
Re “However - today the “book of nature” is first used by science to speculate on the origin of life, and the Bible must then be re-interpreted to agree” —
- Of course scientists are going to use the tools of science to examine the natural world to speculate on the origin of life. It is astounding Cowie even makes this statement. The two books are complementary. Once again, the Bible is not a science textbook so one does not turn to it for a scientifically accurate account of origins. We get a theology of creation, not a science of creation, from the Bible.
from Bruce —
Well no, Christadelphians weren't the first to appreciate God's two books any more than Francis Bacon was, but we have accepted this reading of Psalm 19 since the days of Dr Thomas — for proof, see my annotations to the previous slide. It's a pity that a brother struggling to make a Scriptural case against biological science ends up denying the clear primary meaning of this inspired poetry preserved from so long ago:
. . .
The law of the Lord is perfect . . . : the testimony of the Lord is sure . . .
from Bruce —
comment from Jonathan Burke
[from brother Jonathan Burke's personal correspondence to brother Ron Cowie (October 2015) copied to me 9 May 2021 —BP]
It is an oversimplification to talk about "THE TE VIEW ON GENESIS". For example, not every believer in God who accepts evolution would agree with me that the ten times repeated phrase "after its/their kind" in Genesis 1 and the redundant final word of Genesis 2:3 are hints of evolution, though all would agree that they are compatible with it. Similarly, not all horticulturalists will agree that Day 3, with apples and oranges and plums (for example) all in fruit on the same day, is "a literal historical event".
from Ken Gilmore —
Re "TE/EC" says God’s words and works (as constantly changing science defines them) must harmonise :
- Cowie’s reference to ‘constantly changing science’ shows he has failed to understand the epistemological basis of science. Ideas in science are tentatively held, subject to verification or falsification by further evidence. This is the great strength of science as it stops it hardening to dogma.
- Cowie actually resorts to branding the science that threatens his literal reading of the Bible with scare quotes, "science", and makes the completely unfounded allegation that this science is guesswork. An allegation this profound can readily be dismissed given he provides no evidence to back it up.
- His reference to science as being naturalistic (no God or miracle allowed) again shows him to have no grasp of the scientific process; he has conflated methodological naturalism (one looks for natural causes for natural events) with philosophical naturalism (there is no supernatural realm and the natural world is all there is). Good science demands that we exclude supernatural explanations for natural events. There is simply no way science could work if we postulated the supernatural to explain everything.
- His allegation that a global flood “totally destroys all the dating assumptions used by “science”” is risible. Again, a statement of this magnitude needs to be justified. How does a global flood alter sedimentation rates, radioactive decay, etc?
from Bruce —
- The words in parenthesis show more animosity than reason. Nobody is so stupid as to think that "constantly changing science" "defines" God's works.
- This is an interesting misunderstanding. Methodological Naturalism is a wise scientific convention, and for God-fearing scientists it is protective, limiting them to speaking what they can know.
- God hasn't destroyed scientific assumptions about dating or anything else. Maybe Ron could show otherwise by causing a world-wide flood himself and publishing a paper on the results. This is topsy-turvy logic in three steps:
- Scientific stratigraphy gives evidence against a world-wide flood
- This is contrary to my beliefs about what the Bible says; therefore
- The physics must be wrong (and I'll blow hard with language like "totally destroys")
- This is the same misunderstanding of Methodological Naturalism as above.
from Ken Gilmore —
- Cowie’s assertion that “rocks and fossils” do not “offer clear propositions and descriptions of the past” would be news to geologists who have been able to reconstruct past history based on the witness of the rocks and fossils.
- The ability of geologists to find oil and minerals with considerable success attests to the fundamental soundness of the geological methods.
- His assertion that one can “only properly understand what nature reveals” by first assuming human sin has cursed the world is made without any supporting evidence. It can readily be dismissed given the fact the universe is ancient and Adam’s sin occurred a few thousand years ago. Is Cowie seriously arguing for Adam’s sin to have retroactive causation?
Robert Roberts on the universal flood
The question of how much was necessary involves the question of the area to be covered: in other words, was the flood universal in the sense of covering the entire globe? Considering the comparatively limited extent of the human family at the time, and that it was confined to one small district of the globe, it would seem reasonable to conclude from the principle already looked at—the divine sparingness of means—that the flood was co-extensive only with the Adamically-inhabited portion of the globe.
There are facts that compel such a conclusion; and as all facts are of God, they must be in agreement. The animals of New Zealand are different from those of Australia. The animals of Australia, again, are different from those of Asia and Europe. These again differ entirely from those of the American continent: all differ from one another: and the fossil remains on all the continents show that this difference has always prevailed. Now if the flood were universal in the absolute sense, it is manifest that these facts could not be explained, for if the animals all over the earth were drowned, and the devastated countries were after-wards replenished from a Noachic centre, the animals of all countries would now show some similarity, instead of consisting of totally different species. The animals taken into the ark in that case would be the animals of the humanly-populated district only—a comparatively small district in relation to the face of of the world at large. If we suppose that only the district populated by the human race was submerged, there would be no difficulty, because in that case, the outlying parts of the earth would not be interfered with, and the state of the animal life in these parts would continue to be what it had been in previous times.— Robert Roberts, The Visible Hand of God (Logos Publications, 2002), 47–48.
from Bruce —
- This is garble. It would be better to read the Bible before trying to compare its communication with what can be learned by studying "rocks and fossils".
- True, they communicate in "divers manners".
- So nature does reveal something, then — though a person like Robert Roberts could not have understood it properly because he didn't believe a priori that a worldwide flood occurred! What could nature reveal to Ron that it couldn't reveal to Robert Roberts?
See also the material that Ken Chalmers has gathered in Historical Christadelphian Approaches Section 10, The Flood of Noah. It is quite wrong to suppose that Christadelphian beliefs in a local flood arose from anything to do with evolution.
from Ken Gilmore —
- Cowie’s reference to the “unique understanding of the Atonement” gives away the real reason behind his opposition to evolutionary creationism, the fact it falsifies the particular view of the atonement held in the fundamentalist community of which he is a part.
- At this point, I should point out that my understanding of the atonement never changed after I accepted the evidence for evolution. The current dispute over evolution is merely the latest chapter in a long-running controversy in the Australian Christadelphian community over the atonement between extremists and moderates.
- “The early chapters of Genesis tend to become regarded as allegories” – the genre of Genesis 1-11 differs from the rest of the book so it is a mistake to assume without justification that they are scientifically and historically accurate accounts of the origin of humanity.
- Having said that, ECs generally regard Adam and Eve as historical figures
- “The tendency is to reinterpret the Bible to fit the claims of science, rather than believe that God is not restricted to constantly changing scientific explanations”. This argument is made by those who believe in a flat Earth and geocentrism. The truth is that Cowie (whether he recognises it or not) has already adjusted how he reads the references to a flat fixed earth to harmonise with what science shows about the nature of the solar system.
- Note too Robert Roberts’s argument about why the flood was local; it appeals to scientific facts! To ignore what the natural world says when exegeting Biblical passages which refer to origins is dangerous.
from Bruce —
- The Bible isn't going to disagree with theism — the theistic part of "Theistic Evolution" — so let's just hear how evolution affects "many clear Bible teachings". If we can get past slogans and quarrels about the atonement, this might verge into actual Biblical reasons to reject evolution! Chapter and verse, please!
- The "but" in this paragraph is wrong. Jesus taught in parables, and Paul made allegories explicit.
- There's that "constantly changing" smear again. Nobody believes that God is "restricted to constantly changing scientific explanations".
- Three fingers point back. Why not actually make a Biblical case for rejecting biological science?
from Sundaes —
"Accepting theistic evolution impacts on many clear Bible teachings . . . " — which ones? how many? "the Genesis record" is not even Bible language, let alone Biblical thinking; and as for the unique understanding of the Atonement we have — no comment.
The early chapters of Genesis are not a chronicle of "literal events". Jesus and Paul did not describe them as "history".
from Ken Gilmore —
- Creation involves billions of years - fact
- There is no 7000 year plan - there is a divine plan, but it is not restricted to 7000 years
- Genesis is not all literal - ECs recognise the genre of Gen 1-11 differs from the rest of the book (indicating flat literalism is not the proper hermeneutic) but generally believe in a historical Adam
- God let millions of humans exist and die without hope or purpose before Adam - same argument can be made about people who lived prior to the preaching of the gospel message.
- Adam was not the first man. The evidence confirms this. He was however the first man to whom God revealed himself
- ECs do not believe God acted “very remotely for billions of years., They see the hand of God everywhere from beta decay up to forces resulting in the formation of the large-scale structure of the universe
- Cowie alleges belief in mortality of Adam prior to sin “always led to error” No evidence is provided for this statement which ignores fact many Christadelphians (such as L G Sargent) have believed in Adam being created mortal
from Bruce —
- Correction: creation involves more than we can ever comprehend, divinely summarised as a week of inspired poetry.
- This is a confusion of categories, like saying "there is no sabbath rest".
- False dichotomy. "All literal" is simply illiterate — e.g. does the lesser light literally rule the night? (Genesis 1:16)
- Let's not forget that Adam, "male and female" as we read in Genesis chapters 1 and 5, is still alive and numbers several billion.
- Christadelphians who accept evolution do not deny that all humans are אדם (adam) and descended from אדם. Many of us believe that all אדם are descended from an individual אדם whose name was אדם and, following the example of the New Testament writers, accept and admire this inspired and meaningful ambiguity of the Scripture. (James Dunn: “When Paul speaks of or alludes to Adam he speaks of humankind as a whole”)
- False.
- He died. Adam always does.
from Sundaes —
"Genesis is not all literal, but mostly just moral stories." — cross out "mostly" and "just" and start again without your biassed language.
See discussion at Psalm 33:6-9.
from Ken Gilmore —
- “What the Bible clearly says”. . . Cowie confuses the principle of perspicuity with a flat literal hermeneutic. This is his fundamental error.
- A flat literal hermeneutic would have us believe God created a flat Earth covered with a solid firmament separating waters above from waters below in which are set the sun, moon and stars
- It would also result in Gen 1 contradicting Gen 2 with respect to duration and order of creation events.
- No one denies that God could have created instantaneously. The question is whether the evidence shows that he did, and an honest evaluation of the data argues firmly against a recent creation in six days.
from Bruce —
- This is not "what the Bible clearly says," but an interpretation. Note that he's repeating his misquotation of one single Bible verse to argue irrelevantly against evolution. Do you know why he can't find even one more verse in the Bible that might seem to disprove evolution? Yes, that's right: there are none.
- Misreading. See comments on Fiat Creation at Psalm 33:6-9. This notion of "instant miracles" has a comical result if applied to Psalm 68:11. For a distinction between fiat creation and instantaneous creation see at Psalm 148.
- Misreading.
- Re the claims in pink: this is a half-truth at best. Biological evolution is not taught in the Bible just as Heliocentrism and gravitational attraction are not taught in the Bible. This matter is one that should be discussed rationally; and also with awareness of Scripture: Bible readers centuries before Darwin* were not wrong to see an ever-unfolding creation in the redundant final word of the first Genesis creation record.
- * Ibn Ezra (1089-1167) and Isaac Abarbanel (1437-1508)
from Ken Gilmore —
Gratuitous equation of ECs with Gnostics and Nicolaitaines
from Bruce —
This is just insulting. He should try to find reasons to reject biological science in the Bible.
from Bruce —
Dr. Thomas? Isn't he the one whose "Two Books" beliefs are to be dismissed as a "tactic" of the evolutionists?
from Bruce —
- Imagine what Edward Gibbon would say if he could hear this harrangue!
- Re "THE OPPOSITIONS OF "SCIENCE"-falsely so called", see at 1 Timothy 6:20-21. This error is so bad that the argument based on it is classified by ICR as an argument that creationists should not use! (See Qms:Arguments even professional creationists don't use#24.)
from Bruce —
See 1 Corinthians 1:26-29 for discussion, and comparison with a similar application of the same passage by bro John Morris in 1989.
As for being intimidated by the subject — why else could it be that bro Ron runs away from discussion about the subject with brothers and sisters who know about it? It isn't only about "huge volumes of scientific papers" (or maybe just some good listening to a Christadelphian scientist or two) — more than anything, it's about the Bible! He's yet to make a Bible-based case against Biology, or a case for throwing any believer out of the ecclesia.
from Ken Gilmore —
- Blatant anti-intellectualism and misreading of Paul (who is not talking about questions of scientific origin)
from Bruce —
Note that Jeremiah 16:19 and Isaiah 25:7 do not mention anything about acceptance of modern biological science. They are among the paltry dozen-or-so Bible verses that brother Ron glances at in this entire talk, none of which, arguably, relate to evolution. (If this surprises you, click here.) If there is any reason to believe that the "lies" referred to by Jeremiah and the "veil" referred to by Isaiah have anything to do with modern science, he has not disclosed it.
Christadelphian campaigners against evolution typically follow this pattern. That is why this wiki seeks to document the Biblical cases for and against evolution. Is it also why those who campaign against evolution run for cover when we invite them, or challenge them, to engage in a Bible-based discussion?
These pages are hopefully entitled In dialogue with bro Ron Cowie because we would dearly love to see all Christadelphians have a Bible-based faith uncontaminated by truth-denying propaganda. We invite all Christadelphians to participate in this wiki and promise to help them make their case. Test the spirits!
from Sundaes —
What, Isaiah's veil that is spread over all nations is theistic evolution?? This is out of context. It's meaningless, not relevant to evolution.
from Ken Gilmore —
- “Evolutionists appeal to consensus authority” - Misleading view on what a scientific consensus means. It is not a popularity contest. Rather:
- “In a nutshell, a consensus in science refers to a convergence of many independent lines of high quality evidence all leading the majority of active scientists in a given field to arrive at the same conclusion and/or complimentary conclusions. It’s not something any scientist necessarily sets out to become a part of as a goal, but is rather something they discover they’re a member of because that’s where their research results led them.” Scientific Consensus isn't a part of the scientific method, it's a consequence of it.
- It needs to be stressed that Cowie has confused a theology of creation with a science of creation, and elevated his fundamentalist views on origins to the level of a first principle, and attempted to insulate his audience from evidence that challenges that fundamentalist view by an appeal to “being fools for Christ’s sake”
from Bruce —
"This debate??" He's afraid to debate! Because the Word of God is on the side of wisdom.
- It is true that consensus is important in the sciences, but Christadelphians who accept evolution do so because they believe the Bible supports their position.
- True, the Word of God supports biological evolution, as the present failure to adduce Biblical arguments against it suggests.
- Agreed. (In what languages and "divers manners" were these statements made, by the way?)
- If this "we", whoever it refers to, are truly willing to be thought "fools for Christ's sake" then why do they not climb down and discuss the matter?
from Ken Gilmore —
- “Most of the vocal TE proponents are beyond the reach of ecclesial discipline” - admission that what they seek is control over others
- “We must always remember to deal with them in Christ-like way - despite the way they might treat us” - weapons-grade projection. ECs have not disfellowshipped those who deny evolution and have always asked for the subject to be discussed calmly and in a fraternal way
- “They will continue to be very aggressive on the internet.” ECs are active online because the community refuses to discuss the subject at all, leaving the internet as the only way in which the subject can be discussed rationally
- “We should resist all attempts to devalue the BASF as a “man-made document” “ - the BASF is a human document, and making reality conform to a fundamentalist interpretation of it is unwise
from Bruce —
- Agreed — especially basic Bible literacy.
- Meaning? How is this relevant to the title "What should Ecclesias do?"
- Does the Bible record Jesus refusing to listen and discuss?
- "Aggressive" meaning answering back? making invitations to discuss the matters of disagreement? I'm sorry if my contributions to this wiki are "aggressive". Brother Ron and his supporters are very welcome to make any Biblical case that they want here, and we will facilitate that. They only have to click on the "Index" link above, to see how weak their Biblical case against evolution is, in its current state. If we are being "incredibly personal, incredibly vicious", simply calling attention to the fact that he isn't making a Biblical case against us despite saying that ecclesias should throw us out, then sorry, it's a simple fact. If our Bible-reading errors need to be corrected, they are a ready target right here, with technical assistance if required.
- Really? who made the document?
- This is an interesting opinion, but it belongs near the end of a list of things to talk about.
from Bruce —
In this wiki, we're not asking Ron or his supporters to face up to this DANGER OF ARGUING SCIENCE — we're asking them to make a Biblical case against the aspects of modern biological science that they repudiate. Click on ''Challenges to Faith'' Conference — Ron Cowie: "Theistic Evolution" to see in table form how weak that Biblical case is at present.
The danger of "spiritual barrenness" and "destruction of faith", however, is as we have been warned. See Galatians 5:15.
from Sundaes —
I don't care at the moment.
from Bruce —
"theoretically possible" indeed. How it hurt, to kick against the pricks.
from Ken Gilmore —
What Cowie fails to mention about the Watford incident:
- Fifty years ago, in the wake of the excommunication of bro Ralph Lovelock over his views on how to reconcile the evidence for pre-Adamic humanity with Christadelphian theology, the then arranging brothers of Watford, his home ecclesia in their letter to The Christadelphian reminded our community that: . . . problems that undoubtedly exist should be frankly admitted by us as a community, for we do naught but dishonour to the word of God by pretending that these problems are not there. Our Brotherhood bears a responsibility to those in search of Scripture truth, and especially to those of tender years, to turn its attention to the solving of these difficulties in an atmosphere of calm, sincere, conscientious study, unhindered by the rumours, mistrust, suspicion and hasty judgments that have been all too prevalent among us in recent times.[1]
- This problem was certainly acknowledged by the then editor of The Christadelphian Magazine, bro. L G Sargent who acknowledged that:
. . . there is abundant evidence of early “man” at a time which certainly appears to be far beyond the limits allowed by Bible chronology. This must be admitted even after discounting the slender and uncertain remains claimed for a still more remote antiquity, about which there have been such notorious blunders and even downright fraud.[2]
- In the intervening 50 years, the evidence for human evolution from areas such as palaeontology has exploded. What was already a strong case in the 1960s has become certain beyond reasonable doubt. As the palaeoanthropologists Matt Cartmill and Fred Smith noted in 2009:
Opponents of scientific biology are fond of dismissing that record as a pathetic handful of controversial fragments. If that were so, this book would be a lot shorter. An often-repeated creationist canard insists that all known human fossils would fit on a billiard table. This was probably true in the 19th century, but it has not been true for a hundred years. Known human fossils number in the thousands and represent the remains of hundreds of individuals...Having seen most of the major collections of human fossils in the world's museums, we can assure our readers that those collections can no longer be laid out on a billiard table. It would be hard to cram them into a boxcar[3].
- [1] "Statement From The Watford Ecclesia", The Christadelphian Magazine (1966) 103:543
- [2] Sargent LG "The Origin of Man", The Christadelphian Magazine (1965) 102:344
- [3] Cartmill M, Smith FH, Brown KB “The Human Lineage” xi (Wiley, 2009)
from Sundaes —
Don't repeat the same mistake.
from Sundaes —
This makes me so angry.
What is "the doctrine" that the Romans had learned? It is not the BASF and CCA.
from Bruce —
See Romans 16:17-20 — Paul promised that these people, “Satan”, would shortly be “bruised” under the feet of the God of peace. Did they believe in evolution?
- Brother Ron's avoidance logic is straightforward: if you can't argue against them, call them evil, and run away! That might be wise, if he could be sure that he is right and we are wrong — and that is what we are asking him to demonstrate from the Bible. Cardinal Bellarmine could do it (see at Ecclesiastes 1:5): why can't a modern Christadelphian?
- Yes, they talk non stop, and only listen in order to refute. They refuse to engage in serious discussion.
- This verse does not mean "wise as to what is strategic and innocent as to what is true".
from Bruce —
- This quotation is inappropriate for two reasons. Firstly, Paul was an apostle, the main protagonist of Luke's second book, an inspired writer of New Testament epistles. He did not preach against God's creation. Secondly, his exhortation to the Colossians was that they should not allow themselves to be moved from the hope of the gospel — not from a particular view of history based on a misreading of Genesis and without justification in the Bible, as this talk has shown.
- No.
from Sundaes —
That question is blasphemy.
from Bruce —
If this curse of plagues on those who added to the book of Revelation is relevant to any party in the controversy about science and faith, then we can expect to see people falling sick. The punishment on those who take away from it will come later. Meanwhile, we should consider all relevant Bible teachings.
from Bruce —
See the context of this verse at 1 Corinthians 2:1-8 and decide whether it is relevant. Then we can make the appropriate choice between simply accepting the claims made in this talk, or testing them against Scripture. If you choose to test them against Scripture, we invite you to document what you find in this wiki.
Final appeal: please look carefully at the table here and consider whether you can make the Bible case against evolution a little less pathetic!
- ↑ For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic principles of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food, for everyone who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, since he is a child. But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil. Hebrews 5:12-14
