Karl Giberson Promotes “Christian Evolution” At ENC

Following my comments here, is the full article by Karl Giberson (original column at blogs.usatoday.com) promoting the idea that evolution is compatible with Christianity.  Which would lead me to the conclusion that Adam and Eve were not real, I suppose; and that we should not believe the account of creation, that God spoke everything into existence and created Adam and Eve the way Genesis tells it.  Oh no, we need to have a more rational explanation for creation, and ignore what the word of God says.  We came from apes, of course, and the creation story is just an allegory.
You can accept this evolution theory if you want, but I don’t agree with Dr Giberson.  You can either believe in evolution, or you can believe God’s account of creation in Genesis.  Either way, it would be nice if more Christian parents knew more directly whether there are any professors at their Christian school teaching evolution as being compatible with Christianity, so they can make informed decisions on whether they will send their children to that school or not.

For me, and many other Christian parents, this is really sad.  To think that more and more professors at our own Nazarene universities and other Christian institutions, are basically saying, you cannot trust the Bible completely.  They argue, like Giberson, that the fossil record is overwhelming, when in fact it is not.  The evidence in creation itself is overwhelming that it came about from the hands of a creator being.  The fact is, the evolution theory is full of holes, and constantly is trying to justify itself over time, as more assumptions often get dis-proven.  In their haste to come up with more “evidence”, many evolutionists make leaps of faith, ironically, to come up with more evidence of evolution.

The evolution believing Christians bring up a strawman argument, as Dr. Giberson says below, “Putting modern scientific ideas into this ancient story distorts the meaning of the text, which is clearly about God’s faithful and caring relation to the world, not the details of how that world came to be”.  Oh really?  How did you come to that conclusion about the meaning of the text?  From the light of the scriptures, I hope.  The Bible claims that it is the word of God, so the word of God says that God created man and woman in the way that it is written.  So where in the scriptures leads us to the conclusion that we should only believe certain parts of the Bible, and not all?  I would also dispute much more of what Dr. Giberson says, such as: “The “science” undergirding this “young earth creationism” comes from a narrow, literalistic and relatively recent interpretation of Genesis, the first book in the Bible.”

Dr. Giberson laments the fact that in a recent Gallup poll, 47% of Americans believe that “
that God created man in essentially his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years.”  Let me add another survey result he did not mention: only 9 percent of the Americans asked said they believe that man has evolved from simpler forms of life by a purely materialistic process extending over millions of years.” Less than 1 out 10! I believe that this reflects the fact that even though most people are familiar with the theory of evolution, a vast majority of them do not believe it to be fact!
And let’s accept his claim that the vast majority of scientists, even the Christian scientists, believe in evolution.  If so, that does not make it a fact at all.  A consensus of opinion does not make something true, does it?  Similar to the global warming hoax that has been dumped on us and sadly has fooled so many school children into believing than this planet will burn up in 10 years if we don’t do something.

Dr. Francis Crick, the co-discover of DNA, and an atheist, conceded “
the improbability of life’s chance origin simply defies calculation. Crick, an atheist, said: “An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle.” (Is God An Evolutionist?  Dr. David Menton).  The probabilities of the intricate operations of the eye and all that it does to process light and then allow someone to see, being a result of evolution, is unbelievably high.  So high that a Cray supercomputer, would take at least 100 years to process and duplicate just part of what the eye does in a matter of a few seconds!  Dr. David Menton goes into detail on thiat, and it is just fascinating to me, after reading it, that someone would still hold on to the evolution theory as fact.  You can read his full article, Can Evolution Create An Eye?, at my blog, reformednazarene.  You will be amazed at the information, and that is just one part of the creation all around us.

Here’s some questions for you then, Dr. Giberson, and perhaps many in leadership positions should be asked these as well, just to see where they stand:
1. Was Adam and Eve real?  If yes, did they evolve, or were they created immediately into existence as in the Genesis account?
2. Jesus referred to Adam as a historical figure.  Would Jesus deliberately mislead us like that?  Should he not have referred to him as part of an allegory or parable?
3. Did the flood great flood occur?  Did Moses part the Red Sea?  Was Jonah swallowed up by a large whale or fish, and lived for three days inside? Which “stories” should I believe, and not believe?  Is God able to perform miracles outside of the scope of human scientific understanding?
4. Romans also references Adam, and explains how sin and death came into the world through Adam.  How is that so, if evolution came first, and all that violence and death from all those dinosaurs killing each other happened for millions of years before Adam?  How do you reconcile that statement by Paul in Romans chapter 12?
5. Is it not a stretch to believe that the amazingly complex things in this world came as a result of millions of years of simple organisms “evolving” into extremely complex creatures, merely by chance?  To think that something as complex as an eye, can just appear after millions of years, poof!  just like that?
I’ll give you just one example to ponder on, which I was reading a few weeks ago, and that is the example of the complexity of the eye, and what it does.  After you read Dr. Giberson’s opinion below (my comments are in red), look at this and then you decide what you believe: Can Evolution Produce An Eye?

Here are Dr. Menton’s comments near the end of his article:

The implications of evolution
The Scriptures tell us that “by sin, death came into the world,” and that the “the wages of sin is death… ” Evolutionists, however, vigorously deny that sin has anything to do with death, but rather that death is natural. Life, they insist, would be impossible without death.

Certainly, evolution would be impossible without death. Death, in fact, has been called the “engine” of evolution. Carl Sagan said: “Only through the deaths of an immense number of slightly maladapted organisms are we, brains and all, here today.”
How foolish to think that the almighty and eternal Creator and Sustainer of the universe would have to bide His time, waiting for beams of staarlight to reach the earth.

Evolutionism inevitably breaks the relationship between sin and death, thus negating the need for a Savior who would save us from sin, death and the power of the devil.

Finally, when the Lord returns in glory on the Last Day, and the dead are raised from their graves, will scholars attempt one last naturalistic explanation for even this? Or will we finally concede that God does miracles beyond our understanding? Will we finally be still before the throne of God, and let God be God, though every man be found a liar? We will indeed! (Is God An Evolutionist?, from Issues, Etc, Dr. Davin Menton)

In conclusion, denying the historical account in the Bible will lead to doubting many other accounts in scripture, all based on human reason instead of trusting the scriptures for what it says. It opens up doubt in many minds, especially new Christians, whether any other parts of the Bible are true.  If a professor or pastor is willing to say that only certain parts of the Bible are true, where did they get the authority to say that?  And if that is the case, then why should I trust in any part of it?  How can someone who does not trust the Bible completely, then go on and say to me that I can trust the rest?  On what basis, their word?  That is the thinking of man at work, believing that he is wise, instead of trusting the word of God.  What is your choice today?

Karl Giberson Pushing The Evolution Religion At ENC

(My comments in red)

We believe in evolution — and God

Nearly half of Americans still dispute the indisputable: that humans evolved to our current form over millions of years. We’re scientists and Christians. Our message to the faithful: Fear not.

By Karl Giberson and Darrel Falk

The “conflict” between science and religion in America today is not only unfortunate, but unnecessary.

We are scientists, grateful for the freedom to earn Ph.D.s and become members of the scientific community. And we are religious believers, grateful for the freedom to celebrate our religion, without censorship. Like most scientists who believe in God, we find no contradiction between the scientific understanding of the world, and the belief that God created that world. And that includes Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution.

(Illustration by Keith Simmons, USA TODAY)

Many of our fellow Americans, however, don’t quite see it this way, and this is where the real conflict seems to rest.

Almost everyone in the scientific community, including its many religious believers, now accepts that life has evolved over the past 4 billion years. The concept unifies the entire science of biology. Evolution is as well-established within biology as heliocentricity is established within astronomy. So you would think that everyone would accept it. Alas, a 2008 Gallup Poll showed that 44% of Americans reject evolution, believing instead that “God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years.”

The “science” undergirding this “young earth creationism” comes from a narrow, literalistic and relatively recent interpretation of Genesis, the first book in the Bible. This “science” is on display in the Creation Museum in Kentucky, where friendly dinosaurs — one with a saddle! — cavort with humans in the Garden of Eden. (Good!) Every week these ideas spread from pulpits and Sunday School classrooms across America. On weekdays, creationism is taught in fundamentalist Christian high schools and colleges. (Good!) Science faculty at schools such as Bryan College in Tennessee and Liberty University in Virginia work on “models” to shoehorn the 15 billion year history (questionable) of the universe into the past 10,000 years.

Evolution continues to disturb, threatening the faith of many in a deeply religious America, especially those who read the Bible as a scientific text. (We should read the Bible as God’s word, as it says repeatedly over and over!) But it does not have to be this way.

Paradoxical challenges

Such challenges to evolutionary science are paradoxical. Challenging accepted ideas is how America churns out Nobel Prize-winning science and patents that will drive tomorrow’s technology. But challenging authority can also undermine this country’s leadership in science, when citizens reject it.

Darwin proposed the theory of evolution in 1859 in On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. This controversial text presented evidence that present-day life forms have descended from common ancestors via natural selection. Organisms better adapted to their environments had more offspring, and these fitness adaptations accumulated across the millennia. And this is how new species arose.

In 1859 the evidence convinced many people, but not without challenges. Paleontology, the study of fossils, was new; no reliable way existed to determine the age of the Earth, and the physicists said it was too young to accommodate evolution; and Darwin knew nothing of genes, so the mechanism of inheritance — central to his theory — was shrouded in mystery.

But the biggest problem was dismay that humans were related to primates: “Descended from the apes? Dear me, let us hope it is not true,” allegedly exclaimed the wife of a 19th-century English bishop upon hearing of Darwin’s new theory. “But if it is true, let us hope it does not become widely known.” Uneasy Christians hoped the advance of science would undermine Darwin’s novel theory, which threatened their understanding of traditional biblical stories such as Adam and Eve, and the six days of creation. (The advance of science has undermined the theory of evolution, I believe evolutionists simply are ignoring the evidence!)

In the years since Darwin argued natural selection was the agent of creation, the evidence for evolution has become overwhelming. The fossil record has provided evidence of compelling transitional species such as whales with feet. The discovery of DNA now provides an irrefutable digital record of the relatedness of all living things. (The complexity of DNA is yet another piece of evidence that laughs in the face of the theory that such complex structures came about through random chance, even though the odss were in the trillions of numbers!).
And even the physicists have cooperated by proving that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, providing plenty of time for evolution. (Can you document this proof?  As you know, carbon dating can be wildly off in determining the age of rocks or fossils, and is not nearly an exact system as some might think).

Evolution is not the enemy

We are trained scientists who believe in God, (what about the trained scientists who thoroughly reject your evolution theory?  What about them?) but we also believe that science provides reliable information about nature. We don’t view evolution as sinister and atheistic. (Well, it does reject, by logic, various parts of the Bible, including Jesus’s own words, and the biblical teaching that sin and death came through Adam.  What about that?).
We think it is simply God’s way of creating. (”We think?”.  How about being more sure than that before teaching this to students?).
Yet we can still sleep soundly at night, with Bibles on our nightstands, resting atop the latest copy of Scientific American. Are we crazy? (Do you want me to answer that?:-).

Evolution is not a chaotic and wasteful process, as the critics charge. (Many trained scientists think so).
Evolution occurs in an orderly universe, on a foundation of natural laws and faithful processes. The narrative of cosmic history preceding the origin of life is remarkable; the laws enabling life appear finely tuned for that possibility. The ability of organisms to evolve empowers them to adapt to changing environments. Our belief that God creates through evolution is a satisfying claim uniting our faith and our science. This is good news.  (This is bad news; this is a rejection of the biblical account of creation, and a lack of trust in God’s word!).

We have launched a website to spread this good news (www.biologos.org) and — we hope — to answer the many questions those of faith might have. BioLogos is a term coined by Francis Collins in his best seller The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. Collins, the Christian scientist who led the Human Genome Project, joined “bios,” or life, with “logos,” or word, from the first verse in the book of John in the New Testament.

The project aims to counter the voices coming from places such as the website Answers in Genesis, which touts creation scientists, and the Discovery Institute, a think tank in Seattle, that calls on Christians to essentially choose between science and faith.  (Do you consider these “places” examples of crazy people, perhaps even crazy fundamentalists?  It appears to me they are calling on Christians to either believe in the Bible, or not!).

We understand science as a gift from God to explore the creation, a companion revelation enriching the understanding of God we get from other sources, such as the Bible.

Many do not realize that making the Bible into a textbook of modern science is a recent development. (I think this argument is a strawman argument also; we just believe the Bible, period!).

Many biblical scholars across the centuries have not seen it that way, concluding instead that the biblical creation story is a rich and complex text with many interpretations. Putting modern scientific ideas into this ancient story distorts the meaning of the text, which is clearly about God’s faithful and caring relation to the world, not the details of how that world came to be.
(Another strawman argument, because the meaning of the text, is what the text says!).
What we learn from science cannot threaten our belief in God as the creator. If God created the universe in a Big Bang 15 billion years ago, guided its development with elegant mathematical laws so that eventually there would be big-brained mammals exploring things such as beauty, morality and truth, then let us celebrate that idea, not reject it.
(So you believe in the Big-Bang also?  An incident which itself defies a couple of the very laws of science that even you and I agree with, such as the second law of thermodynamics?  How can that be?).

Karl Giberson is a professor at Eastern Nazarene College, co-president of the BioLogos Foundation and author of Saving Darwin: How to be a Christian and Believe in Evolution. Darrel Falk is a professor at Point Loma Nazarene University, co-president of the Biologos Foundation and author of Coming to Peace with Science: Bridging the Worlds Between Faith and Biology.

Manny Silva

“The entirety of Your word is truth, And every one of Your righteous judgments endures forever.” Psalm 119:160

34 responses to “Karl Giberson Promotes “Christian Evolution” At ENC

  1. Manny, you might be interested in the followup Q&A chat that Dr. Giberson did on the usatoday website. It can be found here: http://transcripts.usatoday.com/Chats/transcript.aspx?c=2127

    He answers some of your questions, like his take on Adam & Eve.

    I agree with you that parents ought to know what is being taught to their kids in our Nazarene institutions of higher education. And, as far as I know, evolution is taught in the science department of every college/university we have. It has been for quite some time, because that’s the conclusion that their scientific studies lead them to.

    Personally, I think that ought we ought to listen carefully when our brothers and sisters in Christ who devote their lives to the study of science reach a conclusion like this. Perhaps we have something to learn from them.

  2. Hi Rich,
    The comments by Dr. Giberson were interesting to read, but not convincing to me. He continues to believe that Adam and Eve were not real, and that to me is a sad mistake for a Christian who otherwise, I assume, believes in the Bible.
    However, I would love for you to read the following link from one of the best at disproving evolution: Dr. Joseph Mastropaolo, Professor Emeritus


    I like his stuff so much, he is very good at refuting the fallacies of evolution. I may post one of these next week as a followup to this.

  3. Hmm… I’m reading about Dr. Joseph Mastropaolo on his website, and I’m a bit confused. Why should I believe that a kinesiologist knows better than biologists and geologists when it comes to the theory of evolution and the age of the cosmos?

  4. “I would not worry about titles; just check out what he says.”

    Translation: don’t worry about his credentials or credibility, just listen instead to what tickles Manny’s ears.

    The truth is Manny Dr. Giberson has not in anyway discredited the scripture or said it was “untrustworthy”. Scripture is not in jeopardy here, but only your interpretation of it which you will protect at all costs by trying to find as many people to agree with you as you can regardless of their qualifications or reliability.

  5. I did. Or at least, I started to. He doesn’t provide footnotes or references to any actual research that I could see. He mentions having been published in peer-reviewed journals, but I can’t find any references to what the topics were or what journals they appeared in, so it’s not actually useful information as far as establishing his credibility.

    And my concern isn’t about the titles. My concern is about areas of expertise. A biologist will know biology at a level that a kinesiologist won’t. A geologist will know geology at a level that a kinesiologist won’t. Etc.

    It’s the same reason we see specialists in the medical field when the problem is beyond what our general practitioner can handle. Because our normal doctor knows that the specialist will be more up-to-date on the research, will have a much stronger grasp of the particulars of their field, etc. If I’m having heart problems, I’m seeing a heart doc, not a general practitioner, and not a foot doc. The heart doc can still make an incorrect diagnosis, but that’s what second opinions are for — and you can bet that my second opinion would come from another heart doc, not from a foot doc.

    So it’s not about the titles. It’s about earned credibility.

  6. By the way, I looked again at the particular article you linked to. I’m not sure how much you want to get into this here and now… but my eye was drawn to his graph, labeled “Figure 1. The correlation of the curvilinear decline in post-flood longevity with the curvilinear incline
    of medically reported new genetic disorders supports Genesis and refutes evolution.”

    Except… the way he arrives at this “correlation” is entirely unsubstantiated. What he describes as “unimpeachable medical evidence” seems to arise solely out of his own imagination.

    Here’s the hard data he’s working with: On the one hand, reports of the ages of people in the Bible. On the other hand, reports of genetic disorders from the mid 1960’s to the present. He graphs both of these on his chart, then — and here’s where the magic happens — combines the two and extrapolates across a gap of thousands of years. Remarkably, even though the number of recorded genetic disorders is increasing “in a curvilinear accelerating pattern,” from the time of David until 1966, the number of disorders held steady! No apparent increase at all for thousands of years!

    How does he “correlate” the curve of increasing genetic disorders with the curve of decreasing longevity? How does he know they overlap rather than missing each other by a couple thousand years? He doesn’t establish this correlation. He just asserts it. I don’t have the numbers (and he doesn’t provide them), so I can’t graph the genetic disorders for myself, but according to his graph, it appears that the number of genetic disorders should have hit zero around 1900, not thousands of years earlier around the time of Noah.
    Dr. Mastropaolo is free to assert whatever he wants, of course. But if he expects others to accept it as scientific evidence, he’s going to have to document his sources and show his work, not just his conclusions.

  7. Hey Mark,
    The ear tickling analogy applies to those who believe in evolution.
    They just cannot trust what God’s word says, can they?

    I am not trying to find as many people to agree with me… Read the evidence Dr. Mastropaolo and other presents…. it blows away the arguments of evolution and proves its fallacy. You and others just don’t want to see it. The credibility of anyone should be based on the facts and arguments they present, not necessarily a degree. It’s the same argument I get when the opposition asks, what kind of Bible training or degree do you have?

  8. Rich,
    Dr, M is not the only one who is destroying the theory of evolution. There are many more, including scientists who would meet your criteria, but you probably would not listen them anyway.

  9. Manny, what makes you think I wouldn’t listen to them? I’m open to having my views on the subject change, because my faith isn’t in science. My faith is in God, who created the cosmos these scientists are studying.

    When it comes to evolution and how science fits with the Bible, my views HAVE changed. I used to be a firmly-committed young-earth creationist… until I learned that the science of the young-earth creationists couldn’t stand up to scrutiny. They were ignoring evidence, avoiding research that didn’t advance their agenda, and clinging to findings that helped them — even when those findings were later revised or refuted, sometimes by the very same scientists whose continued research showed that they’d made a mistake earlier. Yet the young-earth creationists, decades later, were still quoting the earlier, debunked research findings as if they were accurate. That’s not how science is done. That’s not even honest.

    We’ve had this discussion before, Manny. You say that people should just “trust what God’s word says” on the matter… yet none of us do this. You don’t “trust what God’s word says” when it says the earth is fixed and doesn’t move — you believe it revolves around the sun and that our entire solar system is revolving around the center of our galaxy at tremendous speed. Yet the church at the time of Galileo found these kinds of assertions to be heretical and insisted that people should “trust what God’s word says” instead of looking through those lying telescopes. It appears to me that the same kind of thing is happening today.

  10. The science of young earth does stand up to scrutiny.
    Look, it comes down to whether you believe what Genesis says, or not.

    I still have not read clear evidence proving evolution- because it is a weak theory. Those scientists who are much more knowledgeable than me have shown evolution theory to be faulty and a crazy theory that does not stand up to scrutiny, mathematical probability, and logic.

    We could go on forever on this- I don’t think I will convince you, and I certainly don’t wish to re-open this too much for discussion between us- perhaps someone else will comment later.

  11. A little googling found this paper titled “The Testimony of a Formerly Young Earth Missionary” at http://paleo.cc/paluxy/joshzorn.htm. It’s an interesting, brief read of one person’s journey. He writes with a humble spirit, and he includes a helpful bibliography. Perhaps his story will help you, Manny, and others who are investigating this particular issue.

  12. Thanks, I will take a look. But this matter is settled with me. I am not searching for an answer, I have found it, and the answer is right in the scriptures.

  13. Manny, I just noticed that my earlier comment, in which I showed that I had read Dr. Mastropaolo’s article and found serious problems with it, is still awaiting moderation, even though my other comments have all made it through. Was that an oversight, or is there some reason you’re still holding onto it?

  14. An oversight apparently. I just approved it.
    Again, evolution is only a theory, and therefore unproven. And it has been debunked by many creation scientists. As Dr. Mastropaolo points out, he is still waiting for someone to take up his challenge to debate him. Perhaps you could be the first one to do that?
    Why I wonder does no one want to debate him, if they are so convinced that evolution is correct?

  15. I have a Theology degree from NTS and I grew up in a home where my father was a biologist.

    As far as where the “ear tickling” thing applies, it applies to anyone who is just willing to hear what they want to hear and not willing to hear the truth.

    The idea that those who believe in evolution “just don’t trust the word of God” and are the ones getting their ears tickled is a false dichotomy because you assume that your interpretation of the text is the only way it can viewed believed and trusted. Thus, you are the one who is just giving in to tickled ears by listening to any argument the supports your preferred preconceptions.

  16. Mark,
    I’m willing to hear what God says in His word, and His word is the truth!

    I appreciate your Theology degree, but that does not mean you understand more than I do, necessarily. I trust God’s word, and God’s word spells out to us how man was created. I believe what it says.
    You believe what you want to believe. That’s the difference.

    I believe also:
    1. The Great Flood occurred,
    2. Jonah was in the belly of a whale or fish for three days,
    3. God parted the Red Sea,
    4. The three men of God were thrown in the furnace and God protected them.
    Shall I go on?
    Do you believe all these “stories”? Or are they allegories to you also?

  17. The triumph of creationism over evolution is not about finding that one piece of evidence that will settle the debate. Our generation is drowning in a sea of information. Because two people can look at the same data and come up with different conclusions, we need to turn to God for a resolution to this issue.

    I firmly believe that anyone who searches for the Creator of all life will eventually find Him. The Supreme Lord of the Universe would never allow someone to claim that He ignored their pleas. It may take an unknown amount of time and prayer, but for diligent seekers God always provides answers.

    God has set up a very clever system for revealing himself to mortal man: He discloses the truth to people who humble themselves and hides it from those who are proud. If you reject God out of pride, the light of the truth will pass you by.

    “Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you” (Jam. 4:8).

    “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God'” (Psa. 14:1; 53:1).

  18. Brad,

    I’m having a hard time connecting what you say here to the rest of the conversation. I mean, I agree that God rewards those who diligently seek him, etc. I think that’s why we have stories like that of Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project, who moved from atheism to Christian faith and sees his study of God’s creation as an act of worship.

    I’m confused especially by your last Scripture reference: “The fool as said in his heart, ‘There is no God.'” Drs. Giberson and Falk certainly believe in God, and they believe that he created all that is. Certainly, there are atheists out there… but we weren’t talking about them, were we?


    From what I’ve read online by some of those receiving Dr. Mastropaolo’s challenge, their refusal to debate him has nothing to do with fear that he will best them in a scientific challenge. His challenge doesn’t make any sense to me, personally. Why would a judge, an expert in the law, be the one to decide which side had the more compelling scientific argument? Besides the fact that a spoken-word debate is not exactly the best way for a scientist to present evidence for examination. People have countered Dr. M by proposing written-word debates, or by inviting him to submit his supposed air-tight evidence against evolution to any number of scientific journals. But he doesn’t seem interested in actually advancing the conversation toward a resolution.

    You can assert that the theory of evolution “has been debunked by many creation scientists” all you want, but as long as scientists keep providing good, reasonable responses to the objections of young-earth creationists, I don’t see how anyone can say their theory has been “debunked.” I strongly encourage you to read one of Dr. Giberson’s books before you continue with these sorts of assertions. Otherwise, you may end up feeling rather foolish when you learn the truth of how weak the young-earth creationists’ arguments truly are.

  19. Rich,
    I have complete confidence and trust in what the Bible says. That would never make me feel foolish.
    The YEC arguments end up supporting what the Bible says.

  20. Sorry, there is no blending of creationism and evolution that’s acceptable to Bible believing Christians. And where is the “overwhelming proof of the concept of evolving” that you speak of? Many leading scientists, both believers and non-believers, have denounced the theory of evolution as being unproven by observation. True, there have been noticeable “improvements” in various species over time. But never has one specie “evolved” into another.

    If you don’t believe that God created you the way He said He did, how can you believe that He’ll save you the way He said He will?

  21. Manny… I, too, have complete confidence in the Bible. But I like to think that I read it with an awareness of its context and purpose and with an awareness of what we know to be true about creation by our own observations.

    If it were really the Bible vs. science, and you were committed to “just believing the Bible,” then you would believe that the earth isn’t really revolving around the sun, that heaven is somewhere “up” above the clouds and hades is somewhere “down” below the ground, etc. But you already know that if you go up above the clouds, you hit outer space. You already know that the earth revolves around the sun, so when you read the verses that say it’s fixed and immovable, you don’t take them as statements of absolute scientific fact.

  22. Please give us those verses Rich, that you are talking about, about the earth being fixed.

  23. The Bible is not a book of science. It’s obvious from Scripture that God seems totally disinterested in explaining how He performs supernatural feats. The Great Creator occasionally provides us with a few minor insights into His handiwork that predate modern scientific discoveries. For example, in the Book of Job, the Bible tells us, “He stretches out the north over empty space, and hangs the earth upon nothing” (Job 26.7).

  24. as for your “I believe also” list you seem to be suggesting some kind of “slippery slope” mentality to a literal interpretation of the creation story as if not to accept a literal historical interpretation than “where does it end”? Again this is another false dichotomy.

    The question is what is one’s scholarly criteria for determining what kind of literature particular passages and stories are? The idea that all scripture must be literal historical or none if it is trustworthy is a false dichotomy.

    There may be some disagreement in some places about what is historical and what isn’t, but these things aren’t just determined by random whims. There are scholarly reasons that go well beyond what you seem interested in exploring in your interpretation that everything scripture says must be absolutely literally.

    As for my credentials, please don’t act as if I was throwing them in your face to disqualify you. I only presented them because you asked for them.

  25. Let’s see…. I know I shared them with you on an earlier post…. Yep, there it is. In the comments on your May post about evolution and open theism at ENC:

    1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, and Psalm 96:10 all say that “The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved.” There are other verses that support this view as well, but those three seem pretty clear.

  26. That is not a strong argument at all.

    “The entirety of Your word is truth, And every one of Your righteous judgments endures forever.” Psalm 119:160

  27. Manny,

    Thought I would give a few thoughts, Bible verse arguments and nonbiblical evidence for my belief in the flood as you also believe happened according to the Bible.

    Centeral to the question of the historicity of the early chapters of Genesis is the question of whether the Noahic flood was global or only regional. A worldwide flood would have cataclysmically changed the entire surface of the globe, including any fossil-bearing sedimentary rocks that may have been formed prior to that time. Consequently, the earth’s present fossil sediments must date largely from the time of their being deposited by the waters of the great flood.

    Genesis Reference (Arguments)
    Gen. 6:15 (Ark too large for regional fauna)
    Gen. 8:4 (Ark floated over 17,000 ft. mountains for five months)
    Gen. 8:19 (All present nonmarine animals came from the ark)
    Gen. 11:1 (Whole earth spoke one language after the flood)

    From other Biblical Writers. (Arguments)
    Is. 54:9 (Waters of Noah went over the earth)
    2 Pe 2:5 (God brought the flood on the world of the ungodly)

    Nonbiblical Evidence
    Worldwide occurrence of water-laid sediments and sedimentary rocks.
    Marine fossils on creasts of mountains.
    Worldwide distribution of all types of fossils.
    Numerous modern sightings of probable remains of Noah’s ark at about 15,000 feet elevation in ice cap on Mount Ararat.

    I believe these nonbiblical evidences are all the scholarly criteria I need to know that what the Bible says is true beyond a shadow of a doubt.

  28. Brad,

    I don’t think anyone questions that the Bible portrays the flood of Noah’s day as a global flood. And most don’t question that the Bible portrays the creation of the universe as having taken place in 6 days of ordinary length (evening, then morning). So you don’t really need to present biblical arguments for either, as far as I’m concerned.

    The question of its historicity is on another level. We have these stories… Now what types of stories are they? How do they function in Scripture and as Scripture? Etc.

    As for the rest… The best science (from what I’ve read) seems to say that there is not, in fact, evidence for a global flood. The bullet points you listed all lose their power as you dig into the details. (Well, I can’t speak for the last one. I don’t know much about it.) If I run across the research supporting what I just said, I’ll pass it along. As you dig into the details, they end up lending more support to an old-earth / evolution view than they do to the young-earth creationist view.

  29. Good stuff Manny! Personally I have a hard time taking Karl Giberson seriously, his arguments for theistic evolution reveal a seriously flawed thought process. Karl’s claim to his undeserved fame is that he can synthesize evolution with Christianity, yet he does nothing of the kind. His method is quite simple he just throws Genesis under the bus, wipes his hands and decrees that it is so!

    Karl laments the fact that many Americans scorn scientists, yet he does not admit that scientists are to blame for this. Scientists today just arent what they used to be, nowadays they seek fame rather than science, accolades rather than resolution. Theistic Evolution, Global Warming, Impending Pandemics, Ecological Collapse, etc… The list goes on and on. All in the hypothetical stages of scientific development, none proven, yet foisted upon the general public nonetheless. It would seem that it is more important for scientists to be first rather than right.

    He makes this statement regarding genetic suggestions of evolution; ” I think, if you look at how species share genes, even ones that don’t do anything, you will be convinced that they must have evolved from common ancestors.” Wouldn’t a more reasoned conclusion be that we share a common creator and designer?

    Although he treats evolution as though it were proven science, he cannot provide any proof of God’s existence. “There is no hard evidence for the existence of God. That is why those things are matters of faith,” Some of the selfsame evidence that he presents for evolution, actually point to God and to creation, yet Karl blindly submits to the peer pressure of his fellow intellectuals.

    This quote regarding his faith is quite telling; “People who believe in God do so because it brings their experiences into a more coherent and meaningful pattern. We have no “history” of how belief in God arose.” Although that may be true for the adherents of many faiths we Christians believe and worship The One True God. We don’t do so because it helps us live, rather we do so because he is real and the evidence is compelling. This gentleman is truly deserving of our pity rather than anger.

    Although I can’t take him seriously, I have no doubt that his conversation is damaging, given his position at a Nazarene University. This man isn’t using his influence to convince mature Christians, he is influencing children and this is quite troubling. He makes this statement regarding scripture: ” The Bible is not actually the “word of God.” That is a popular misconception. Jesus is the “word” or “logos” of God. The belief that the bible contains words that God dictated to the writers is not held by very many biblical scholars today.” Aside from the circular reasoning present in this statement, this is just plain troubling!

    Trusting parents send both their children and their hard earned money to Nazarene Universities, content with the fact that the Manual clearly states that scripture is given by “plenary inspiration” it is God breathed!

  30. Rich,

    Who determined that you were reading the best science?

    Jim Cabot hit the nail on the head when he said that scientist are not what they use to be.

    The following scientist were Bible believing men. These are the forefathers of their field of study.

    Isaac Newton (Calculus)
    Georges Cuvier (Comparative Anatomy, Vertebrae Paleontology)
    Henri Fabre (Entomology of Living Insects)
    Louis Agassiz (Glacial Geology)
    Matthen Maury (Hydorgraphy)
    John Ray (Natural History)
    John Woodward (Paleonotology)
    Carolus Linnaeus (Systematic Biology)

    As for history, we have worldwide distribution of flood traditions and origin of civilization near Ararat-Babylon region in post-flood time.

  31. Gentleman,

    After reviewing all these comments I must side with Manny on this one. Let me give my perspective.

    • When It comes to credentials: Neither Jesus or his 12 disciples had any credentials. They were actually noted in Acts as uneducated men who were full of the Spirit.
    When they saw the courage of Peter and John and realized that they were unschooled, ordinary men, they were astonished and they took note that these men had been with Jesus. Acts 4:13

    • When it comes to Adam: My view on the Bible is that the Bible is not a science book, but a history of man and God. It is about the plan of salvation divinely inspired which includes a lot of science and other subjects as needed.
    Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

    2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

    Now I am ok with a 6 day creation following these verses as God declares or 4.5 million years and then God creating from verses 3 on for 6 separate 24 hours periods of light and night. What I take issue over is Adam and Eve as actual people. Can God, or did God create a man within a 24 hour period out of DIRT? I say yes! If God can (and He did) create a man in less than 24 hours to appear to be a fully grown functional adult male being the age of approx 30 years old, then he can create the universe in a moment to look and appear to be 4.5 billions years old as well.
    We need to be consistent with what we teach. I cannot imagine God working through evolution and then giving us the Genesis account and expecting us to get that account wrong for 4-6,000 years until Darwin comes along to straighten us out!.
    God did it all that a child could grasp it and get it by faith. God created man and it was a powerful God who created a powerful creation in a quick amount of time.
    We have to take Paul’s words into account with all of this stuff and be careful. Colossians 2:4 This I say, that no one may delude you with persuasiveness of speech.
    Karl has lost his faith in the God of Creation. He can say he is a believer, but his teachings are pure heresy and the Bible warns us of such men. I believe if he and all these intelligent professors would spend more time in the Word of God and prayer then with there heads in carbon dating results then the Holy Spirit would reveal to them much more than they have now to work with. Please note that even Darwin started off as a professing Christian and was even studying for the ministry for a season and they by the time he died he was denying the God of his childhood.
    • 2 Peter 2:1 But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them–bringing swift destruction on themselves.

    May the Lord give us leaders and men of faith and integrity who know more about the Word than the world.
    A must see is Ken Hams State of the Union Address from Feb 2010. Great perspective on the Science God being worshiped!


    Even one of our Generals cannot take a stand for an essential. See my blog post for “The Letters”



Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s