Why Evolution is Impossible

Gary Demar has a good piece on his site today.

__________________
1689 Baptist Confession

Psa 55:16 As for me, I will call upon God; and the LORD shall save me.
Psa 55:17 Evening, and morning, and at noon, will I pray, and cry aloud: and he shall hear my voice.
James Farley, Wilderness Road Baptist Assembly.
Husband of Melissa and father of Ann.
www.wildernessroadbaptist.org

It is impossible as it contradicts Genesis chapter 1. And for a whole load of other reasons as well.

__________________
Daniel Ritchie
Saintfield, Northern Ireland - Queen's University, Belfast:History/Politics
Member of Dromara Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland (Covenanter)

I love this comic. I used to have the t-shirt.



The evolutionists have to borrow our worldview at some point or the system can never work. In the end, whatever they do not borrow turns out to be absurd.

__________________
Bob Vigneault (Bawb Vēēn-yo)
"We are God's children and He's the Father of all fathers and we need to obey him." Jean-Baptiste Vigneault (5)

The Heartbeat of Heaven (blog) MySpace (Music), MySpace (Personal)
Member of Christ Presbyterian Church, Janesville, WI OPC www.christ-opc.org

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Is the t-shirt still available?

__________________
Ivan Schoen, Pastor * Maranatha Baptist Church, Poplar Grove, IL * http://maranatha-sbc.org/

"I want to assist churches and to assist pastors in training pastors. But, after fourteen years of service in this capacity, I am absolutely certain that the finest theological seminary on earth is absolutely incompetent at replicating the actual life of a Gospel congregation. I want to train a generation of pastors who will train pastors, and I want to help them in that task." --- Dr. R. Albert Mohler, President of THE Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, KY

Would most here say that theistic evolution is impossible?

__________________
Joel Batts
Christ Presbyterian Church (PCA) - Memphis, TN

"Why wasn't God watching? Why wasn't God listening? Why wasn't God there for Georgia Lee?"
- Tom Waits
But you, O God, do see trouble and grief;you consider it to take it in hand. The victim commits himself to you; you are the helper of the fatherless. - Psalm 10:14

Theistic evolution is more possible because it borrows some from a theistic worldview. It's still a prop for evolution and it's not the least bit necessary. Theistic evolution denies less of scripture than evolution but it still denies the authority and veracity of scripture.

No, not impossible. But all the same it didn't happen.

__________________
Rev. Daniel Kok
Pastor of Grace Reformed Church (URCNA)
Leduc, Alberta CANADA
Church Blog

"there is no creature, either in heaven or on earth, who loves us more than Jesus Christ"
Belgic Confession, Article 26

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

No sorry Ivan, it was shrunk, torn and stained so I threw it out. You know I would give you the shirt off my back though.

I'm kidding. I knew what you mean't. I bought it at the Chicago Museum of Science but you can get it online here and there. Try googling 'then a miracle occurs t-shirt'.

OK. Must one hold to 24 hr periods for the seven days of creation in order to hold to the authority and veracity of Scripture? What I'm really asking is are there other views outside of the 24 hr, young earth view that you and others here would see as permitted/possible based on sound exegesis?

BTW, when are the WWBD bracelets going to be made available on PBay?? I think they would make fine stocking stuffers.

Although shrunk, torn and stained I think you still have that old t-shirt....come on, man. I'll give you ten bucks for it. OH, okay! I'll google!!

The problem is that any view other than the prima facie understanding of Gen. 1 depends in some measure on the conclusions of materialistic scientists. If it were a simple matter of a fellow Christian asking us to consider something we may have missed in Scripture itself, there would be no hesitation; but the fact is, many adopt the theory of Hodge that science has not yet had its final say, and leave the Bible open to reinterpretation on the basis of external pressures. This produces a lamentable result, because it means the Bible is not permitted to speak for itself, but exegesis is conducted under the facade of accommodating so-called respectable opinions of men.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

From an exegetical standpoint any view other than literal 6 day, 24 hour creation is out of the question. What did Moses' audience think he was talking about: 6, 24 hour days, or millions of years? Moreover, the fourth commandment makes it pretty clear that God created the earth in 6 days and rested on the seventh, the same is to be our pattern. Does that mean that we work for millions of years before taking the Sabbath off?

I'm a bit pickier still. I don't go for the 24 hour part of the test. Scripture doesn't give us hours. God didn't provide a clock to measure the period.

It is sufficient to call them days in the normal sense, and not go beyond that.

__________________
R.Vic Bottomly
Providence Reformed Baptist Church, Tacoma, WA

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

But aren't the literary tools used to interpret Scripture themselves derived from human endeavors? For example, the work Kline has done on the ancient near east treaty formulations has provided some solid ground on which to understand OT covenants. These were extra-biblical discoveries / research upon which Scripture was further assessed. Also, more generally, God's acts and the biblical record of them are bound up in history. History is open to investigation. Historical and natural sciences are sometimes part of that investigation. While Scripture always has primacy over human thought, admitting no human thought to its interpretation (including thinking on natural sciences) doesn't seem possible.

It's one thing to use reason to understand revelation; its quite another thing to impose reason on revelation.

If it is sufficient to call them days in the normal sense, then it is legitimate to call them 24 hour days, as 24 hour days are days in the normal sense.

Agreed 100%. But where does one stop and the other begin?

If God had revealed contradictions to us, would we not have had to neccessarily question what was, in fact, true?

IOW, reason is subject to revelation, but the means by which we understand it, so in a sense it is prior...right?

Responding to the thoughts in the article linked in the first post:

It seems that theories of truth come in two general categories: coherence and correspondence. A correspondence theory of truth (loosely, that something is true because it "corresponds" with an objective reality) appears to be the prevailing theory among the atheistic neo-Darwinists (indeed, their almost exclusive reliance on empirical verification requires this). This, of course, assumes the existence of both a subject and an object (a scientist and his test tube). The existence of an observing mind is a necessary precondition for this theory of truth, which immediately invalidates statements regarding the evolution of life (at least within an atheistic framework).

"Life evolved from non-life x billion years ago" can only be true if there is an observing mind present, as noted above. Unless one grants the existence of an observing mind prior to the time when life evolved from non-life, then this statement can not be true according to the theory of truth implicit in the statement itself.

(A common response is that the statement is true with reference from our viewpoint as observing the past. But how can a statement be true now with reference to something that was not true at the time it purportedly occurred?)

This creates a real dilemma, since one must either grant the existence of a real subject observing the evolution of life from non-life (which means abandoning atheism or adopting immensely silly views regading little green men) or abandon a correspondence theory of truth... even though a coherence theory offers even less hope for the dogmatism of Darwinism. Or commit the unforgivable sin: abandon evolution.

Thoughts?

__________________
B.C. Askins
Evangelical Church of Fairport, Member (Fairport, NY)
"If you eat a live frog in the morning, nothing worse will happen to either of you for the rest of the day."
-W.G.T. Shedd

For most of my ministry, I simply accepted what the Progressive Creationists (most seminary profs) and Framework people (e.g., Kline) said. Only when my denomination began debating homosexuality, did I begin to realize that my hermeneutic which allowed accommodating billions of years in Genesis 1 was virtually identical to what the pro-gay mainliners where saying about Romans 1. Rethinking the consistency of my position, reading widely in the Answers in Genesis site, and doing some more reading on literary genre and hermeneutics led me back to the "normal" reading of Genesis 1-11.

BTW, if you want to consider the issue from the scientific side by a ministry which is staunchly presuppositional in their apologetic, cf. Answers in Genesis - Creation, Evolution, Christian Apologetics. They have gazillions of resources, including complete books for free online.

__________________
Dennis E. McFadden, Ex Mainline Baptist (in Remission)
Atherton Baptist Homes, CEO
First Baptist Church of Alhambra, Member, Transformation Ministries (CA)

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?