Christian Darwinism

Giberson vs.Mohler: Somewhere between Darwinworld and heaven, the hack grabs a pen

Spread the love

At CNN, we are informed by Biologos vice prez Karl Giberson that a busted Vit C gene in humans, chimps, orangutans, etc., is

… but one of many, many evidences that support the truth of evolution – that make it a “sacred fact” that Christians must embrace in the name of truth. And they should embrace this truth with enthusiasm, for this is the world that God created.

Here’s my problem (Toronto-based Canuck hack): I dunno.

First, the amount of sheer nonsense talked in the name of evolution is appalling, and even a founder of the discipline of evolutionary psychology has just abandoned his big theory (none too soon, I would say).

Second, practically no one who is not on autopilot believes Darwinism any more, and that is the principal theory of evolution. It is the only theory of evolution our culture recognizes, the one courts enforce, for which taxes are collected, on behalf of which inquisitors snoop, sneak, snipe, and snitch.

If all this is “sacred”, everyone who could benefit civilization must prefer the profane. And, historically, everyone who has benefited civilization has, under these circumstances, preferred the profane. That’s why we keep running into non-Darwinian atheists.

For a traditional believer in any type of ethical monotheism, the logic is simple:

The sacred (the Return of Christ, the Messiah, the Tenth Imam) will come.

But the current evolution rubbish is most definitely not He, nor anyone like him, and not in any sense sacred, just the babble of confused voices seeking funded attention for their program to nowhere.

Al Mohler’s response is here.

Denyse O’Leary is co-author of The Spiritual Brain.

7 Replies to “Giberson vs.Mohler: Somewhere between Darwinworld and heaven, the hack grabs a pen

  1. 1
    nullasalus says:

    The Mohler link is busted.

  2. 2

    …and so is Darwin’s theory of evolution by means of natural selection or n evolutionary mechanisms…

  3. 3
  4. 4
    bornagain77 says:

    Perhaps Giberson should take a much closer look at the evidence, he himself has cherry picked, before he pronounces on exactly what Christ our Lord believes and does not believe regarding origins (and even if the evidence were as Giberson thinks it is, if I were Giberson, I think he should humbly seek the Lord and His guidance, rather than to be so presumptuous as to pronounce the Lord’s thoughts from his own fallible knowledge).

    Daniel Fairbanks Cherry Picks Data On Pseudogenes To Prop Up Common Descent – March 2011
    Excerpt: What is particularly astonishing about Fairbanks’ citation is that the paper also documents the presence of shared deletions and substitutions in the GULO (Vitamin C) pseudogene of both humans and guinea pigs! Given that humans and guinea pigs are thought to have diverged at the time of the common ancestor with rodents, if the mutations are truly random, a mutational difference between the rat and guinea pig should not be shared by humans. But many mutational differences were shared by humans. Inai et al. argued that this was indicative of mutation hotspots where certain types of mutations occur with a greater frequency. The paper calculates the likelihood of these same substitutions in both humans and guinea pigs to be 1.87 x 10^-12.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....n-descent/

    Human Evolution? – The Compelling Genetic Evidence For Adam and Eve
    Dr. Fazale Rana – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4284482

    The “Eve” Mitochondrial Consensus Sequence – John Sanford
    Excerpt: Given the high mutation rate within mitochondria and the large geographic separation among the individuals within our dataset, we did not expect to find the original human mitochondrial sequence to be so well preserved within modern populations. With the exception of a very few ambiguous nucleotides, the consensus sequence clearly represents Eve’s mitochondrial DNA sequence.
    http://www.icr.org/article/mit.....-sequence/

    These following quotes sum up nicely what we can make of the poverty of the fossil record for ‘human evolution’:

    When we consider the remote past, before the origin of the actual species Homo sapiens, we are faced with a fragmentary and disconnected fossil record. Despite the excited and optimistic claims that have been made by some paleontologists, no fossil hominid species can be established as our direct ancestor.
    Richard Lewontin – Harvard Zoologist
    http://www.discovery.org/a/9961

    Evolution of the Genus Homo – Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences – Tattersall, Schwartz, May 2009
    Excerpt: “Definition of the genus Homo is almost as fraught as the definition of Homo sapiens. We look at the evidence for “early Homo,” finding little morphological basis for extending our genus to any of the 2.5–1.6-myr-old fossil forms assigned to “early Homo” or Homo habilis/rudolfensis.”
    http://arjournals.annualreview.....208.100202

    Man is indeed as unique, as different from all other animals, as had been traditionally claimed by theologians and philosophers. Evolutionist Ernst Mayr
    http://www.y-origins.com/index.php?p=home_more4

    “Something extraordinary, if totally fortuitous, happened with the birth of our species….Homo sapiens is as distinctive an entity as exists on the face of the Earth, and should be dignified as such instead of being adulterated with every reasonably large-brained hominid fossil that happened to come along.”
    Anthropologist Ian Tattersall
    (curator at the American Museum of Natural History)

    ,,,as for Giberson’s riding on Francis Collins coattails to try to make his case for respectability, the same goes for Francis Collins to check his own evidence a lot closer than he appears to have done;

    Francis Collins, Darwin of the Gaps, and the Fallacy Of Junk DNA – video
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....40361.html

    Further note:

    Why The Chromosomal Fusion Argument Doesn’t Wash – Jonathan Mclachie – February 2011
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....esnt-wash/

  5. 5
    aedgar says:

    Reading through the Giberson article I come across this unbelievable statement:
    “Such evidence proves common ancestry with a level of certainty comparable to the evidence that the earth goes around the sun.”

    First of all, he attempts to give evidence for evolution without offering any. The best he can come up with are only speculations and assumptions, like the busted vitamin C gene.

    Second, the evidence that the earth goes around the sun is something that we can observe, every year in fact. Some people get to observe it more than others depending on their lifetime. Spacecraft that have left the solar system have corroborated this. Now, what evidence for evolution have we seen happening before our very eyes? Nothing, nada.

    Giberson reminds me of what the fanatical atheist neo-Darwinist Dawkins once admitted:
    “Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.”

    Duh!

  6. 6
    bornagain77 says:

    OT:

    Easter Flash Mob! 2000 Christians! – Inspirational Videos
    http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=FB1B9CNU

  7. 7
    tjguy says:

    Giberson’s ideas are heretical. I find it difficult to understand how the Church of the Nazarene would allow a person with such anti-biblical views to teach at their college. The fact that he remains there in good standing is NOT a good sign for that denomination!

    From Mohler’s article:

    “Karl Giberson believes that the human authors of Genesis were “ancient and uncomprehending scribes” and that Genesis “began as an oral tradition for a wandering tribe of Jews thousands of years ago.”

    I wonder if the Church of the Nazarene agrees with his views of interpretation? I’m afraid that many students will be adversely influenced by this type of heresy.

Leave a Reply