Biologos Spending Millions

"I can’t seen how Meyer’s claims of a literal Genesis are compatible with his DD claims, not even close. Can anyone offer a reasonable explanation?" My impression is that there needs to be a careful interpretation of the Hebrew to English translation of terms to understand what the Genesis account is saying. You might look at a book by Hugh Ross, I believe, called "The Genesis Question" where he attempts to give English interpretations of various Hebrew words in Genesis and throughout the Bible that seems to reconcile Scripture with scientific interpretation of historical biological data. bpragmatic

Adapa:

Meyer’s version of ID is that God came by around 530 million years ago and took 20 million years to create all the phyla found in the Cambrian strata. Are you volunteering to explain ID’s position on the 3 billion years of life before the Cambrian and the 500 millions years’ of life after the Cambrian?

I can volunteer to explain ID’s scientific position on the 3 billion years of life before the Cambrian. Where the scientific evidence is objectively followed wherever it leads from what Stephen Meyer and others are now at: ID theory predicts two other causation events. The first major event was caused by (consciousness enabling) Behavior of Matter, which was the "behavioral cause" of Molecular Intelligence, which in turn was the "intelligent cause" of cellular intelligence, which in turn was the "intelligent cause" of the Cambrian Explosion of Multicellular Intelligence with brains made of neurons that made possible the ability to intelligently control muscles to forage around while forming partnerships with other living things that keep them safe I earlier explained to answer the question "Genes not as important as we might think?" There are two ways to view the major events. Systematically: https://sites.google.com/site/intelligenceprograms/Home/Causation.jpg Or as a miraculous trinity of events in time that happened along the way in our development towards human intelligence that now has us gathered at UD to intellently discover: https://sites.google.com/site/intelligenceprograms/Home/Causation.GIF Within limits of science I made sure to reveal the identity of a trinity of divine designers. That time it was just a matter of using the right pointer. The ID movement is onto something that the logical construct of Darwinian theory cannot explain. The theory it led to just happens to be like right out of Genesis, including a chromosomal Adam and Eve (see above) but not because I or another planned it that way. It's simply where the scientific evidence led. Gary S. Gaulin

Again, Dr. Meyer is not making an explicit claim concerning his position, rather he is observing "an unsubstantiated and controversial claim to urge pastors and theologians to jettison a straightforward reading of Genesis about the human race arising from one man and one woman.” His statement concerns the pastors and theologians. This is my take on Dr. Meyer after reading his books and articles. redwave

Why don't you promote evolutionary creation here at UD and tap into some of that money! Mung

JDH Taking all these into account, you try to deduce what it means in a straight-forward manner. It is not an easy task, and there are no hard fast rules, but I don’t think one should just throw out the text and go with what makes sense according to very speculative results of modern science. That's at least a logically consistent position but unfortunately that's not what Meyer does. He cherry picks the scientific evidence, keeping the parts he can shoehorn into his Biblical beliefs and rejecting the parts he can't. Even though all the evidence was verified with the exact same technical means. That's why I see Meyer as so inconsistent and his contradictory claims as so valueless. Adapa

JDH Because, I have read many people who demand a “straightforward reading of Genesis” who are not defending YEC. OK, fair enough. Then what exactly does a “straightforward reading of Genesis” entail? A literal Adam and Eve? Separately created "kinds"? A literal global flood and Noah's Ark? Who gets to decide? How do Meyer's specially created Cambrian phyla fit into the “straightforward reading of Genesis”? Adapa

Adapa, And to try to answer " In a “straightforward reading of Genesis” how do you decide which parts are literal and which aren’t?" There are many things that you do including how are the Hebrew words used in other parts of the Bible. What is the literary construction of the text (poetic or straight prose)? What is trying to be communicated to the audience that received it? What were their cultural assumptions? and also, how might common sense guide you. Taking all these into account, you try to deduce what it means in a straight-forward manner. It is not an easy task, and there are no hard fast rules, but I don't think one should just throw out the text and go with what makes sense according to very speculative results of modern science. JDH

cantor ID is not about Genesis. According to Meyer it is, sometimes. Seems to depends on which audience he's talking to. Meyer's version of ID is that God came by around 530 million years ago and took 20 million years to create all the phyla found in the Cambrian strata. Are you volunteering to explain ID's position on the 3 billion years of life before the Cambrian and the 500 millions years' of life after the Cambrian? Adapa

"Biologos spending millions...." Money talks! I have a feeling they will be successful in getting many people to believe in evolution and their heretical view of Genesis. Sad!! tjguy

Adapa, You said, "Every time someone has demanded a 'straightforward reading of Genesis' it’s been to defend the YEC position." I think what you meant to say is, "Every time I have seen that someone has demanded a ... Because, I have read many people who demand a "straightforward reading of Genesis" who are not defending YEC. JDH

In regards to Adam and Eve: Chromosomal Speciation Models indicate that there was sudden appearace of the human chromosomal design that makes 46 from 48. For more information see the chapter for "Species and Speciation" in the online book downloaded at the TheoryOfID site (click my name above to get there). Darwinian theory lacks the logical construct needed to make sense of Chromosomal Speciation and (Chromosomal) Adam and Eve. BioLogos has no theory to help make sense of cognitive related concepts like noticing nakedness and needing cloths/fashion, tree of knowledge with Godly wisdom that got us kicked out of paradise that to 48 relatives was more like the tree life after the bananas ripen (not learn how to control fire and as a result occasionally getting burned by our power). To each their own, but I find Evolutionary Creationism to be scientifically boring. The science is where the goal is to get past Darwinian generalizations. No longer even need to say "evolved". At all self-similar levels living things "develop" (as in a baby develops from a zygote cell) even where development of human intelligence (has 3 levels not just one from brain) took billions of years of biosphere incubation to develop into designs as complex as chromosomal Adam and Eve. Gary S. Gaulin

You guys are letting this Adapa troll sucker you into an argument about Genesis. ID is not about Genesis. cantor

For whatever my opinion is worth, as far as I know Genesis 1 has been interpreted in two basic ways: 1. Everything was created during the 6 days whether symbolic or not. 2. The substance of the earth and the universe was already there and the 6 days of creation transformed a lifeless planet into one that now has a vast array of life on it. I go with the second and I believe the 6 days are literal. I also believe that for the most part what we see in the fossil record is the results of Noah's flood. That means to me the Cambrian explosion was part of the early events of the flood. I also keep the concept of evolution completely out of the whole thing for many reasons including what ID has to say about it. fossil

I recognize I may be wrong that Meyer’s “straightforward reading of Genesis” means 100% literal ...

That's better than what we see from most people. But even better ... "I recognize I was wrong that Meyer's ..." We usually think (and I can speak for myself) that admitting a mistake will hurt our credibility but actually, just the opposite is true (among fair-minded people). Silver Asiatic

Alicia Renard, you can thank a friend of mine on Facebook who lives 'down under' for that reference/quote from Tattersall. bornagain77

"Even allowing for the poor record we have of our close extinct kin, Homo sapiens appears as distinctive and unprecedented…there is certainly no evidence to support the notion that we gradually became who we inherently are over an extended period, in either the physical or the intellectual sense." Thanks BA 77 for all your scientific research and for posting your findings. Your work is appreciated in Alabama at least. Alicia Renard

Moose Dr To step beyond this, to suggest that a tribe made the transition from non-human to human hundreds of thousands, nay millions, of years ago requires recognizing that portions of the Bible are, well, story. Dr. Meyers does not seem to be prepared to go there. He already went there when he says the Designer created all the different Cambrian phyla over 500 million years ago. That includes the chordates of which humans and all mammals belong. Were the created Cambrian phyla the Biblical created "kinds"? If not then what were they? What about the 3 billion years of life before the Cambrian? What about the 500 million years of fossil diversity we have after the Cambrian? I think Dr. Meyer does not hold to universal common descent. Dr. Meyer seems to hold the perspective, based upon the data, that in the cambrian new lineages were created. If this is correct, his view that a new lineage was created a few thousand years ago in the form of one man and one woman would be internally consistent for him. Not new lineages, new phyla. If he accepts the fossil record from 500 million years ago is accurate then he also must accept all the examples of new classes, orders, families, and species that appear spread over the following 500 million years. Can't cherry pick the data. My problem with Meyer is that he seems to be talking out of both sides of his mouth. Seems like wants a straightforward reading of Genesis (i.e. created "kinds" with no common descent etc.) including a specially created Adam and Eve but he also wants God to do all the creating 500+ million years ago. They can't both be right. I'd just like one coherent story from the ID position for the 3.5 billion year history of life on Earth. Is that expecting too much? Adapa

'Rather than simply imply that Meyer is being inconsistent and then asking us to figure out how that might be the case, why don’t you simply disclose what you perceive the inconsistency to be so that we can assess your argument? That’s the way it is usually done.' Oh so pedantic,Stephen! For goodness sake... Axel

@ Bornagain77 #4 and 9 You evidently don't realise, BA, just how sapient and skilled inanimate matter is at creating life from itself. I expect it's 'emergent'. But you need the subtle mind of an atheist to perceive such things. Isn't that right, Adapa? Axel

Adapa

I can’t seen how Meyer’s claims of a literal Genesis are compatible with his DD claims, not even close. Can anyone offer a reasonable explanation?

Rather than simply imply that Meyer is being inconsistent and then asking us to figure out how that might be the case, why don't you simply disclose what you perceive the inconsistency to be so that we can assess your argument? That's the way it is usually done. StephenB

of related interest: The Meaning and Purpose of Creation – John Lennox – video – 31:00 minute mark (in Genesis there is a sequence of creative acts that are not the same act) https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=rWUNbNsa-yA#t=1915 55:18 minute mark quote: “According to Genesis you do not get from the non-living to the living without the words ‘And God said,,’. According to Genesis you do not get from the animal to the human without the words ‘And God said,,,’. - John Lennox bornagain77

Ann Gauger, Douglas Axe, Casey Luskin, who work at the Discovery Institute, which is headed by Dr. Meyer, wrote Science and Human Origins in 2012,,, Science and Human Origins - 2012 http://www.amazon.com/Science-Human-Origins-Ann-Gauger/dp/193659904X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8 Of particular note: How do Theistic Evolutionists Explain the Fossil Record and Human Origins? - Casey Luskin - September 14, 2012 Excerpt: In six recent articles (see the links at right), I have argued that the fossil record does not support the evolution of ape-like species into human-like species. Rather, hominin fossils generally fall into two distinct groups: ape-like species and human-like species, with a large, unbridged gap between them.,,, Third, not all paleontologists agree with Kidder that the lack of transitional fossils is simply the result of the unsophisticated (and all-too-easy) excuse the fossil record is poor. Consider what paleontologist Niles Eldredge and paleoanthropologist Ian Tattersal (who are both committed evolutionists) co-wrote in a book on human origins: "The record jumps, and all the evidence shows that the record is real: the gaps we see reflect real events in life's history -- not the artifact of a poor fossil record." (Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall, The Myths of Human Evolution, p. 59 (NY: Columbia University Press, 1982).) http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/09/how_do_theistic_1064301.html "A number of hominid crania are known from sites in eastern and southern Africa in the 400- to 200-thousand-year range, but none of them looks like a close antecedent of the anatomically distinctive Homo sapiens…Even allowing for the poor record we have of our close extinct kin, Homo sapiens appears as distinctive and unprecedented…there is certainly no evidence to support the notion that we gradually became who we inherently are over an extended period, in either the physical or the intellectual sense." Dr. Ian Tattersall: - paleoanthropologist - emeritus curator of the American Museum of Natural History - (Masters of the Planet, 2012) bornagain77

Adapa, you seem to be confused about some basic Biblical interpretations. Many hold to the "day-age" interpretation of Genesis 1. This theory suggests that the term "day" need not mean 24 hour period. As such attributing all manner of time, including millions of years, to Genesis 1 is legitimate by that interpretation. The day-age interpretation still holds to a "the Bible (if correctly interpreted) is inerrant" position.) Alas, from Genesis 2 on, names of children, age of parents at the child's birth, number of years that parents lived are all very clearly marked out. Some have found Biblical precedent for concluding that gave birth to a son whose offspring gave birth to can be written as gave birth to . In this model, a few extra generations may be possible, but not hundreds of generations realistically. To step beyond this, to suggest that a tribe made the transition from non-human to human hundreds of thousands, nay millions, of years ago requires recognizing that portions of the Bible are, well, story. Dr. Meyers does not seem to be prepared to go there. I think Dr. Meyer does not hold to universal common descent. Dr. Meyer seems to hold the perspective, based upon the data, that in the cambrian new lineages were created. If this is correct, his view that a new lineage was created a few thousand years ago in the form of one man and one woman would be internally consistent for him. Moose Dr

No, Adapa, the article is not wrong, nor is Meyer. You are wrong. Meyer's position is that a straightforward reading of Genesis (that is, God created) is under attack by an "unsubstantiated and controversial claim" (that is, evolution created). Drop your shovel, don't be a troll. And no, we don't have the time for you to evolve out of it . . . Not a troll? Remember you wrote this:

I can’t seen how Meyer’s claims of a literal Genesis are compatible with his DD claims, not even close. Can anyone offer a reasonable explanation?

You asked for reasonable explanations and they were given. You backpedaled ("I realize I may be wrong . . " . . . as some sort of probability that would allow for some doubt on the other side. However, you are plainly wrong, leaving no doubt on the other side. You seemed to have forgotten how you started: "I can't see . . ." that would imply that you don't get it, and if you don't get it then stop posting and start listening. Otherwise, troll fits. Trolls post additional, irrelevant, nit-picking provocative questions displaying a need to be right at the expense of real dialogue and learning. Don't be a troll. Tim

Okay, Adapa, sorry, I see now what you are trying to get at. Yes, a straightforward reading of Genesis would assume that the human race had a pair of first parents. I would have to ask Meyer if that is his reading. But it really has nothing to do with Darwin's Doubt, which is about the Cambrian period. No one who accepts that there was a Cambrian period 550 mya thinks (so far as I know) humans were around then. News

News Has Meyer made any claims at all regarding the interpretation of Scripture? If so – how are they relevant to Darwin’s Doubt? YOU made the claim. In fact, YOU brought the subject up. The rest of us wouldn’t mind knowing if there is any substance at all to your claims. I didn't bring up the subject. I was referring to the statement from Meyer to BioLogos that was provided in BA's linked article:

But Stephen Meyer, a Discovery Institute leader of the intelligent design movement, told WORLD BioLogos leaders are using “an unsubstantiated and controversial claim to urge pastors and theologians to jettison a straightforward reading of Genesis about the human race arising from one man and one woman.

Is the article wrong, is "a straightforward reading of Genesis about the human race arising from one man and one woman" not Meyer's position? Adapa

Adapa at 1, then 8: "I can’t seen how Meyer’s claims of a literal Genesis are compatible with his DD claims, not even close." "I recognize I may be wrong that Meyer’s “straightforward reading of Genesis” means 100% literal ... " Adapa, Law of Holes: When in a hole, stop digging. Has Meyer made any claims at all regarding the interpretation of Scripture? If so - how are they relevant to Darwin's Doubt? YOU made the claim. In fact, YOU brought the subject up. The rest of us wouldn't mind knowing if there is any substance at all to your claims. News

You got any empirical proof of evolution? Say a single molecular machine created by unguided processes? Or are you just claiming that the Cambrian was a creation event of God and unguided evolution took over from there? ,,, 'just so' materialistic creation myths need not apply for explanation. bornagain77

Hi redwave, I recognize I may be wrong that Meyer's “straightforward reading of Genesis” means 100% literal but then that raises a further question. In a "straightforward reading of Genesis” how do you decide which parts are literal and which aren't? How does the vertebrate body plan being created in the Cambrian and then another 500 MY of vertebrate evolution square with a “straightforward reading of Genesis” and the special creation of the human race from Adam and Eve? Adapa

$9 million? That illustrates how determined Templeton is to sell the idea. And why, exactly? Better ideas sell themselves, often just for the cost of keeping the lights on or so. Oh, by the way, Darwin's Doubt: Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #9,052 in Books (See Top 100 in Books) #1 in Books > Science & Math > Biological Sciences > Paleontology #2 in Books > Science & Math > Evolution > Organic #3 in Books > Christian Books & Bibles > Theology > Creationism $9 million won't buy that. News

Stephen Meyer's claim is not for a literal reading of Scripture, rather “an unsubstantiated and controversial claim to urge pastors and theologians to jettison a straightforward reading of Genesis about the human race arising from one man and one woman." redwave

JDH I think your problem is your assumption of Meyer’s “literal” interpretation is a straw man you invented. Every time someone has demanded a "straightforward reading of Genesis" it's been to defend the YEC position. Maybe if you provided a reason to think differently then you won’t make what appears to be your own ignorant and foolish argument. How does the vertebrate body plan being created in the Cambrian and then another 500 MY of vertebrate evolution square with a "straightforward reading of Genesis" and the special creation of Adam and Eve? Adapa

Ever hear of Old Earth Creationism? Seven Days That Divide The World (John Lennox) - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Y-AGFfKZFM Dr. Hugh Ross appeared on Fox News with Lauren Green to discuss Science and the Book of Genesis. (Long Days vs. 24 hour Days) http://video.foxnews.com/v/3633724402001/does-science-support-the-book-of-genesis/#sp=show- ,,, 'And if you're curious about how Genesis 1, in particular, fairs. Hey, we look at the Days in Genesis as being long time periods, which is what they must be if you read the Bible consistently, and the Bible scores 4 for 4 in Initial Conditions and 10 for 10 on the Creation Events' Hugh Ross - Evidence For Intelligent Design Is Everywhere; video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4347236 The best data we have [concerning the Big Bang] are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the bible as a whole. Dr. Arno Penzias, Nobel Laureate in Physics - co-discoverer of the Cosmic Background Radiation - as stated to the New York Times on March 12, 1978 “Certainly there was something that set it all off,,, I can’t think of a better theory of the origin of the universe to match Genesis” Robert Wilson – Nobel laureate – co-discover Cosmic Background Radiation It is also very interesting to note that among all the 'holy' books, of all the major religions in the world, only the Holy Bible was correct in its claim for a transcendent origin of the universe. Some later 'holy' books, such as the Mormon text "Pearl of Great Price" and the Qur'an, copy the concept of a transcendent origin from the Bible but also include teachings that are inconsistent with that now established fact. (Hugh Ross; Why The Universe Is The Way It Is; Pg. 228; Chpt.9; note 5) The Uniqueness Of The Bible Among 'holy books' and Evidence of God in Creation (Hugh Ross) – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjYSz1OYG8Y The Most Important Verse in the Bible - Prager University - video http://www.prageruniversity.com/Religion-Philosophy/The-Most-Important-Verse-in-the-Bible.html bornagain77

"Meyer’s claims of a literal Genesis" Adapa has made no such claim. You just make this up. Barry Arrington

Adapa, I do not want to speak for Meyer, who is quite capable of speaking for himself. I would assume he has a view of the early chapters of Genesis similar to mine. There are things that are left ambiguous ( e.g. the word yom in Hebrew can mean a literal 24 hour period or just a general period of time ). But there are things that are quite clear. God makes it clear that he directed the whole process day by day. In other words the amount he participated in the creation was consistent. This is not consistent with "unguided" evolution at all. The major objection I have, is that although modern science should be used as a help to interpret Genesis, we don't have to bend over backwards to bow to scientific "accuracy" when it is not "accuracy" but actually scientific speculations built upon a model of a non-participating, non-interventionist God. I think your problem is your assumption of Meyer's "literal" interpretation is a straw man you invented. You are definitely correct that the straw man you construct in your mind of Meyer's literal interpretation of Genesis is not "...compatible with his DD claims, not even close." But, if I were you, I would do more research into how Meyer actually chooses to interpret the book until you assert that. Maybe then you won't make what appears to be an ignorant and foolish argument. JDH

I noticed this paragraph from the article.

But Stephen Meyer, a Discovery Institute leader of the intelligent design movement, told WORLD BioLogos leaders are using “an unsubstantiated and controversial claim to urge pastors and theologians to jettison a straightforward reading of Genesis about the human race arising from one man and one woman. They think ‘the science’ requires such a reinterpretation, but apart from speculative models that make numerous question-begging assumptions, the science does no such thing.”

This is the same Stephen Meyer who wrote "Darwin's Doubt" in which he claimed the unnamed Intelligent Designer came to Earth 530 MYA and spent 20 million years creating the Cambrian body plans. I can't seen how Meyer's claims of a literal Genesis are compatible with his DD claims, not even close. Can anyone offer a reasonable explanation? Adapa