Bruce Waltke and the Scientific Orthodoxy

_{Cornelius Hunter

April 7, 2010

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Bruce Waltke, a Professor of Old Testament, has parted ways with Reformed Theological Seminary, perhaps due to controversies over his sympathies with evolution. Rod Dreher at BeliefNet worries that this is a dangerous disregard for science: Read more

Comments

What happened to Dr Waltke is not good news for the future of Christian scholarship. I entirely agree with what Frank Bekwith wrote, as follows: "Calvin and Luther believed that geocentricity was required by Scripture. Are you suggesting that anyone who rejects it is not really Reformed? Here’s the problem: every argument you employ to rescue Calvin or Luther can be used by Waltke to rescue himself." And, with regard to Andrew Sibley's point about the unreliability of the historical sciences (with which I do not at all agree, in general), I want to underscore a point that I made in a recent essay that is available only in print (not on the internet), as follows: “Galileo and the Garden of Eden: Historical Reflections on Creationist Hermeneutics.” In Nature and Scripture in the Abrahamic Religions: 1700-Present, ed. Jitse M. van der Meer and Scott H. Mandelbrote, 2 vols. (Leiden and Boston: Brill Academic Publishers, 2008), vol. 2, pp. 437-64. (http://www.brill.nl/Default.aspx?partid=75&pid=31539) My article compares the following responses to Galileo's use of the principle of accommodation: (a) that of Roberto, Cardinal Bellarmine, who rejected Galileo (b) that of certain reformed theologians in early modern Europe, who also rejected Galileo (c) that of modern geocentrists (Gerardus Bouw is the number one example), who entirely reject accommodation in all forms (d) that of modern creationists who are not geocentrists, who don't really like Galileo and who push the illegitimacy of the "historical" sciences in order to keep Galileo out of the garden of Eden All of this is relevant to understanding what happened to Dr. Waltke. The particular context in which his ideas were being evaluated (RTS in Orlando) is closely related to the PCA--a denomination which a few years ago gave very serious consideration to requiring the YEC view on the part of elders (including teaching elders, i.e., pastors). Furthermore, some of the people who were pushing that view had also been involved in advancing geocentrism a few years earlier. (Some of the documents related to this are no longer available on the internet, but I have printed copies that I cite in my essay; the group known as the Counsel [sic] of Chalcedon used to publish a print and web journal called "Contra Mundum," which has largely disappeared from sight.) I see a very similar, and highly disturbing, parallel, between what happened to Dr. Waltke and what happened a couple of years ago to Pete Enns at Westminster and what has also just happened to Tremper Longman. It is striking that, if one had drawn up a list (say) three years ago of the three best Old Testament scholars from the reformed evangelical community, the whole list might have been these three names (though I won't get into suggesting alternative lists). This pretty much shows me, unfortunately, that it might not be possible henceforth to do really serious OT scholarship from within that community. (I will probably be strongly attacked for saying that, but people with strong ties to that community are certainly saying it.) As for the essay I refer to above, neither I nor anyone else has permission to post it, but it isn't hard to figure out how to get in touch with me.Ted Davis_{April 12, 2010
April
04
Apr
12
12
2010
08:20 AM
8
08
20
AM
PDT}

Cornelius: You've lost me, by not sticking to the layout of the original story, and answering the questions there in exactly the order I asked them. (An order which I contrived to have pedagogical value for myself and for your readers.) By instead offering a series of ironical statements and counter-questions, you obscure your own view on the methodological question I was driving at, i.e., at what point does it become reasonable and sensibly empirical, rather than "liberal", "rationalistic", "naturalistic", "importing hidden metaphysical premises", etc., to suggest that an apparently literal statement in the Bible cannot be taken literally, and that the Biblical passage in question must be given some other interpretation? Are there *any* circumstances under which you would deem this reasonable, and not accuse the Biblical re-interpreter of selling out to the Enlightenment? In my example, if "Schwarzert" *did* say: "The evidence is that the earth is round, so I believe the earth is round, and I'll adjust my reading of the Bible to that, whatever the consequences may be" -- surely you could say that he is making a metaphysical or religious assumption -- i.e., he is assuming that there cannot exist the kind of God who could rightly ask us to believe his written revelation against reason and experience. You would (or could) say, how can we know that such a God does not exist, and therefore, without employing a hidden metaphysical premise, how can we be sure the earth is round? It follows, you would argue (or could argue, given your usual line), that the roundness of the earth is not a firm, reliable result of science, but a rests on the theology of the person who rejects the Biblical revelation in favor of a proud assertion of the autonomy of human reason and experience. So Schwarzert can't win with you. If he goes all the way, and says: "The earth is round", you can just tell him that's a theological conclusion, not a scientific one; and if he stops at a conditional statement, "If the best evidence shows that the earth is round ..." you will lambaste him for his use of the conditional, as you lambasted Dr. Waltke. Schwartzert is damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't. Please note that in my original post I did not equate the two cases of flat earth and Waltke's statement, and even invited you to distinguish between them. But I had hoped you would make the necessary distinctions through a rational, stepwise exposition of the similarities and differences, rather than via clever repartee. I notice that you did not discuss the passage I quoted. Pretty disgusting naturalism and rationalism, wouldn't you say? Slipping in a non-Biblical metaphysics in that comment about the impossibility of the waters above the heavens, no? The guy is obviously a heretic, probably influenced by Hume or Kant or Leibniz. T.Timaeus_{April 11, 2010
April
04
Apr
11
11
2010
03:43 PM
3
03
43
PM
PDT}

Timaeus:
Cute, Cornelius, very cute. Your witty riposte is duly acknowledged.
Yes, upon sober reflection I realize my response was indeed outrageous. To compare evolution with the flat earth is, well, silly at best. Flat earthers appear downright rational by comparison. My question for Schwarzert would be: if you really are open minded, and you really do allow for a round earth, then given the evidence, why haven't you changed your mind? Or is yours an ersatz open mindedness?Cornelius Hunter_{April 11, 2010
April
04
Apr
11
11
2010
03:00 PM
3
03
00
PM
PDT}

Andrew Sibley: If you study scholarly works on ancient cosmologies, you will find that some ancient peoples did think in terms of a flat earth, and it would not be unlikely that uneducated Christian peasants in some central European or Near Eastern villages held to the conception. However, the historical facts are irrelevant, because the flat-earth position was explicitly "for the sake of argument". If you desire a more clearly historically grounded Christian view, you can substitute "immobile earth" throughout the story, with adjustments, and get the same effect. Your points about the present time are correct, but I was speaking of a time before space ships, and before anyone had sailed around the world, and of a people who lived inland, away from large bodies of water, who would not have daily observed (as the ancient Greeks did) the receding of ships in the distance, and therefore would not have been able to reason from that. In the scenario, the people form their view of nature from what they consider to be "common sense" (the earth seems flat, not round) and from stories in the Bible which (to them) say or imply that the earth is flat. You can't get the point of the story if you are going to start inserting modern data into it. The point, of course, is that it might well look, to someone who feels certain that the Bible teaches or implies an immobile earth (or flat earth, or waters above the stars, or whatever), as if the proponents of a moving earth (or round earth, or an outer space devoid of cosmic waters, or whatever), that the newfangled "science" is being arrogant and imperious, demanding that theology be re-written in order to harmonize with it. And such a person might feel it his religious duty to uphold the "traditional" or "orthodox" or "conservative" view of the Bible and the Bible's authority, and might call those who believe in a moving earth liberals, rationalists, naturalists, heretics, etc. Such a person might well say that we should believe God rather than man, even if what God says appears to contradict reason and observation. So the question is: at what point is it reasonable to say that such a conservative is wrong-headed, and that the Bible can be read more flexibly, in order to accommodate what appear to be truths about the order of nature? I don't know of a current American fundamentalist who rejects the motion of the earth, but there were the equivalent of "fundamentalists" (though the term is anachronistic) who rejected the motion of the earth, not only for common-sense and scientific reasons, but because they believed that the Bible taught the opposite. Have today's fundamentalists "sold out" because they accept the motion of the earth, and re-interpret those Biblical passages which appear to teach or imply that the earth does not move? This is the question I am addressing. I am *not* arguing that the evidence for evolution is as solid as the evidence for a round or a moving earth, so you can lower your defenses on that point. My question to Cornelius concerns Biblical interpretation. At least some people who have attacked evolution in the name of the Bible have implied that no concession, no adjustment to the plain sense of the Bible should ever be made, because any such adjustment gives away the farm. I wanted to hear what Cornelius had to say on that methodological question. Of course, you can weigh in on it, too, if you like. If, for the sake of argument, someone could provide you with a passage of the Bible, or a series of such passages, which stated or inescapably implied that the narrator believed that the earth did not move, would that threaten either the infallibility of Scripture for you, or the truth of Christianity? If not, why not? What are the principles governing when we can loosen up on apparently literal statements, and when we can't? T.Timaeus_{April 11, 2010
April
04
Apr
11
11
2010
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PDT}

Cute, Cornelius, very cute. Your witty riposte is duly acknowledged. Your newfound sense of humor earns you points in my estimation. But now, regarding the serious methodological question in Biblical interpretation which the story addresses, let's hear your views. If it helps any, I will give a quotation filled with juicy rationalist, naturalist, Biblical interpretation from a well-known "liberal" theologian who perhaps is guilty of the same error as Waltke: "For it appears opposed to common sense, and quite incredible, that there should be waters above the heaven. Hence some resort to allegory, and philosophize concerning angels; but quite beside the purpose. For, to my mind, this is a certain principle, that nothing is here treated of but the visible form of the world. He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. Here the Spirit of God would teach all men without exception; and therefore what Gregory declares falsely and in vain respecting statues and pictures is truly applicable to the history of the creation, namely, that it is the book of the unlearned. The things, therefore, which he relates, serve as the garniture of that theater which he places before our eyes. Whence I conclude, that the waters here meant are such as the rude and unlearned may perceive. The assertion of some, that they embrace by faith what they have read concerning the waters above the heavens, notwithstanding their ignorance respecting them, is not in accordance with the design of Moses." T.Timaeus_{April 11, 2010
April
04
Apr
11
11
2010
12:38 PM
12
12
38
PM
PDT}

Timaeus:
Now suppose he [Schwarzert] says, about this geographical dispute: “*If* the roundness of the earth should turn out to be overwhelmingly supported by empirical evidence, and geometrical reasoning, and by the testimony of many sailors and passengers who have no reason to conspire against the truth, then, if Christians should resist the teaching about the roundness of the earth, they will no longer be taken seriously in the eyes of the world, and will become a cult, and their religion will no longer have any hope of influencing the morals of the world, or of converting the heathen who are convinced by reason and experience that the earth is round. At that point, surely Christians would have to at least *consider* whether Scripture might be interpreted in such a way as to allow for the roundness of the earth.” What would you say to this Schwarzert?
I would point out that he is neglecting the much likelier possibility that Scripture, with all of its errors, contradictions, and questionable morality, is not the word of God at all. Once you realize this, it's no longer necessary to twist your interpretation of Scripture to comport with modern understanding.pelagius_{April 11, 2010
April
04
Apr
11
11
2010
11:22 AM
11
11
22
AM
PDT}

Timaeus: A very clever parable, I see what you are getting at. The villagers are today's evolutionists who cling to religious beliefs about the world in spite of the obvious evidence around them. The sailors and others are today's normal people, who recognize the obvious. And Schwarzert is Waltke, an evolutionist who is willing to consider other views.Cornelius Hunter_{April 11, 2010
April
04
Apr
11
11
2010
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT}

I wonder if I might respond to this also Timaeus. The analogy is weak, because it is possible to measure the spatial curvature of the earth in the present time. A ship can sail around the earth, we can send satelites into orbit etc. In order for the analogy to be valid we would need a time machine to go back in time and see how life originated - but time only goes forward. We are therefore dependent upon historical records to know what happened in the past - scientific inferences about the past are abductive and highly speculative. So it is perfectly rational to accept the Genesis account as historical narrative in light of abductive reasoning in the historical sciences. I would also question to what extent ancient people were ever flat earthers.Andrew Sibley_{April 11, 2010
April
04
Apr
11
11
2010
06:16 AM
6
06
16
AM
PDT}

Cornelius: I have a little story for you, and I’d like to get your reaction. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that many centuries ago, in a certain inland part of rural and small-town Christendom, a large number of Christians, including the clergy in the area, understood a number of passages in the Bible to say, or imply, that the world was flat. Suppose also that, in the same time and place, all the learned people in this inland, rural, small-town area also thought that the world was flat, on the basis of everyday observation. So we have these Christians, happy that common sense, the opinion of the learned, and the apparent teaching of Scripture all agree that the world is flat. Now suppose that a number of people from this area travel to the coast. While there, they encounter some learned men who say that the earth is not flat but curved, and when they ask how a learned man could hold a view so silly, so much against common observation and against the apparent teaching of Scripture, they are instructed by the learned men with geometrical arguments based on the observation of ships’ masts and so on. (I will assume you know the usual arguments.) Now suppose these people resist these arguments, saying: “But Scripture teaches the opposite, so even though we cannot refute your argument, we do not accept it; we will not trust the fallible science of man, which is always capable of error and always in need of revision; we will stand on Scripture which is always true and reliable.” My first question is: Supposing that these people were in fact able to produce passages of Scripture which did appear to imply that the Biblical narrator regarded the earth as flat, what would you say to them? Would you try to argue: “Those passages do not mean what you say; if read carefully, they show that the earth is round, or at least, they are non-committal on the question of roundness or flatness?” If you were to do this, let us say, for the sake of argument, that the peasants were able to provide enough passages, and clear enough passages, that this answer would not do; let us say that there was at least one passage, and maybe more, of which any unprejudiced reader, of any religious faith or no faith, would admit that the author consciously had the flatness of the earth in mind and was consciously trying to convey it. What would your next approach to these peasants be, if you yourself were convinced of the roundness of the earth? Would you say something like this: “Yes, the narrator does speak in terms of a flat earth, but he was trying to communicate with people who lived with that cosmography, and correcting bad cosmography was not part of his religious purpose, so he delivered his religious message in terms of the world as they understood it; but this is no threat to the true theology of the Bible; we can disregard the *incidentally* incorrect scientific statements of the Bible without damaging the *teaching* of the Bible; the Bible is inerrant in all matters of faith and morals, which does not preclude errors on less important matters.” But suppose that the peasants were to persist, and say: “We think the Bible is inerrant in *everything*. If we cannot trust its geography, its history, and its other factual statements, then we cannot trust its statements in faith and morals, either. It is all or nothing with the Word of God. Therefore, we hold to the flatness of the earth, and we think this argument of yours must be fallacious, though we cannot see the error. Also, God may be trying to test our faith by causing you to speak to us. He may be trying to see if we will believe that natural, human, unaided reason is more reliable than Scripture. We therefore reject your argument.” Now suppose a group of people sails around the world for the first time, and the feat is repeated on several occasions, and all the learned people of the world, even the learned priests and lawyers back in the inland village of the peasants, now come to accept the roundness of the earth, and adopt various methods of harmonizing that roundness with the teaching of the Scriptures. But suppose the peasants hold out, and say: “We reject this rationalistic, naturalistic reasoning. The people who sailed ‘around’ the world must have misinterpreted the geometry of their journey. God does not lie, and the earth is surely flat. We will no sooner reject a flat earth than we will reject the Resurrection of our Lord.” Now suppose there is one of the peasants -- call him Schwarzert -- one previously known and respected by all of them as one who has never caved in to the conceits of the learned and skeptical when it comes to Christian truth. His doctrine, his morals, his Christian leadership have always been beyond impeachment. Now suppose he says, about this geographical dispute: “*If* the roundness of the earth should turn out to be overwhelmingly supported by empirical evidence, and geometrical reasoning, and by the testimony of many sailors and passengers who have no reason to conspire against the truth, then, if Christians should resist the teaching about the roundness of the earth, they will no longer be taken seriously in the eyes of the world, and will become a cult, and their religion will no longer have any hope of influencing the morals of the world, or of converting the heathen who are convinced by reason and experience that the earth is round. At that point, surely Christians would have to at least *consider* whether Scripture might be interpreted in such a way as to allow for the roundness of the earth.” What would you say to this Schwarzert? Would you say that he had “sold out” to rationalism, naturalism, liberalism, unorthodox theology, etc.? Would you say that he should have stood his ground with the peasants, and against the geometers, the sailors, the traders, etc., and insisted on maintaining the literal sense of the Bible? Now of course you see where this is going, and I have another question for you, regarding the application of this little tale. How would such a case be similar, and how different, to the case of Dr. Waltke? I am not saying or implying that the two cases are identical, but I am interested in hearing your analysis of how they might be different (as well as similar), and whether you think there is a theological “sell-out” in the latter case, but no theological sell-out in the former case. At stake, of course, is the question of when, if ever, it is appropriate for Christians to re-think their interpretation of the Bible in the light of new information about the world (or at least, in the light of what they sincerely *believe* to be new information about the world). Is it always and everywhere wrong for Christians to do this? T.Timaeus_{April 11, 2010
April
04
Apr
11
11
2010
12:20 AM
12
12
20
AM
PDT}

Andrew Sibley (22): Thanks for the link. Waltke makes some good and thoughtful points, it seems to me. But on his fourth point:
4. Evolution as a process must be clearly distinguished from evolutionism as a philosophy. The latter is incompatible with orthodox Christian theology.
if we do make such a distinction then the reasons to believe the process actually occurred practically vanish.Cornelius Hunter_{April 10, 2010
April
04
Apr
10
10
2010
06:55 PM
6
06
55
PM
PDT}

To be fair to Waltke he has also made the following concilatory statement which might suggest he realises his comments were a bit over the top. http://spurgeon.wordpress.com/2010/03/31/waltke-on-waltke-on-the-evolution-video/Andrew Sibley_{April 10, 2010
April
04
Apr
10
10
2010
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PDT}

fbeckwith:
In other words, if we don’t engage in hypotheticals, we would be better off.
No, I was referring to that particular hypothetical (in spite of my vague wording, sorry). Did someone run up to Waltke with a mic, while Waltke was walking down the street, and blurt out "Hey professor, what should we do about evolution?" while Waltke was pondering Ex 20:7? Or were Waltke's comments premeditated for more than about a second? I certainly agree that “if the data is overwhelmingly in favor of green cheese at the center of Saturn, to deny that reality will make us a cult.” But it is not a statement I would want to make publicly. But perhaps Waltke is unfamiliar with the science and the metaphysics involved. Or maybe he is familiar and thinks the science and metaphysics are pretty good. Seems like it is never the former.Cornelius Hunter_{April 10, 2010
April
04
Apr
10
10
2010
01:40 AM
1
01
40
AM
PDT}

but to engage in the hypothetical is no different than to engage in hypotheticals about gnosticism, deism, Epicureanism, and the like.
In other words, if we don't engage in hypotheticals, we would be better off.fbeckwith_{April 9, 2010
April
04
Apr
9
09
2010
07:52 PM
7
07
52
PM
PDT}

Andrew Sibley (17):
So Waltke says “if the data is overwhelmingly in favor of evolution, to deny that reality will make us a cult.” Presumably he believes the data is overwhelmingly in favour of evolution
Well I'm not sure if Waltke believes that or not, but to engage in the hypothetical is no different than to engage in hypotheticals about gnosticism, deism, Epicureanism, and the like. It is not controversial that the data are indeed overwhelmingly in favor of evolution when viewed through their metaphysical filter. And likewise, it is not controversial that the data are not at all in favor of evolution when viewed through the filter of empirical science.Cornelius Hunter_{April 9, 2010
April
04
Apr
9
09
2010
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PDT}

If one reads the comments at the Belief Net article, the impression is amongst most of these people that the only two positions are young earth creationism and Darwin. They do not say Darwin much but use the word "evolution" in the sense that is what they mean. ID is combined with YEC in these comments and no one really disputes it. One or two commenters raise the possibility of other points of view but they are not laid out in any way to know what is meant.jerry_{April 9, 2010
April
04
Apr
9
09
2010
06:31 AM
6
06
31
AM
PDT}

So Waltke says “if the data is overwhelmingly in favor of evolution, to deny that reality will make us a cult.” Presumably he believes the data is overwhelmingly in favour of evolution, in which case he is making a statement to justify his position. Technically it is conditional, but he believes it to be a true statement. There are couple more points. Often theologians seem blinded by science and divide the world into evidence based science and faith based religion. But the interpretation of all data sets is dependent upon metaphysical foundations that begin in belief. Especially so in questions of origins. So I think Waltke has a wrong view of science. It would be better if Christians could present reasoned arguments without characterising opponents as 'cultic' - this type of polemical tactic is designed to persuade waverers into the fold of evolution, not to further the cause of truth.Andrew Sibley_{April 9, 2010
April
04
Apr
9
09
2010
05:01 AM
5
05
01
AM
PDT}

fbeckwith (13):
Cornelius, I am not sure you understood what I was intending to communicate. A “conditional” statement–or an ‘if, then’ statement is not a statement of fact.
Sure, I did realize that. But I'm not sure if you understood what I was intending to communicate in my response. I agree it was a conditional statement, but there are conditional statements and then there are conditional statements. My point was that a better comparison to make with Waltke's conditional statement would be one like this: “if the data is overwhelmingly in favor of gnosticism, to deny that reality will make us a cult.” I appreciate that Waltke made no hard and fast claims about the data overwhelmingly supporting evolution, as evolutionists say it does. But evolutionists make these claims from a deeply metaphysical position, while from an empirical science perspective the theory is weak. And it turns out that folks who support evolution, to a person in my experience, agree with these metaphysical premises. So I think something like gnosticism, rather than having 10 hands, is a better comparison with Waltke's conditional statement.Cornelius Hunter_{April 9, 2010
April
04
Apr
9
09
2010
02:00 AM
2
02
00
AM
PDT}

nullasalus (12): But which metaphysical premises? I know of multiple thomists who accept evolution yet hold metaphysical positions that would probably give many other evolution-proponents pause. Evolution was initially, and continues to this day, to be motivated and mandated by various, related, metaphysical premises about God and creation. For example, see Figure 16 here: http://www.darwinspredictions.com/ PS: you can edit your posts by clicking on the "e"Cornelius Hunter_{April 9, 2010
April
04
Apr
9
09
2010
01:39 AM
1
01
39
AM
PDT}

I think this from Rod Dreher says everything I need to know: (Full disclosure: BioLogos receives grant money from my employer, the John Templeton Foundation). From the "at Beliefnet" address given in the opening article. When the Templeton Foundation first appeared a decade or so ago I had high hopes, but now it is clear that the Foundation exists to champion only an immoral liberal brand of pseudo-Christianity. Anyone who doubts this should look at their blog. (Link at the above address.) It's where true Christianity goes to die.chrisvander_{April 8, 2010
April
04
Apr
8
08
2010
11:00 PM
11
11
00
PM
PDT}

whole = hold, in post 12nullasalus_{April 8, 2010
April
04
Apr
8
08
2010
10:46 PM
10
10
46
PM
PDT}

It’s a bit more complicated than that. Evolution entails metaphysical premises. That is what converts the data into an evolution mandate. It is not like saying: “If I had ten hands, then I would need five pairs gloves.” It would be more like saying: “if the data is overwhelmingly in favor of gnosticism, to deny that reality will make us a cult.”
Cornelius, I am not sure you understood what I was intending to communicate. A "conditional" statement--or an 'if, then' statement is not a statement of fact. So, if I were to say, "If God does not exist, then life has no purpose," I would not be claiming that God does not exist or that life had no purpose. I would be claiming that IF God didn't exist, IN THAT CASE, life would have no purpose. If I said, "If my grandmother were from Krypton, she would vulnerable to Green Kryptonite." My grandmother is in fact not from Krypton, and there is in fact on such thing as Kryptonite (not counting, of course, the powerful Margarita served in Tiajuana).fbeckwith_{April 8, 2010
April
04
Apr
8
08
2010
10:15 PM
10
10
15
PM
PDT}

Cornelius Hunter, But which metaphysical premises? I know of multiple thomists who accept evolution yet whole metaphysical positions that would probably give many other evolution-proponents pause.nullasalus_{April 8, 2010
April
04
Apr
8
08
2010
10:03 PM
10
10
03
PM
PDT}

fbeckwith (3):
That’s a conditional statement and not a claim. If I say, “If had ten hands, then I would need five pairs gloves,” I would not be claiming to have five hands.
It's a bit more complicated than that. Evolution entails metaphysical premises. That is what converts the data into an evolution mandate. It is not like saying: “If I had ten hands, then I would need five pairs gloves." It would be more like saying: “if the data is overwhelmingly in favor of gnosticism, to deny that reality will make us a cult.”Cornelius Hunter_{April 8, 2010
April
04
Apr
8
08
2010
08:45 PM
8
08
45
PM
PDT}

Collin, The video I cited in post 6 is of a bacteriophage (Bacteria Eater) virus and is considered beneficial, at least to us, since it keeps populations of bacteria in check: Bacteriophage Excerpt: Bacteriophages are among the most common biological entities on Earth,,,They have been used for over 60 years as an alternative to antibiotics in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.[5] They are seen as a possible therapy against multi drug resistant strains of many bacteria.,,,development of phage therapy was largely abandoned in the West, but continued throughout 1940s in the former Soviet Union for treating bacterial infections, with widespread use including the soldiers in the Red Army—much of the literature was published in Russian or Georgian, and unavailable for many years in the West. Their use has continued since the end of the Cold War in Georgia and elsewhere in Eastern Europe.,,,In August, 2006 the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved using bacteriophages on cheese to kill the Listeria monocytogenes bacteria, giving them GRAS status (Generally Recognized As Safe).[10] In July 2007, the same bacteriophages were approved for use on all food products.[11] Government agencies in the West have for several years been looking to Georgia and the Former Soviet Union for help with exploiting phages for counteracting bioweapons and toxins, e.g., Anthrax, Botulism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacteriophage I have read somewhere, but have not seen any studies that I can remember, so take this with a grain of salt, that stated that some forms of viruses are "thoroughly" beneficial in that the viruses help bacteria colonies pass information amongst themselves so as more quickly, and properly, adapt to environmental stresses.bornagain77_{April 8, 2010
April
04
Apr
8
08
2010
03:50 PM
3
03
50
PM
PDT}

Here's something I'd like to know about viruses. Do any viruses play a positive role in human health, just as some bacteria are helpful to human health? Could the degeneration of useful viruses be the source of some diseases?Collin_{April 8, 2010
April
04
Apr
8
08
2010
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PDT}

Thanks BA77, I'll have to check those videos out. I'd like to hear if anyone else has thoughts on this as well.siis_{April 8, 2010
April
04
Apr
8
08
2010
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PDT}

“if the data is overwhelmingly in favor of evolution, to deny that reality will make us a cult.” The thing that is overlooked in that statement is that to claim the data is overwhelmingly in favor of evolution puts one in a cult.tribune7_{April 8, 2010
April
04
Apr
8
08
2010
12:01 PM
12
12
01
PM
PDT}

siis, "I tried Googling about viral-self assembly from an intelligent design perspective and found nothing. Anyone here have any insights?" I think "viral-self assembly" definitely counts as a major defeat for evolution: The Virus - Assembly Of A Molecular Machine - Intelligent Design http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4023122 The Virus - A Molecular Lunar Landing Machine http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4205494 Articles and Videos on Molecular Motors http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AYmaSrBPNEmGZGM4ejY3d3pfMzlkNjYydmRkZw&hl=enbornagain77_{April 8, 2010
April
04
Apr
8
08
2010
11:33 AM
11
11
33
AM
PDT}

fbeckwith, as Luther said, "Vernunft ist die höchste Hur, die der Teufel hat." Prof. Waltke clearly believes that "the data is overwhelmingly in favor of evolution" and has left orthodoxy.Morgentau_{April 8, 2010
April
04
Apr
8
08
2010
10:57 AM
10
10
57
AM
PDT}

Speaking of Biologos, the latest entry on their blog has to do with viral-self assembly and how that is evidence that God uses random processes to achieve his ends (hence,I believe, implying random Darwinian processes are sufficient to evolve life.) I tried Googling about viral-self assembly from an intelligent design perspective and found nothing. Anyone here have any insights?siis_{April 8, 2010
April
04
Apr
8
08
2010
10:37 AM
10
10
37
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply