Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The first theistic evolutionist?

arroba Email
Anton Raphael Mengs - St. John the Baptist Preaching in the Wilderness - Google Art Project.jpg
Anton Raphael Mengs – St. John the Baptist Preaching in the Wilderness, 1760

June 23 is the Feast of the Nativity of John the Baptist, whose father Zacharias, a priest, may have been the first theistic evolutionist, somewhere around 4 BC.. As Luke tells the story,

10And the whole multitude of the people were in prayer outside at the hour of the incense offering. 11And an angel of the Lord appeared to him, standing to the right of the altar of incense. 12Zacharias was troubled when he saw the angel, and fear gripped him. 13But the angel said to him, “Do not be afraid, Zacharias, for your petition has been heard, and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you will give him the name John. 14“You will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth. 15“For he will be great in the sight of the Lord; and he will drink no wine or liquor, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit while yet in his mother’s womb. 16“And he will turn many of the sons of Israel back to the Lord their God. 17“It is he who will go as a forerunner before Him in the spirit and power of Elijah, TO TURN THE HEARTS OF THE FATHERS BACK TO THE CHILDREN, and the disobedient to the attitude of the righteous, so as to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.”

18Zacharias said to the angel, “How will I know this for certain? For I am an old man and my wife is advanced in years.” 19The angel answered and said to him, “I am Gabriel, who stands in the presence of God, and I have been sent to speak to you and to bring you this good news. 20“And behold, you shall be silent and unable to speak until the day when these things take place, because you did not believe my words, which will be fulfilled in their proper time.” (Luke 1:10-19)

No wonder the angel was frosted! The founding couple of the Jewish religion in which Zacharias had served all his life were Abraham and Sarah, and Sarah had conceived in old age.

Zacharias didn’t dispute that there was a God; he just didn’t believe that God could have any influence on nature. He’d have plenty of company today.

See also: Wayne Rossiter: Theistic evolution empties theism of meaning

tjguy at 10: Gabriel seems to have read it differently. News
Calling Zachariah the first theistic evolutionist is a bit extreme I think. And to assume that Zachariah thought that God could not or would not do miracles is overstepping things as well. I'm sure Zachariah believed strongly in miracles as a practicing priest of Judaism. It's just that when it came to God doing a miracle for him, he didn't immediately understand what was being communicated to him. He wanted some confirmation that what he had been told was true. That's all. It wasn't that he didn't believe it was possible. He just wanted to be sure. At least that's how I read that passage. tjguy
Challenging Darwin by Marvin Olasky: Theistic evolution? Extract: "Technological advance—ultrasounds that let us see what within the womb was formerly hidden—also helped the pro-life movement, and scientific advance is helping the pro-creation movement. Increased understanding of cellular complexity, along with the omnipresence of computer programs and apps, is making Darwinist denial of the importance of information less acceptable." "Sadly, the advance of “theistic evolution” is undercutting that advance." Olasky also writes favourably on the ID movement. https://world.wng.org/2016/06/challenging_darwin ____________________________________________________ Consider also the comments of Ken Ham in relation to OEC, YEC and ID: https://answersingenesis.org/reviews/articles/response-world-and-marvin-olasky/ mw
Hi,rvb8 #5: "It is annoying when post after post is theistically related. I see BA relates some information about protein combination in cells and is gob smacked by the beautiful ‘design’. Me too! However for me the ‘design’ is the result of gravity, electro/chemical/magnetic forces and the attraction and repulsion of atoms and molecules." ____________________________________________ From nothing; that is, no space, no material and no brains - 'design' and produce gravity, electro/chemical/magnetic forces and the attraction and repulsion of atoms and molecules. Just a tiny example of any will do. Of course, you have first to get rid of yourself in order produce a nothing state, and get rid of the whole cosmos for it to be truely scientific experiment. Annoying it truly is. Why, we cannot even design a hair on our head from nothing, let alone set it in a functioning life system according to Darwinian theory. Just a gnat, type hair will do; from nothing. Or, from a little warm pond if you want a head start. However, try a curly protein assembly to produce a curly hair. You have 13.7 billion years to complete the project by brainless means. BA has time and time again provided mathematical evidence such, or similar, is impossible. Annoying, isn't it? mw
rvb8 opines: "It is annoying when post after post is theistically related." And exactly why are you not equally, if not even more, annoyed at the Theologically related writings of Evolutionary biologists themselves?
Methodological Naturalism: A Rule That No One Needs or Obeys - Paul Nelson - September 22, 2014 Excerpt: It is a little-remarked but nonetheless deeply significant irony that evolutionary biology is the most theologically entangled science going. Open a book like Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True (2009) or John Avise's Inside the Human Genome (2010), and the theology leaps off the page. A wise creator, say Coyne, Avise, and many other evolutionary biologists, would not have made this or that structure; therefore, the structure evolved by undirected processes. Coyne and Avise, like many other evolutionary theorists going back to Darwin himself, make numerous "God-wouldn't-have-done-it-that-way" arguments, thus predicating their arguments for the creative power of natural selection and random mutation on implicit theological assumptions about the character of God and what such an agent (if He existed) would or would not be likely to do.,,, ,,,with respect to one of the most famous texts in 20th-century biology, Theodosius Dobzhansky's essay "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" (1973). Although its title is widely cited as an aphorism, the text of Dobzhansky's essay is rarely read. It is, in fact, a theological treatise. As Dilley (2013, p. 774) observes: "Strikingly, all seven of Dobzhansky's arguments hinge upon claims about God's nature, actions, purposes, or duties. In fact, without God-talk, the geneticist's arguments for evolution are logically invalid. In short, theology is essential to Dobzhansky's arguments.",, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/09/methodological_1089971.html Charles Darwin's use of theology in the Origin of Species - STEPHEN DILLEY Abstract This essay examines Darwin's positiva (or positive) use of theology in the first edition of the Origin of Species in three steps. First, the essay analyses the Origin's theological language about God's accessibility, honesty, methods of creating, relationship to natural laws and lack of responsibility for natural suffering; the essay contends that Darwin utilized positiva theology in order to help justify (and inform) descent with modification and to attack special creation. Second, the essay offers critical analysis of this theology, drawing in part on Darwin's mature ruminations to suggest that, from an epistemic point of view, the Origin's positiva theology manifests several internal tensions. Finally, the essay reflects on the relative epistemic importance of positiva theology in the Origin's overall case for evolution. The essay concludes that this theology served as a handmaiden and accomplice to Darwin's science. http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=376799F09F9D3CC8C2E7500BACBFC75F.journals?aid=8499239&fileId=S000708741100032X
Thus rvb8, since Theology is essential to Darwinian arguments, it appears that you are being hypocritical in your bias against 'God talk'. Why is this? Why do you rail against 'God talk' when it supports Theism and yet say nothing when 'God talk' is essential to Evolutionary theory itself? You might claim that Darwinism could get along just fine without all this 'God talk' but you would be wrong. For science to even be possible in the first place, basic Theistic beliefs about the rationality of the universe and the capability of the human mind to understand it, must be necessarily presupposed in any worldview that attempts to do science in any coherent and intelligible manner.
The Great Debate: Does God Exist? - Justin Holcomb - audio of the 1985 Greg Bahnsen debate available at the bottom of the site Excerpt: When we go to look at the different world views that atheists and theists have, I suggest we can prove the existence of God from the impossibility of the contrary. The transcendental proof for God’s existence is that without Him it is impossible to prove anything. The atheist worldview is irrational and cannot consistently provide the preconditions of intelligible experience, science, logic, or morality. The atheist worldview cannot allow for laws of logic, the uniformity of nature, the ability for the mind to understand the world, and moral absolutes. In that sense the atheist worldview cannot account for our debate tonight.,,, http://justinholcomb.com/2012/01/17/the-great-debate-does-god-exist/ Science and Theism: Concord, not Conflict* – Robert C. Koons IV. The Dependency of Science Upon Theism (Page 21) Excerpt: Far from undermining the credibility of theism, the remarkable success of science in modern times is a remarkable confirmation of the truth of theism. It was from the perspective of Judeo-Christian theism—and from the perspective alone—that it was predictable that science would have succeeded as it has. Without the faith in the rational intelligibility of the world and the divine vocation of human beings to master it, modern science would never have been possible, and, even today, the continued rationality of the enterprise of science depends on convictions that can be reasonably grounded only in theistic metaphysics. http://www.robkoons.net/media/69b0dd04a9d2fc6dffff80b3ffffd524.pdf
You see rvb8, without God to ground rationality, and reality itself, the atheistic worldview simply cannot support science. In fact, in the Atheists denial of the reality of God, everything, and I mean everything, collapses in to self-defeating flights of fantasy and imagination.
Darwinian evolution, and atheism/naturalism in general, are built entirely upon a framework of illusions and fantasy https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Q94y-QgZZGF0Q7HdcE-qdFcVGErhWxsVKP7GOmpKD6o/edit
Thus rvb8, as hard as this might be for you to accept, your denial of the reality of God is not based on any rational logic, since rationality itself collapses without God, but your rejection of God must instead be based on your emotional preference. If I could be so bold as to offer you a personal suggestion, perhaps you should humble yourself a little, examine your heart more closely, and try to see why you have emotionally rejected your only hope for the priceless gift of eternal life? Verse, Video and Music:
2 Corinthians 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ; Hillsong United – Taya Smith – Touch The Sky – Acoustic Cover – Live – HD https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyl34fHQi3U
Supplemental notes:
The Resurrection of Jesus Christ from Death as the “Theory of Everything” – video https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/vb.100000088262100/1143437869002478/?type=2&theater Imagine Heaven - video series Description: John Burke has researched over a thousand accounts of people who have experienced life after death and come back to share their experience, as well as interviewed several in person. He’s researched what the Bible, scholars and experts have to say on the topic. Youtube playlist https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAx2w5l0LlY&list=PLy61gU5NWK15AZfCB_RurkltZQ_Ldm3w9
rvb8 at 5: The News desk customarily runs religion news on Sunday, sparingly at other times - a historically common media practice. News
I'm quite sure Protestant Christianity will not celebrate this date. How does this post aid ID? This is a serious question. The sooner the ID research team produces some research the better; I'm not holding my breath. It is annoying when post after post is theistically related. I see BA relates some information about protein combination in cells and is gob smacked by the beautiful 'design'. Me too! However for me the 'design' is the result of gravity, electro/chemical/magnetic forces and the attraction and repulsion of atoms and molecules. rvb8
Sermon: Absolute Proof of Christianity - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdkztGKKmic haven't watched all of it yet, but is recommended by J Warner Wallace
Published on Jun 24, 2016 This powerful sermon was presented at the 'God's Not Dead Conference' in San Diego, California. Pastor Jeff Durbin (Apologia Radio/TV/Church) presented a sermon on Christian Apologetics (the defense of the Christian Faith). In this message Jeff provides the foundations for demonstrating that the God of the Bible is the necessary reference point for truth and that apart from the Trinitarian God of the Bible you fall into foolishness. Jeff also weaves together the truth that Jesus is the Messiah. He asks the question: Is Jesus the Messiah? And He answers with an acrostic that he created many years ago: MOST definitely! (Messianic prophecies fulfilled, Original Life of Jesus, Symbols fulfilled, and Transformation of the world) For more, go to apologiaradio.com
Magna Charta: "I haven’t really followed theistic evolution, but don’t they believe that God doesn’t routinely influence nature, only stepping in when necessary? Or do they actually believe that God does not affect nature at all?" ___________________________________ Theistic evolutionists believe the God of Sinai sent Darwin to degrade Himself by giving His people shredded scripture via another book which said: He was "erroneous" (p 6 Origin). Whereas, it is believed, Jesus fed 5000, by multiplying fishes and loaves, but the real miracle is, He was their God of Sinai feeding them, Personally. Throughout history, regularly stepping in. That is and after creating miraculously, efficiently and speedily, as He said at Sinai in writing. mw
Zacharias didn’t dispute that there was a God; he just didn’t believe that God could have any influence on nature. He’d have plenty of company today.
I haven't really followed theistic evolution, but don't they believe that God doesn't routinely influence nature, only stepping in when necessary? Or do they actually believe that God does not affect nature at all? magna charta
Off Topic: This article may interest you NEWS Finding a lack of 'random' collisions in a crowded cell is a 'counterintuitive surprise' for researchers:
Proteins put up with the roar of the crowd - June 23, 2016 Excerpt: It gets mighty crowded around your DNA, but don't worry: According to Rice University researchers, your proteins are nimble enough to find what they need. Rice theoretical scientists studying the mechanisms of protein-DNA interactions in live cells showed that crowding in cells doesn't hamper protein binding as much as they thought it did.,,, If DNA can be likened to a library, it surely is a busy one. Molecules roam everywhere, floating in the cytoplasm and sticking to the tightly wound double helix. "People know that almost 90 percent of DNA is covered with proteins, such as polymerases, nucleosomes that compact two meters into one micron, and other protein molecules," Kolomeisky said.,,, That makes it seem that proteins sliding along the strand would have a tough time binding, and it's possible they sometimes get blocked. But the Rice team's theory and simulations indicated that crowding agents usually move just as rapidly, sprinting out of the way. "If they move at the same speed, the molecules don't bother each other," Kolomeisky said. "Even if they're covering a region, the blockers move away quickly so your protein can bind." In previous research, the team determined that stationary obstacles sometimes help quicken a protein's search for its target by limiting options. This time, the researchers sought to define how crowding both along DNA and in the cytoplasm influenced the process. "We may think everything's fixed and frozen in cells, but it's not," Kolomeisky said. "Everything is moving.",,, Floating proteins appear to find their targets quickly as well. "This was a surprise," he said. "It's counterintuitive, because one would think collisions between a protein and other molecules on DNA would slow it down. But the system is so dynamic (and so well designed?), it doesn't appear to be an issue." http://phys.org/news/2016-06-proteins-roar-crowd.html
Of related note:
Molecular Biology - 19th Century Materialism meets 21st Century Quantum Mechanics - video https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/vb.100000088262100/1141908409155424/?type=2&theater

Leave a Reply