tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2004197800618234561.post4246528620560587088..comments2023-04-02T03:07:27.930-07:00Comments on Reformed Academic: Made from the dust of the groundReformed Academichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14744307133232033891noreply@blogger.comBlogger60125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2004197800618234561.post-47124663120230856482009-06-05T15:01:04.023-07:002009-06-05T15:01:04.023-07:00I continue to hope for some interaction between us...I continue to hope for some interaction between us all on Todd Wood's paper. For anyone willing to look at it (and thanks, Arnold, for providing a direct link) I think it could go a long way to explaining why many Christian scientists have concluded that common descent is correct. I realize Wood is not writing from a Reformed perspective, but YECs who are trained in genomics are as rare as hen's teeth (in fact, he is the only one I am aware of). He does, however, fully hold to a young earth, anti-evolutionary stance and he unashamedly professes Christian faith. I think his ideas would be useful to discuss for anyone interested in learning about modern biology and how it relates to the question of common ancestry. The paper is not written at too technical a level that a non-specialist cannot grasp its concepts. <br /><br />I also continue to be hopeful that this blog can be a place where those who disagree can yet seek to discuss and learn from each other. Yes, we might find one another's views highly suspect and theologically problematic. Yes, we may question each other's orthodoxy. That's a risk I'm willing to take. However, it is <i> certain </i> we will never learn anything if we only converse with those whom we already agree. <br /><br />Blessings, all. <br /><br />Dennis VenemaDennis Venemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04585271870331546892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2004197800618234561.post-89914890562509769282009-06-05T10:04:59.389-07:002009-06-05T10:04:59.389-07:00This is a response to Jon Dykstra’s comment:
Is t...This is a response to Jon Dykstra’s <a href="http://reformedacademic.blogspot.com/2009/04/made-from-dust-of-ground.html?showComment=1243990643211#c4739138143512826222" rel="nofollow">comment</a>:<br /><br />Is the following a proper Reformed perspective upon encountering evidence which one finds unsettling?<br /><br />1. Find a refuting source which allows you to claim the evidence is plain wrong.<br />2. When the refuting source is exposed as thoroughly misleading, dismiss the original evidence as being only rhetorical.<br />3. Cite a nifty joke about a quite unrelated case.<br /><br />Why not admit up front that you don’t care one whit what the evidence is? See Tony’s <a href="http://reformedacademic.blogspot.com/2009/04/is-scientific-knowledge-abstract.html" rel="nofollow">post</a> on this.Arnold Sikkemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02914734765194448215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2004197800618234561.post-37317384237171735732009-06-04T19:33:22.749-07:002009-06-04T19:33:22.749-07:00This is in response to John van Popta's commen...This is in response to John van Popta's <a href="http://reformedacademic.blogspot.com/2009/04/made-from-dust-of-ground.html?showComment=1244137382077#c603546712827492610" rel="nofollow">comment of 10:43am today</a>.<br /><br />We are all in agreement with all of Scripture and the Reformed confessions, including notably that Adam and Eve were real humans, in a real Eden with real trees (including a real tree of the knowledge of good and evil), and upon a real temptation by the real devil in the form of a real snake, really sinned, so there was a real Fall.<br /><br />T. Jelsma, F.G. Oosterhoff, A.E. Sikkema, J. van der MeerReformed Academichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14744307133232033891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2004197800618234561.post-56866270596345218562009-06-04T11:35:37.891-07:002009-06-04T11:35:37.891-07:00Jon Dykstra recommended the following publication:...Jon Dykstra recommended the following publication:<br /><br />Tomkins, J. 2009. Human-Chimp Similarities: Common Ancestry or Flawed Research? Acts & Facts. 38 (6): 12.<br /><br />This paper is an example of what I consider a serious problem and that is the massive amounts of unrefereed misinformation available on the web. Some of this gets thrown at us as in the material submitted. I do not blame you for it because you are not in a position to separate nonsense from substance. Most of us find ourselves in that position from time to time. <br /><br />What I would ask though is that before you or anybody else submits something you make at least a serious effort to find an opposing opinion from an expert. If you cannot understand it you cannot assess it and it would be better to leave it alone. The piece by Jeffrey comes from the ICR and they do have a long and distinguished record of distortion and misinformation. <br /><br />I glanced through Jeffrey's paper and here is just one example from paragraph 4. He writes,<br /><br />"To assemble these DNA fragments into contiguous sections that represented large regions of chromosomes, the human genome was used as a guide or framework to anchor and orient the chimp sequence. Thus, the evolutionary assumption of a supposed ape to human transition was used to assemble the otherwise random chimp genome."<br /><br />My comment: the conclusion does not follow. Comparing DNA sequences between any two organisms does not involve evolutionary assumptions because the comparison could come out negative. <br /><br />My impression is that he tries to make this conclusion acceptable by describing the procedure of comparing chimp and human chromosomes as biased because researchers presumably preselect DNA fragments from Chimp and human DNA so that they are similar and then compare them to show that they are similar. And so on. One wonders how Jeffrey explains that genomic comparison shows up progressively fewer similarities when the genomes are compared of organisms that are progressively less related based on old-fashioned anatomical criteria. On Jeffrey,s assertions this should not happen. <br /><br />When I come across logic like this I don't keep reading. I have better things to do. <br /><br />Jitse van der MeerJitse van der Meerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02564632094598243894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2004197800618234561.post-8688924936032815552009-06-04T11:35:03.369-07:002009-06-04T11:35:03.369-07:00John van Popta cites John Byl’s instrumentalism, a...John van Popta cites John Byl’s instrumentalism, and we will probably return to that topic, especially if Dr. Byl responds to Broussard’s pieces which are featured in <a href="http://reformedacademic.blogspot.com/2009/05/replacing-fictionalism-and-antirealism.html" rel="nofollow">our discussion of antirealism</a>.<br /><br />I respond to John’s additional citation of van der Kamp in <a href="http://reformedacademic.blogspot.com/2009/06/against-scientific-geocentrism.html" rel="nofollow">a new blog posting</a>. That is where any further discussion of geocentrism should go.Arnold Sikkemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02914734765194448215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2004197800618234561.post-6035467128274926102009-06-04T10:43:02.077-07:002009-06-04T10:43:02.077-07:00In late April I posted the following to this threa...In late April I posted the following to this thread:<br /><br />Quote:<br /><br />I wonder whether suggesting that Adam and Eve had primitive parents, or as Dr. Vandermeer suggests, that man and chimpanzees have common ancestors, can be harmonized with Jesus words on marriage when he quotes Adam. We hear Jesus saying, “From the beginning it was not so…” Was Jesus mistaken that Adam was at the beginning? What about the fall into sin? Was Paul wrong about the entrance of sin in the garden? Is the confession wrong when it says, “God came seeking man when he trembling fled from him?” Did Adam exist? Was he an historical creature, with Eve, in a garden? Did a snake talk? Was there a prohibition on eating from a certain tree?<br /><br />end quote:<br /><br />I really am curious about the answers to these questions. Do those who teach that “Adam and Eve had primitive parents”, teach that Adam and Eve really existed? And that the account of the Fall, the entrance of death into human history, the expulsion from the garden and the angel guarding the way to the Tree of Life, is historically accurate. I'm honestly trying to get my head around this. <br /><br />Did God use a Big Bang, an old earth, and evolutionary processes to finally get to two creatures, Adam and Eve, who in some way were endowed with "image of God" and who then subsequently (after being born in normal biological ways) were in a Garden for some time before disobeying the injunction not to eat of the TKGE? Or is this account metaphorical?<br /><br />If it is historically accurate (an account of what actually happened in time and space), then what hermeneutical framework and what exegetical tools do we need to use in order to bifurcate the account of creation of man and the universe which is a metaphorical presentation, and the fall into sin which is a presentation of time and space history? <br /><br />Where is the break? Genesis 2:8? But that can’t be, because there we read that God put “the man he had formed” in the garden. So it must be 2:9. But there does not seem to be a change in genre between 2:4-8 and 2:9. In fact it is pretty clear that it is all part of the same pericope. <br /><br />So help me understand what tools are used to separate the account of the creation of man from the account of the fall of man.<br /><br />Now, of course you might say, that the account of the fall of man is “metaphorical too.” But then I’d like to interact with that as well.John van Poptahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06485880836239180333noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2004197800618234561.post-78279367344352837972009-06-04T10:25:42.863-07:002009-06-04T10:25:42.863-07:00From JVP's last post:
"I learned much fro...From JVP's last post:<br />"I learned much from two teacher friends of mine ..."<br />I find it hard to figure out how a guy who's had a one-on-one tour of TRIUMF (a particle accelerator at UBC) by a close CanRC friend who works there, and has seen first-hand how billions of dollars are invested in a machine who's design is predicated on the theory of special relativity being correct can defend such a view. I know I'm not the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree, so could you please explain how that works? I took a bit of physics in my day, but that's over twenty years ago, and maybe things have changed since then. I figure the most exciting things in physics happen when it turns out our understanding of physical reality is inadequate, so, instead of referring everyone to what one dead guy allegedly said concerning Galileo etc, could you actually explain how all this works? I'm really curious!<br /><br />And, here's what I think is so contradictory when theologians start to endorse all kinds of quackery in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary:<br />"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ. We write this to make our joy complete."<br />--1 John 1 : 1-4<br />On the one hand, how am I supposed to accept the evidence of John's eye witness testimony concerning the humanity of Jesus with its appeal to the trustworthiness of the human capacity to apprehend physical reality, and on the other hand, disregard/ignore/reject the evidence put forward by science? How is that consistent?<br />-- Fritz DewitUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18300859127858170605noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2004197800618234561.post-32491776653127431362009-06-03T09:02:03.423-07:002009-06-03T09:02:03.423-07:00This is a response to George van Popta's June ...This is a response to George van Popta's June 2 question.<br /><br />George,<br /><br />The comment that you quote needs to be read in its context. Then you will see (1) that it is not my view, but that of others, and (2) that it was a guess on my part as to what might have been the problem you were having. In short, this is not my view. <br /><br />JitseJitse van der Meerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02564632094598243894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2004197800618234561.post-10339863307550122282009-06-03T07:58:01.309-07:002009-06-03T07:58:01.309-07:00Jon Dykstra said with regard to our 98-99% similar...Jon Dykstra said with regard to our 98-99% similarity in DNA sequences with chimps, "Is this significant? Theologically and scientifically, no... Rhetorically though, there seems some significance."<br /><br />I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. When Biblical scholars compare manuscripts of Scripture, one of the things they do is look for differences between them. If two manuscripts share what appear to be "typos" then it is valid to assume they're related. By comparing several manuscripts one can tell with reasonable confidence which manuscript is closer to the original, which has been copied and where the typo first appeared.<br />The same method applies when comparing DNA sequences. If two functional DNA sequences are very similar, that may not say very much about common ancestry, but when two "typos" are shared, that is a much stronger argument, both scientifically and rhetorically. That's exactly what we see when we compare the human and chimp DNA sequences.<br /><br />As Dennis mentioned earlier, it would be great if the scientific evidence did not point to common ancestry and an old earth. Then we wouldn't be having all these arguments. Unfortunately it doesn't. <br /><br />I was hoping that by this point we could get past arguing about DNA sequence similarities and move on to discussing the theological implications. I make a distinction between common ancestry and Darwinian evolution. The former is a necessary but not sufficient part of Darwinian evolution.<br /><br />I have several questions about the genetic differences between humans and chimps but I don't know if we're ready to deal with them yet.Tony Jelsmahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00930441854054764352noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2004197800618234561.post-84216985664497568612009-06-03T07:35:49.021-07:002009-06-03T07:35:49.021-07:00[continued...]
To give another example, Psalm 29 ...[continued...]<br /><br />To give another example, Psalm 29 describes the powerful majesty of a thunderstorm. In that Psalm, we read, “The voice of the LORD breaks the cedars” (v. 5, NIV) among many other references to the “voice of the LORD”. (We often read that Psalm when taking shelter in our basement as tornado warnings were issued several times per summer during our stint in Iowa.) We need not regard meteorology as giving a false description of how differential solar heating, humidity, adiabatic expansion, latent heat of vapourization, compressible fluid dynamics all represent the detailed process of the thunderstorm. Again we have here two complementary, not contradictory, descriptions.<br /><br />In Rev. 4:11, we join the 24 elders in praising God: “You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being.” We acknowledge all things in creation as being created by God, and we also know of so many things in creation as having scientifically well understood origins, like babies, hybrid corn, and Hawaii. A scientific theory describing a process does not take away one iota from God’s creative Word. In fact, it can deepen our appreciation of God’s covenant faithfulness to His creation.Arnold Sikkemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02914734765194448215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2004197800618234561.post-68744787240291019342009-06-03T07:34:40.815-07:002009-06-03T07:34:40.815-07:00In George’s latest comment, he says near the end, ...In George’s latest comment, he says near the end, <i>“Each creature does not have its being, shape and form due to an evolutionary process but by the Word of God.”</i><br /><br />This, I believe, is a false dichotomy. Let me explain.<br /><br />I would like to recommend for your consideration my journal article entitled “Laws of Nature and God’s Word for Creation” (see “collected papers” in the sidebar). In this article, I quote Vern Poythress (Reformed theologian and mathematician, author of <i>Redeeming Science</i>, and of the new website <a href="http://www.thetruthaboutangelsanddemons.com" rel="nofollow"> www.thetruthaboutangelsanddemons.com</a> ) as saying “What we call scientific law is an approximate human description of just how faithfully and consistently God acts in ruling the world by speaking.” And I unpack the meaning of that by considering the law of gravity as an example.<br /><br />Why does an apple fall when its stem breaks? Well, on the one hand we can say that there is a law of gravity, a natural process by which the earth pulls on the apple. This is a scientific description, and has been developed by Aristotle, Galileo, Newton, Einstein. On the other we can say that the apple obeys God, who speaks the apple into its being and behaviour by His Word. This is the kind of obedience to the Word of God which we see depicted beautifully in Psalm 148, as in v. 8, “Stormy wind, fulfilling His word” (NIV), and is a non-scientific, theological description. Both descriptions are true and accurate; we don’t have to choose between these two explanations, for they cohere with one another while they are seen differently in different contexts (scientific or theological).<br /><br />Closely related to this, Herman <a href="http://reformedacademic.blogspot.com/2009/04/reformed-views-on-creation-and-flood.html?showComment=1242098640000#c1390397821808928671" rel="nofollow">said</a> in another thread, citing Hebrews 11:3 (“By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.” [NIV]), that “God’s commands are obeyed at once!!!” This is a somewhat problematic view when we consider the falling apple. God commands the apple to fall to the ground. But does it immediately impact the earth? No, there is a process of at first nearly constant acceleration from being approximately at rest, and as the speed of the apple increases, air resistance increases and reduces the acceleration somewhat, and finally the apple hits the earth, compresses the grass and soil which depending on their elasticity return the apple upward a little in what is commonly called a bounce. Finally, due (mainly) to the incomplete elasticity of the ground, the apple’s initial gravitational potential energy has been completely transformed to thermal energy, as described by the second law of thermodynamics, and the apple rests upon the earth. So, the processes of gravity, air resistance, thermodynamics, etc. are participated in by the apple as it obeys, in time, the command of the Lord.<br /><br />There is thus no need to see a dichotomy between a “process” and “the Word of God” in this context. Not that the “process” <i>is</i> the Word of God, but the way in which the Word of God is obeyed by the non-human creation can be seen by us within the creation as a process.<br /><br />[two more paragraphs coming...]Arnold Sikkemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02914734765194448215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2004197800618234561.post-30673778292500914772009-06-02T21:27:04.144-07:002009-06-02T21:27:04.144-07:00Thanks Arnold! Always nice to have links that are ...Thanks Arnold! Always nice to have links that are no longer missing.<br /><br />:)<br /><br />Dennis Venema<br /><br />all kidding aside, if there is an easy way to post links into comments I would love to know how to do it - unless it is reserved for blog administrators.Dennis Venemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04585271870331546892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2004197800618234561.post-23838348570541868582009-06-02T20:10:13.465-07:002009-06-02T20:10:13.465-07:00The Wood paper which Dennis refers to is a bit har...The Wood paper which Dennis refers to is a bit hard to find, so I have dug up a <a href="http://documents.clubexpress.com/documents.ashx?key=u4FIU0eLuT6SmyXcvLmbCiFa4UnoWsTP3lyArVOo%2FgM%3D" rel="nofollow">direct link</a>.Arnold Sikkemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02914734765194448215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2004197800618234561.post-45062068847196302972009-06-02T18:04:30.793-07:002009-06-02T18:04:30.793-07:00Dennis asks if I think it is a good thing that we ...Dennis asks if I think it is a good thing that we all accept the heliocentric model of the universe and why?<br /><br />I learned much from two teacher friends of mine.<br /><br />Walter van der Kamp (1913-199 and Dr. John Byl of Trinity Western Univ.<br /><br />John Byl’s taught me of the instrumental use of scientific theory. “Kampee” taught me that we need not simply accept the geocentric model of Copernicus and Galileo. Here is a link. Happy reading. <br /><br />http://www.geocentricity.com/bibastron/ts_history/history1.htmlJohn van Poptahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06485880836239180333noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2004197800618234561.post-47391381435128262222009-06-02T17:57:23.211-07:002009-06-02T17:57:23.211-07:00On one hand I don't really care how similar our DN...On one hand I don't really care how similar our DNA might be to chimps, because whatever the number (1%,2%,4%,10%...) it will always be trumpeted as evidence of evolution. <br /><br />On the other hand, this 99% number is a bit bothersome, because rhetorically, it is a figure that makes some noise. Like the homosexual claim of 10 per cent, it is commonly used because of its rhetorical effectiveness.<br /><br />Dennis Venema's figure of 1.23% notes only DNA "changed" between chimps and Man, and doesn't count DNA that was present in Man and entirely absent in chimps, or DNA present in chimps and entirely absent in Man. Including those numbers would double or even quadruple the 1.23%. Others have calculated numbers that are lower still.<br /><br />Is this significant? Theologically and scientifically, no. Geneticist and evolutionist Steve Jones once quipped, "We also share about 50 per cent of our DNA with bananas and that doesn't make us half bananas, either from the waist up or the waist down."<br /><br />Rhetorically though, there seems some significance.Jon Dykstrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13867992075746045379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2004197800618234561.post-39068066975341549412009-06-02T17:19:36.572-07:002009-06-02T17:19:36.572-07:00I'd like to link back to what was written earlier ...I'd like to link back to what was written earlier and to the title of the original post: "Man made from the dust of the ground."<br /><br />Dr. Van der Meer wrote: "But other biblical scholars reject the literal ‘potter’ interpretation because they see this as coming close to disrespect: Did God fashion the liver, the lungs of clay?"<br /><br />The question nagging me is "Why would believing that God formed man from the earth like a potter be close to disrespect?" Disrespect of whom? Of God or of man?<br /><br />BC 12 says: "We believe that the Father through the Word, that is, through His Son, has created out of nothing heaven and earth and all creatures, when it seemed good to Him, and that He has given to every creature its being, shape, and form…." What did Guido de Bres mean when he wrote that? What did our spiritual fathers of the Synod of Dort, 1618-19, mean when they said, "Guido got it right"? I don't think that either Guido nor our fathers saw those words freighted with philosophical language. God gave each creature its being (existence), its shape and form. I rather think that Guido and our fathers did an end run around Darwin several hundred years before Darwin was born. Each creature does not have its being, shape and form due to an evolutionary process but by the Word of God.<br /><br />What did Guido and our fathers mean when they said, "We believe that God created man of dust from the ground"? Did Guido and our fathers mean that God shaped man like a potter shapes a vessel? I think so. And they said that upon the basis of sound biblical exegesis. <br /><br />George vPGeorge van Poptahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03944560685495278021noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2004197800618234561.post-39898749794611817922009-06-02T15:51:00.894-07:002009-06-02T15:51:00.894-07:00John, I'm still curious: Do you think abandoning g...John, I'm still curious: Do you think abandoning geocentrism was a good idea? If so, why? It was the uniform interpretation of the church for centuries. Should we reinterpret Scripture based on evidence for heliocentrism?<br /><br />Dennis VenemaDennis Venemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04585271870331546892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2004197800618234561.post-20556547303963967262009-06-02T14:51:59.241-07:002009-06-02T14:51:59.241-07:00Thanks, Jon Dykstra, for that link. Interesting an...Thanks, Jon Dykstra, for that link. Interesting and quite easy to understand for a layman like me.<br />George van PoptaGeorge van Poptahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03944560685495278021noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2004197800618234561.post-8414826836902301082009-06-02T14:44:09.759-07:002009-06-02T14:44:09.759-07:00As regards the claim that chimps and man have 99 p...<I> As regards the claim that chimps and man have 99 per cent the same DNA, see below, as it just isn't so. </I>Hi Jon, <br /><br />The ICR article is very misleading. I don't know how else to put it. The nucleotide identity between humans and chimps over 2700 Mb (megabases) of DNA is ~ 1.23% different. To quote from the <I> Princess Bride, </I> "Anyone who says differently is selling something."<br /><br />The ICR article is an extreme example of cherry-picking data. Yes, if I zero in on a tiny part of the genome, I could find areas that are very different. That doesn't change the reality that the overall picture is overwhelmingly identical. That's like a student arguing he didn't plagiarize because one of his sentences is a little different than his source despite overwhelming correspondence, line for line, paragraph for paragraph, chapter for chapter!<br /><br />As as aside, thanks for the link to that article. I'm working on a paper on how antievolutionary organizations misrepresent human : chimp comparisons, and I hadn't yet found that exact one from ICR. <br /><br />If you want to see a scholarly interaction with the human : chimp data from a YEC perspective, see Todd Wood's article here: <br /><br />http://www.bryancore.org/anniversary/building.html<br /><br />Todd's paper is in a link at the bottom of the page that says "Image of God, or Image of Man?" Todd also discusses previous Creationist responses to human : chimp genomic similarity in his article and finds them wanting. <br /><br /><I> "Why should I trust the supposedly overwhelming evidence for evolution over against the plain meaning of Scripture when I see instances like this, again and again, where scientists use evolutionary assumptions to formulate the very data they then use to "prove" evolution?" </I>I would say that you haven't seen anything of the kind. You've read at best a misguided, incorrect interpretation of the data from an organization with a vested antievolutionary stance. <br /><br />Evolutionary biologists are often accused of "cooking the data to fit their presuppositions." Let's just say that I find that accusation <I> highly </I> ironic coming from certain antievolutionary organizations and leave it at that. <br /><br />Why not have a go at Todd's paper and tell me what you think. If you're going to criticize evolution from a YEC perspective you should at least see what <I> the </I> leading genomicist from a YEC viewpoint has to say. <br /><br />Best, <br /><br />Dennis VenemaDennis Venemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04585271870331546892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2004197800618234561.post-7556300432013887222009-06-02T14:26:13.796-07:002009-06-02T14:26:13.796-07:00Dennis writes
One other comment: you seem to be ...Dennis writes<br /><br /><br />One other comment: you seem to be implying that the Genesis narratives need no interpretation - that their meaning is self evident (and contradictory to modern science).<br /><br /><br />I didn't say that (or perhaps better) I didn't mean that at all. <br /><br /><br />The point I tried to make is this. I think that a sound Reformed hermeneutic says that we must use the Scripture to interpret and frame our understanding of the world, rather than use our theories of cosmology, geology and biology to interpret and frame our understanding of God's Word. <br /><br />I know that there are many Christians who use their CGB theories as the paradigm in which they interpret the Bible, but I think that hermeneutic is a wrong one. That hermeneutical model places human scientific theory and achievement above the Word of God.<br /><br /><br />Of course the Bible is to be interpreted and applied. Very little is "self evident." If it were, there wouldn't be a market for commentaries!<br /><br />One point about the “Calvin and heliocentricicty” comment you made: Here is an interesting paper written on the topic by a Notre Dame prof, called “Calvin and the Astronomical Revolution”; it’s worth a read. <br /><br />http://www.nd.edu/~mdowd1/postings/CalvinAstroRev.htmlJohn van Poptahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06485880836239180333noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2004197800618234561.post-12947914713982018462009-06-02T12:05:58.693-07:002009-06-02T12:05:58.693-07:00"It seems to me that those who use CGB (big bang, ...<I> "It seems to me that those who use CGB (big bang, old earth, primitive parents) theories as their interpretive framework, are no longer allowing classic reformed and confessional understanding of scripture to govern their hermeneutics. And they shouldn’t be afraid to admit it." </I>Hi John,<br /><br />One could also say that the Canadian Reformed churches have also departed from Calvin's geocentric views and adopted heliocentrism. (Which, for the record, I think was a good move - there, I admit I've parted ways with some of Calvin's theology.)<br /><br />Do you think abandoning Calvin's geocentrism was a good idea? If so, why? If not, why not?<br /><br /><br /><I> “Since the Genesis account doesn’t square with my understanding of cosmology, geology, and biology, (CGB) then Genesis is not historical.” But that reasoning places human understanding of CGB at the same level as the Bible (or even above it), and that means the Bible is read through the “spectacles of nature” instead of nature being read through the “spectacles of scripture.” " </I>One other comment: you seem to be implying that the Genesis narratives need no interpretation - that their meaning is self evident (and contradictory to modern science).<br /><br />I would agree that modern science is in conflict with <I> your interpretation </I> of Genesis, but I am unconvinced that this manner of interpretation is the correct one, <I> even when approaching Genesis on its own turf, </I> apart from science.<br /><br />Dennis VenemaDennis Venemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04585271870331546892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2004197800618234561.post-30760985389672368252009-06-02T10:28:37.753-07:002009-06-02T10:28:37.753-07:00As regards the claim that chimps and man have 99 p...As regards the claim that chimps and man have 99 per cent the same DNA, see below, as it just isn't so. Why should I trust the supposedly overwhelming evidence for evolution over against the plain meaning of Scripture when I see instances like this, again and again, where scientists use evolutionary assumptions to formulate the very data they then use to "prove" evolution?<br /><br />http://www.icr.org/article/4624/Jon Dykstrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13867992075746045379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2004197800618234561.post-59802880388539165102009-06-02T08:07:17.556-07:002009-06-02T08:07:17.556-07:00A month ago or so (April 30) Ed Baartman wrote
Qu...A month ago or so (April 30) Ed Baartman wrote<br /><br />Quote ----<br /><br />What it comes down to is one’s view of scripture. If you are going to insist on the historical accuracy of Scripture, you will encounter some serious problems. Take for example the genealogy of Jesus as reported by Matthew in 1:1-17. Clearly it omits many names in order to get to the 14-14-14 pattern. I have heard at least two sermons on this and both times the pastor had no trouble explaining these omissions away along the same lines as Dr. Paas’ approach. That is, the historical accuracy of the Matthew’s genealogy is not important because that was not his intent. Whereupon, the pastor proceeded to explain to us what Matthew’s intent was and how that has meaning and significance for us today. I can cite many more examples of historical inaccuracies …<br /><br />--- end quote<br /><br />Ed is right that this has to do with one’s view of Scripture. I doubt though that the Canadian Reformed Pastor would agree with Dr. Stefan Paas’ approach. Stefan Paas does not accept the historicity (at least not in his book “Creation and Judgment”) of anything before the entrance into Canaan. To Paas, all of it is etiological myth (i.e. story by which a community explains its origins, and defends its practices). However, I think that the structure of 14 14 14 in Matt 1 can be tested against the OT by a CanRC minister BECAUSE the minister accepts the historical accuracy of the OT, including the Pentateuch. And since there clearly is planned structure in Matthew 1, which doesn’t square with the historical facts as revealed in God’s inspired Word in the OT, we can, by faithful historical-grammatical exegesis, strive to understand Matthew’s meaning and message. <br /><br />I don’t think that faithful Reformed confessional exegesis can do that with evolutionary theories, however. What those who provide a “primitive parent” to Adam and Eve (and did they ever really exist, then?) do is this: “Since the Genesis account doesn’t square with my understanding of cosmology, geology, and biology, (CGB) then Genesis is not historical.” But that reasoning places human understanding of CGB at the same level as the Bible (or even above it), and that means the Bible is read through the “spectacles of nature” instead of nature being read through the “spectacles of scripture.” <br /><br />So then, as Ed correctly points out, it comes down to “what do you believe the Bible to be?” and “what is your interpretive paradigm?” Do we interpret the world with the Bible in hand, or do we interpret the Bible with our CGB theories in hand. Which has first priority? The Bible or our theories?<br /><br />In Belgic Confession 2 we read that we know God by two means: “First, by the creation, preservation and government of the universe.” Notice carefully that it does not say that we know God by creation, or in creation (ie creation as a noun.) But we know God by the creation… of the universe (ie creation as a verb.) We can know God because mankind can see that there is a divine being who created, and who continues to preserve and govern, that universe. This is a far cry from saying that “I can know God by my understanding of CGB theories.” In fact the BC implies that man, blinded by sin, doesn’t successfully come to know God by the first means: therefore he needs a second means, the holy and divine Word. <br /><br />It seems to me that those who use CGB (big bang, old earth, primitive parents) theories as their interpretive framework, are no longer allowing classic reformed and confessional understanding of scripture to govern their hermeneutics. And they shouldn’t be afraid to admit it.John van Poptahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06485880836239180333noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2004197800618234561.post-16969133656098533202009-06-01T17:27:05.833-07:002009-06-01T17:27:05.833-07:00Dennis,
I agree with John van Popta who made the ...Dennis,<br /><br />I agree with John van Popta who made the point that what is/is not a heresy is within the jurisdiction of the church to declare (cf. the ecumenical councils of the 3rd and 4th centuries). I'm not trying to play coy; rather, it does not lie in my province. <br /><br />George van PoptaGeorge van Poptahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03944560685495278021noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2004197800618234561.post-7270085826004040672009-06-01T13:47:33.444-07:002009-06-01T13:47:33.444-07:00I would tend to agree with John van Popta on the c...I would tend to agree with John van Popta on the continuity of the material composition of Jesus. It is a great comfort to know that while in the incarnation Christ joined in the human experience, at the ascension our Saviour carried with Him our human nature (including, somehow, “our” atoms, molecules, DNA, flesh, bones, neuronal firing patterns) into the transcendent presence of the Father. I say “somehow” because it is a great mystery how material and processes from this world, which we know (especially via modern physics) to be intricately connected with the very time and space of this creation, are brought to a “place” outside of time and space. This is just one aspect of the mysterious tension between and the simultaneous reality of continuity and discontinuity which we will all experience at our own resurrection. And it also is an affirmation of God’s Genesis 1 declaration of the “goodness” of creation including our bodies, unlike the pagan Greek philosophy which posits that the human person is an unholy combination of something good from heaven (“soul”) + something evil from earth (“body”).Arnold Sikkemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02914734765194448215noreply@blogger.com