"Evangelicals Question The Existence Of Adam And Eve"

[metis]

I'd say yes. Science contradicts the literal account of creation in Genesis, so Genesis must be re-interpreted.

And possibly on two counts, namely that these narratives can be interpreted as being allegorical, but also that why should one assume that the authors actually knew what may or may not have happened eons before they lived?

Many theologians believe that many of these accounts were carried orally, possibly for centuries, before submitted to writing, and we well know what can happen within oral traditions as far as historical accuracy is concerned. However, the good news is that these oral traditions can be altered to deal with new situations and new beliefs that may emerge, thus always being relevant to the times.

 

[Kenny]

I said I couldn't find any peer reviewed articles. Subduction Zone did find some. As he noted, they were all written pre-2000. So, obviously something changed his views.

My point in asking about peer reviewed articles was twofold. If he did write peer reviewed articles:
I would like to know the quality of the journal.
I would be interested in reading the comments of the reviewers.

There have people who have been known to fudge their credentials:

Michael Behe - Ratio

I said I couldn't find any peer reviewed articles. Subduction Zone did find some. As he noted, they were all written pre-2000. So, obviously something changed his views.

My point in asking about peer reviewed articles was twofold. If he did write peer reviewed articles:
I would like to know the quality of the journal.
I would be interested in reading the comments of the reviewers.

There have people who have been known to fudge their credentials:

Michael Behe - RationalWiki

On October 10, 2005 I took a look at Behe's expert testimony for the Kitzmiller et al. vs. Dover Area School District trial on teaching ID in the public school classroom currently underway in Harrisburg, PA. In his expert testimony Behe lists a much longer curriculum vitae than the one I used above. It contains 56 items, instead of the 17 I found initially. None of this latter material was cited in the science citation search I used or appeared in my PubMed search. I must say, the longer list is highly unusual. Among the "extra" 39 publications there are:

• translations of Darwin's Black Box into 7 different languages (each cited as a new item);
• two web-based articles;
• 9 letters, critiques, or essays in conservative political or religious magazines (Crisis, First Things, American Spectator, National Review, and The Weekly Standard);
• one poster abstract;
• at least 6 more book chapters in overtly religious books;
• lots of other book reviews, letters, etc. One quickly loses track in here.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Michael_Behe

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Michael_Behe

Feel free to search. I have a problem on a various fronts:

1. Did you attempt to find peer reviewed journals from the evangelical that said "I can't take Genesis to be literal"
2. There are many well known scientists who hold to Genesis (in some form) who do have current peer reviewed journals (if one is really looking for some). So, regardless, there are still opposing views which was my point.
3. Rational Wiki doesn't seem to be unbiased. Statement "He is a prominent advocate of the pseudoscience Intelligent Design," obviously dictates that the poster has made his descision that Intelleigent Design is "pseudoscience" so his determinations, to me, seem suspect.

 

[Kenny]

What matters is the science they publish in peer reviewed journals, not their beliefs. If they haven't published any science supporting ID/creationism, then it really doesn't matter.

Which if it is sent to a "peer review panel" filled with atheists... we know it can move forward... of course.

 

[Kenny]

Ken, since you are constantly shown to be wrong you should be the last one to make this claim.

And there is no such thing as "gap theory". That is a misuse of the term "theory". Tell me, what reasonable test could refute it? What predictions have been made using "gap theory"?

Very simple, that the earth is a lot older than 7,000 years between Gen 1:1 and 1:2. That there is a gap in time and that there was a world filled with beings before Satan was hurled down to the earth.

To say that there is no "gap theory" is to say you didn't even google it and thus, it denotes that we aren't going to have an open discussion

 

[Kenny]

There are always other possibilities, like that he hoped we didnt have
one of those here.

I'd bet at least $1.98 that he knows about "gap theory".

So are you a gap theory person?

I am going to say "I lean towards it". There seems to be enough scriptural support and it goes in harmony with current science.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Which if it is sent to a "peer review panel" filled with atheists... we know it can move forward... of course.

If what is sent? What scientific studies do they have?

You can't claim you are like Rosa Parks if you never get on the bus.

 

[Kenny]

Sorry but I wasn't born back that long ago, plus my wife says that the "gap theory" isn't a reference to evolution but is a reference to the distance between my ears.

Hmmpf, goes to show you just how wrong you are!

It is all a matter of perspective. My wife says the "gap theory" is that circle in the middle of the back of my head that needs more hair and the theory it that it started to appear when we entered into ministry because it comes with the territory.

I reject that theory!!

 

[exchemist]

Very simple, that the earth is a lot older than 7,000 years between Gen 1:1 and 1:2. That there is a gap in time and that there was a world filled with beings before Satan was hurled down to the earth.

To say that there is no "gap theory" is to say you didn't even google it and thus, it denotes that we aren't going to have an open discussion

But I have googled it and I have to say that, while it may be a theory in some senses, it does not look to me like a scientific theory, at least. In particular, I could not see what predictions it makes about observations we could make to test the theory.

Would you contend that it is a scientific theory and, if so, what testable predictions does it make about the observable world? Or do you mean indeed a theory in some other sense?

 

[Audie]

I am going to say "I lean towards it". There seems to be enough scriptural support and it goes in harmony with current science.

There probably is scriptural support. I am inclined
to think one can find support for most anything, depending on how your read it.

In what sense, tho, is any of it in harmony with current science?

 

[Audie]

If what is sent? What scientific studies do they have?

You can't claim you are like Rosa Parks if you never get on the bus.

A hypothetical hypocrisy construct like
"if they sent it to atheists they would throw it
out because they are at heists" is a bit too
tiresome for much consideration.

The important thing here is as you said, the data.
Or that is, lack of same.

There probably are some things one can find in
geology that would be consistent with a flood / gap
hypothesis.

One could even crank it up into a theory if only
those data points that agree are considered.

Like plotting a curve on a set of evenly spaced dots
covering a page. Put the curve wherever yout
"theory" says, ignore the rest, and voila!

 

[Kenny]

But I have googled it and I have to say that, while it may be a theory in some senses, it does not look to me like a scientific theory, at least. In particular, I could not see what predictions it makes about observations we could make to test the theory.

Would you contend that it is a scientific theory and, if so, what testable predictions does it make about the observable world? Or do you mean indeed a theory in some other sense?

I am speaking within the context of scientific theory as it meshes with scriptural theory.

Sorry if I made it confusing.

 

[metis]

It is all a matter of perspective. My wife says the "gap theory" is that circle in the middle of the back of my head that needs more hair and the theory it that it started to appear when we entered into ministry because it comes with the territory.

I reject that theory!!

Did you actually ever shop at The Gap or is that just a theory of mine?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

The important thing here is as you said, the data.
Or that is, lack of same.

A few years back I put forward the idea of a hypothetical 5 million dollar grant that would fund ID research. This research had to be focused on producing positive evidence for ID/creationism, and not simply testing evolution. I asked what experiments this grant would be funding. I couldn't find a single ID/creationist who could describe a scientific experiment that would directly test ID/creationism. They couldn't come up with hypotheses based on ID/creationism.

Until ID/creationism can produce some science they really can't complain that they are being discriminated against.

 

[exchemist]

I am speaking within the context of scientific theory as it meshes with scriptural theory.

Sorry if I made it confusing.

So not a scientific theory, then?

 

[Audie]

Did you actually ever shop at The Gap or is that just a theory of mine?

The Gap? Who would go to the Gap?

 

[Revoltingest]

A few years back I put forward the idea of a hypothetical 5 million dollar grant that would fund ID research. This research had to be focused on producing positive evidence for ID/creationism, and not simply testing evolution. I asked what experiments this grant would be funding. I couldn't find a single ID/creationist who could describe a scientific experiment that would directly test ID/creationism. They couldn't come up with hypotheses based on ID/creationism.

Until ID/creationism can produce some science they really can't complain that they are being discriminated against.

I just looked up the definition of "mischievous scamp".
It had your picture!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Very simple, that the earth is a lot older than 7,000 years between Gen 1:1 and 1:2. That there is a gap in time and that there was a world filled with beings before Satan was hurled down to the earth.

Sorry, but that is a fail on your part. You can't base a test on a concept that was shown to be wrong before the so called theory was even formed. Try again.

To say that there is no "gap theory" is to say you didn't even google it and thus, it denotes that we aren't going to have an open discussion[/QUOTE]

No to say that there is no gap theory is to point out that it is in fact not a theory. It does not matter if ignorant people use the term or not. A group of people could call an orange a "tomato". That does not mean that you could use it to make marinara.

 

[Kenny]

There probably is scriptural support. I am inclined
to think one can find support for most anything, depending on how your read it.

In what sense, tho, is any of it in harmony with current science?

The problem, as I see it, is that people try to interpret what they read in the Bible when the Bible isn't specific on it.

For an example, it says that He created fish in the sea but doesn't reference how He created it. Thus purpose driven evolution is a possibility. We have evidence of change and people look at the evidence in two different perspectives... 1) chance -- of which I don't subscribe to 2) purpose driven or Intelligent Design-- of which I subscribe to.

Thus, in Gen 1:1 is says... "In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth". No time frame. Billions of years fits in just fine.

Gap theory is that in between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2 something catastrophic happened. Again, time is not mentioned. Thus, if there were dinasaurs or whatever, it still fits in the narative between science and what I believe to be God's word.

 

[Kenny]

Did you actually ever shop at The Gap or is that just a theory of mine?

I ACCEPT that Gap!

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

We have evidence of change and people look at the evidence in two different perspectives... 1) chance -- of which I don't subscribe to 2) purpose driven or Intelligent Design-- of which I subscribe to.

Scientists have two different hypotheses, and the evidence happens to match the hypothesis based on non-directed evolution. Scientists don't look at evidence with a perspective. Scientists use evidence to test hypotheses.