Christian Theological/Philosophical Book Club discussion
The Table - Group Book Reads
>
Creation Strikes Back - How Chimpanzees Devolved From Man
message 1:
by
Robert
(new)
Jan 31, 2014 02:39PM
Our discussions seem to have become overheated lately, it's time to laugh a little. While this book is serious research on a serious topic, few want to read a science textbook so I've interspersed it with humorous anecdotes and comic interpretations. It isn't even about science, that's just the vehicle I've chosen to validate God's creation story in Genesis. The coup de grace is that I prove chimpanzees devolved from Man, thus refuting the evolutionary narrative that Man evolved from chimpanzees. I'll be interested to see what my cohorts on this board think. So come on, read the book, gin up some new discussion topics, and let's escape this morass we're in that has us at each other's throats.
reply
|
flag
Agreed, Robert.Will be purchasing your book by next week: Looking forward to some awesome dialogue.
Brent
If chimpanzees devolved from man: that would explain my next door neighbor.
Ha! Ha! Yes, Rod, actually it explains a lot!
Maybe some have started reading and are awaiting comment. The rationale for this book was to glorify a creational God as outlined in Genesis. My foils in this are the lower sciences. Physicists and geneticists are absorbed in real conundrums about the nature of the universe. Evolutionary biologists, ecologists, and environmental biologists have to manufacture them. There is something to evolution although it oversteps it's limitations - the other two are utterly worthless as sciences and belong in the arts, if anywhere. And not high arts like Mozart, Euclid, or Turgenev, but more on the order of "Civilization Would Falter Without the Contribution of Transexual, Vegan Pygmies."I try to do this with considerable humor as started in the Introduction. The first chapter is about Darwin. I don't trash him, rather praise him as visionary based on the fact he could only operate on the whole organism and tissue level. He knew virtually nothing about cells and little about the manner of inheritance. Charles Darwin would be highly disappointed by the unsubstantiated, overzealous claims of his successors.
Robert, amazon seems to be taking their time shipping me your book. said they needed extra days to process?! Should have soon, looking forward to start reading.
Brent - Amazon can play some funny tricks with its supply chain. Good thing we alloted through April for discussion!
Robert, just got the mail and your book finally came in! Gonna start forthwith, and look forward to your insights! Alex, I heard you got a copy as well!? This will make for good discussion. Lee, I know you have already read, please feel free to engage as well. Headed to work. Grace and peace.
Enjoy! Don't hold back on the criticism. I wrote the book to get the religious and scientific communities engaged. The more I get blasted with both barrels the better the chance for wide distribution based on the controversy quotient. I'll take the money and notoriety if it comes, but it's really to glorify God. Unless I'm way off base, and can't think objectively because the endeavor is my own, a whole lot of people NEED to read this book.
"I purpose to demonstrate that man was created by God and devolved to form one of the great apes" (14). Herein lies the thesis, gentlemen, this is going to be an exciting read! Certainly just from first glance, I would like to propose that some people are currently devolving now, haha. (;
Bill Mahr as the serpent, can you imagine, hahaha. Robert, you are killing me here with this sarcasm! Too funny!
Brent - I have serious science to discuss, Brent - have to break it up with a little humor periodically.
Honestly have never thought about the flourishing of Artic creatures in the heart of the Ancient Near East. Is this possible? Certainly then there was intraspecies mutations and adaptions given the culture, environment, and climate? How would a six-day anti-evolutionary creationist respond to the proposition: "God made penguins with the other "birds of the air." Notwithstanding penguins can't fly, lol. Excited to dig into the scientific findings your propose, Robert, this is great stuff.
I am so glad there is some philosophy in this, Robert, well done!"I believe our God spends most of His time in other dimensions, too vast and too numerous for us, with our human limitations, ever to be cognizant of" (35).
This is brilliant, as—notwithsanding some minor details—this is precisely the model of God's transcendence that I hold to; viz., the one outlined by Danish Christian existentialist Søren Kierkegaard. It's a non-spatial model that pits God and His holiness in literally another dimension, not as we can comprehend, but in another dimension of reality. In short, He is wholly other.
Brilliant.
Brent - during summer break, you're hired as my publicist!
Robert, are you going to be guiding a structured discussion, or shall I jump in here with my observations?
Brent wrote: "Honestly have never thought about the flourishing of Artic creatures in the heart of the Ancient Near East. Is this possible? Certainly then there was intraspecies mutations and adaptions given the..."Although penguins are typically thought of as "arctic" creatures, they are not necessarily so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_...
As for "birds of the air" the bible says "...let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky" Gen 1:20. The passage does not limit birds to only flying in the air, nor does it say that ALL birds fly in the air.
Anti-evolutionary creationists do not assert that animals are not highly adaptable within their own "kind."
Oh, absoluely jump right in, Lee. I'm not going to don my Professor Robert hat unless I have to - I prefer a free-for-all of ideas. Because you've read the whole book, just try to remember where in the reading the other participants are and that they really have no clue what's coming!
Ned - good point. It is very difficult for even the top Zoologists to establish the precise point where intraspecies adaptation ends and evolution (speciation) begins. This is not just true for animals but for the other Kingdoms as well.
Stumbled upon this in my Twitter feed. interestingly enough, this is why Plantiga rejects evolution, namely, for the philosophical ramifications.http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/t...
Oh, I don't know Brent, Lee is supposedly human, but shows no convictions.
Interesting interview with Plantinga. Man (Homo) was created by God. I place him as Homo erectus. As such he was not a product of evolution. But immediately, unless you believe God micromanages all, evolutionary forces began to work on Homo erectus who is now extinct. After a few intemediaries, we arrive at Homo sapiens who is also subject to evolutionary forces AND the overriding scrutiny of an omnipotent God. What will the future bring? The Bible really is our only clue, but the End of Days are fairly cryptic. So the answer, to any honest scholar would be "How the Hell would I Know?"
Ned, thanks for the input. I suppose I was forgetting about the existence of Pangea, and intraspecies evolution and adaptation after various climates and cultures began to emerge.
"I've pin to many churches of the Protestant faith; mostly Presbyterian, Methodist, and Baptist. I can easily comprehend why people avoid organized religion—it is ridiculously difficult to find a good church!" (109). Couldn't agree more, Robert.
Brent - you are really clipping right along. I haven't provided chapter guidance to you, but it doesn't look like you need it!
Robert, I really wish I could understand some of this scientific datum. Sometimes I feel Iam more right brained than Salvador Daki. I did have an objection to this statement on page 55: "One can not simply arrive at a supernatural deity by pure reason." I'm not sure you're actually taking a hard lines fidiesm stance, or if the wording just seemed to be conveying that. I would definitely say that people can come to knowledge of a supernatural creator, and I think proper exegesis proves that we can. I think what you were saying though, is either one cannot become born again without faith, or else, one cannot submit the will to Christ by reason alone. Hence, we would delineate between general revelation and special (particular) revelation. General revelation includes God's creates teleological order, His working through history (acts), and the internal witness of all mens' spirit that testifies of a God, albeit suppressed from sin and an unregenerate mind (Rom 1-2). Using general revelation, philosophers have constructed natural theological metaphysics that come very close to how God revealed Himself as an omnipotent, all knowing being. Plato, writing three hundred years before Christ, is a great example of this. Now can someone be saved from natural theology alone? I would say no, and I think that is what you were getting at Robert. Special revelation is necessary to come into a saving relationship with God because He revealed through the prophets His Word, which culminated with the coming of God's Son Christ Jesus to expiate for the sins of the world. Only special revelation reveals these truths which are necessary to climb all three levels of faith (notia, assensus, fiducia) and be born again submitting our will to God's.
"I'm urging you to persist in your quest to find a suitable church" (109). Robert, is God speaking through you to me? I have been without a home Church for a couple years now.
Hey, the late Jerry Falwell! No wonder you like me so much, Robert, I attend Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary! (-:
Actually, I was rather offhandedly referring to the Emmanuel Kant version of pure reason, but now that you've mentioned it, I should probably have added something about special revelation. Thanks, Brent
You know that I thought of Kant in passing, but wasn't sure if that was what you were getting at. Yes, in that sense, a Kantian would reject all form of natural theology as a means to knowledge, since Kant didn't believe that you could prove or disprove God's existence, given he thought they contradicted themselves! Both his critiques show his position plainly.
Brent - in order to definitively prove life could not have arisen randomly from swirling chemical interactions, I had to show with an explanation of DNA how the complexity of the molecules involved made that impossible. I threw in the speed of enzymatic catalysis to seal the fate of this silly evolutionary claim. Scientific proof can be involved and exacting, but I saw no other way to accomplish the mission.
Brent - I have a home church near Ft. Bliss in El Paso. I minister to returning soldiers and their families who have a multitude of problems to work through. This wouldn't be the church for me in peacetime, but I'm needed right there, right now.
Brent - I had some inkling you were from Liberty, and, of course I like you. You appear a pious, solid, intelligent young fellow with his head screwed on straight. What's not to like?
Robert,Well, I finished the book. It's novel to be sure. You, or your editor, or both, did a fine job as the book is mostly free of typos and grammatical errors, though I did find a few. I have read some doosies in that regard, even by renowned authors.
Novel scriptural interpretations are that for a reason. Your speculative fusion of scientific and biblical narrative leads to about what I would expect, and what I can only describe as a hermeneutic nightmare. But you would probably expect as much from a conservative biblical literalist like myself. I am also Southern Baptist, by the way.
Without getting into many of the specifics -- we clearly will not see eye to eye -- I wonder what you meant by this, relative to God's omniscience:
As to omniscient—yes, God is that as to things that are not transient like thoughts or actions...
Do you mean to say that God does not know our thoughts, or what we will do? Or something else? Because I would say that there is a great deal of biblical evidence to the contrary. But maybe I misinterpret your intent.
Robert,You have completely lost me! I was following for a but this speculation is so bizare, I can't anymore, haha. Your humor and sarcasm keep me engaged still, though.
The Bene HaElohim (Sons of God, i.e. Angels) who procreated with the daughters of men (Gen) made monkeys and Guerrillas?!
Ned,I also highlighted that. Robert, that is descriptive of either Open Theism or Presentism (Temporal Ontology). Both of which are not tenable in light of Scripture.
It's been a while, so I'll have to dig into the book again before contributing much. I recall one great theory, though, that the softer the science, the softer the head; the harder the science, the more likely the scientist believes in a creator. Since I know nadda about any soft sciences, I have no educated opinion there, but I do tend to agree with the latter statement. Our greatest scientists were often quite spiritual, and that somehow correlates with belief in a creator or universal mind.The other thing I remember is Robert's round-by-round battle over the truth of creation. He presents his own interpretation of each of the six days, and if science doesn't conclusively disprove it, he counts one point for his side. I guess that's ok, if the point is to provide an explanation of creation that does not contradict the Bible. (Unless, of course, you read the creation story literally instead of figuratively.) Claiming a win is not ok if the intent is to prove the Bible correct, though.
Ned's comment is on the mark: "Your speculative fusion of scientific and biblical narrative leads to about what I would expect." I suspect Robert agrees it is speculative, but it's because I think he respects Darwinian discovery, and must also find a solution that is consistent with Genesis. So, yes, it's going to be bizarre, from my perspective: merging myth and science will certainly be creative. Yet I recall finishing the book thinking "well, this went a stomach-wrenching direction, but it's a hundred times more likely than young-earth creationism."
My review of the book from a couple months ago:http://www.dubiousdisciple.com/2013/1...
I really enjoyed it.
Thank you all for your comments - regardless of your perspective, I hope you are enjoying the read and at the very least, that it has opened some new avenues for thought. Ned, I disagree with your characterization it is a novel. I cite my sources, therefore it is narrative nonfiction. If you are saying it is novel, meaning original in thought, thank you for the compliment and disregard the last sentence. Also, it matters not whether we agree or not; as Lee pointed out, this is speculative and designed only to be an opening round toward the winnowing of evolution, ecology, and environmental biology to their proper size and scope.Both Brent and Ned ask a very good question: When does God know our thoughts and actions? Before they even occur or at the moment of inception? If I don't even know when I go out my door if I'm going to turn left or right, but make a snap decision based on who knows what factor, how would God anticipate that? This leads right in to a free will vs. determinism debate which could keep this board occupied for weeks!
Brent - no, the men folk were turned into chimps for having sexual relations with the nonhuman hominids at the behest to God by their womenfolk. There are NO chimp/Homo offspring as that would be chromosonally impossible (I AM a scientist, not a science fiction writer). God reincarnated the Godly descendants of Seth to mate with the surviving womenfolk until the lineage became fully functioning homo erectus again paving the way to eventual homo sapiens.
Brent - I love your Guerillas; I'll have to incorporate them in my next book!
Brent - because, by admission, you neither understood the scientific aspects of the book nor the creation of the chimps segment, the book seems above your comprehension level. Perhaps you should abstain from rating it then rather than trashing it by some threshold the book was never intended to address. It's narrative nonfiction and a good yarn not a hermeneutic textbook and should have it's merits judged on its intention rather than your built-in preconceptions.
Brent - at the very least, could you correct your review to delete the crossing of human and nonhuman to create chimps. I never even remotely implied that. You could have asked me what I meant before throwing out an error-filled hatchet job.
Ha, sure Robert, to be sure though, it would be correct if I said hominids, yes? Sorry for the misrepresention
Oh, don't bother Brent, go back to reading Plantinga.
Robert, simply put, I'm weighing in on propositions you stated unequivocally, namely, the infallibility of the Bible. As such, this criterion is either for or against you in your exegesis of Gen 1-2. That Adam and Eve were created with substantial human communication is overwhelmingly implied, and hence, the idea of grunts and groans isn't just speculation but bad exegesis. Furthermore, the idea of reincarnation to fit your understanding of Gen 6 isn't tenable. Moreover, you commit the "English Only" fallacy in weighty matters, such as your understanding of the Bene Ha Elohim which is not the godly line of Seth but angels. A look at the Hebrew "Nephilim" and the LXX equivalent Gigantes, would help you understand that the homophone translation into English was fallacious in the KJV and subsequently the NKJV. Nephal, which is the Hebrew to fall, is exactly what the fallen angels did in Gen 6, they "fell" and were henceforth knows as the "Fallen Ones." The LXX rendering means "Earth Born" since they we, in fact, Angels who procreated with man, and made heroes and men of renowned, dwelling henceforth on earth. I agree, much of the science was over my head, but I conceded to much of the first half of the book as plausible and convincing: especially the first two days of creation, you did an excellent job.
Sorry for the lack of explanation, Robert. I appreciate you greatly, and always enjoy your sarcasm and wit.
(:
Robert, I fixed my reveiw, and bumped you up too!Don't hate me! (:
Brent - And this was solely an attempt to reconcile science and religion, not take sides, which you fail to appreciate. I am both, not just a one trick pony. If you can only view a 2D excercise in 1D, you should recuse yourself from judgment. 1
