One does not have to accept macroevolution simply because he accepts microevolution.

First of all, definitions:

Microevolution:

Microevolution is evolution on a small scale—within a single population. That means narrowing our focus to one branch of the tree of life.

 

Macroevolution:

Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level. So instead of focusing on an individual beetle species, a macroevolutionary lens might require that we zoom out on the tree of life, to assess the diversity of the entire beetle clade and its position on the tree.

Macroevolution refers to evolution of groups larger than an individual species. Macroevolution encompasses the grandest trends and transformations in evolution, such as the origin of mammals and the radiation of flowering plants. Macroevolutionary patterns are generally what we see when we look at the large-scale history of life.

 

Note that macroevolution refers to evolution above the species level  and tries to understand the origin of groups larger than species, while microevolution looks at change that is pretty much change within species.

Now Young Earth Creationists generally speak of created kinds instead of species, because kinds seems to include more than a single species. That does not mean that the change within kinds that YEC believe in necessitates their believing in macroevolution. The reason is that macroevolution looks far beyond speciation to the largest of all trends in evolution. Notice that the definition above shows that macroevolution looks at the origin of mammals and not simply change within mammalia. Thus there is a vast difference between the YEC view of change and the macroevolutionary view of change.

Furthermore, YEC are not the only folks who have issues with macroevolution. There are proponents of Intelligent Design who have problems with it.

Surprise! There’s no satisfactory mathematical model for macroevolution, at the present time

In 2006, Professor Allen Macneill acknowledged that macroevolution is not mathematically modelable in the way that microevolution is. He could have meant that macroevolution is not mathematically modelable at all; alternatively, he may have simply meant that macroevolutionary models are not as detailed as microevolutionary models. If he meant the latter, then I would ask: where’s the mathematics that explains macroevolution? Surprisingly, it turns out that there is currently no adequate mathematical model for Darwinian macroevolution. Professor James Tour’s remark that “The Emperor has no clothes” is spot-on.

Click here for the full article.

The argument that YEC’s belief in multitudes of changes within created kinds is a belief in some form of Darwinian macroevolution is simply a strawman fallacy.

Practically every time someone such as I warns about the effects of denying the Genesis Creation Narrative as being a true historical narrative we are told that we are employing a slippery slope argument.

No, it’s not a slippery slope argument to say that the logical results (though one may not carry his theology as far as what would logically follow- people are often inconsistent) are the denial of certain fundamental Christian doctrines which have been held by most Christians throughout the history of Christianity.

Today Peter Enns has proven my point by denying that the Old Testament anywhere speaks of original sin. He gives five reasons why original sin should be reconsidered.

1. Inherited sinfulness is not one of the curses on Adam.

Ok. Granted.

But why should the text spell out what is obvious? Adam and Eve sinned, thus all of humanity sinned. What would Adam’s children then be? Sinners. As a matter of fact, Genesis 5:1 specifically tells us that Adam’s’ son was in Adam’s image; so, though the Imago Dei remained, yet there was that tarnished, sinful, Adamic image in the son of Adam.

Then there’s that statement that David made saying that he was conceived in sin and shaped in iniquity. No, he was by no means implying that the sexual act of procreation was sinful. David was stating that he was by nature a sinner. (Psalm 51:5)

Then, of course, there is the anecdotal evidence that shows that Adam’s offspring were sinful people.

2.True obedience to God is both expected and doable.

Amazing! Pelagius would be so proud of Peter!

If true obedience were doable (This is much different from that which is expected.), then why was there provision made for sin? Why were sacrifices performed immediately after Adam’s fall? Why did men offer blood sacrifices before the law was given? Why was Abel spoken of as being justified by faith- faith which was demonstrated when he offered the blood of an animal, which was a symbol of Jesus Christ crucified for us?

Why, then, does Jeremiah say, “Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.” (Jeremiah 13:23)   Jeremiah was telling us that we are by nature sinful, just as a leopard is spotted by nature. Being by nature sinful, it is natural for us to sin; thus consistently doing good is impossible.

Further more, wise Solomon himself said, “there is no man that sinneth not.” (1Kings 8:46)

Why is Peter so hell-bent on denying  determined to deny what is so very obvious?

3. With one exception,Adam disappears after Genesis 5.

4. Adam is not blamed for Cain’s act of murder.

5. Likewise, Adam is not blamed for the flood.

I wonder if Peter realizes that he is arguing from silence. Does he not understand that is virtually no argument at all?

Remember: I am only looking at the Old Testament here. I know people will respond, “But what about Paul!?” Fair enough–but–even if Paul sees Adam as the cause of human misery and alienation from God, we still need to grapple with why the Old Testament doesn’t see it that way.

Hmmm…so Peter would have us believe that there is a controversy between Paul and Moses? Oh, wait! Peter doesn’t accept Moses as either author or compiler of Genesis.

Obviously Peter is denying that the Bible is without error, because he has just pitted one portion of Scripture against another; thus he has denied that Scripture is free from error.

Nothing new here. Feel free to move on to the next point. This is classic Ennsianism.

Others will respond: “But if Adam isn’t the cause of it all, we no longer have a good explanation for why people are so messed up?” Fine, but the fact that questions arise that muddle our theology doesn’t make the Old Testament magically fall into line.

What an interesting sleight of the hand/keyboard. Enns moves from contrasting his view of the OT with Paul’s view of inherent depravity and now simply speaks of it as our theology being muddled.

No, we are not expecting the Old Testament to magically fall into line. We understand that Paul knew the Old Testament far better than we or Enns shall ever know it. We expect Paul to exegete, explain, and apply the Old Testament correctly. In fact, once we’ve honestly looked at the Old Testament without our modernistic blinders, we find that it does more than magically fall into line- it drew the line and Paul walked the line.

Still others will respond: “But without Adam as the cause of human sinfulness, the entire gospel falls apart.” Rather, I think only a version of the gospel that needs this kind of Adam falls apart. Perhaps there are other ways (and there are).

Well, now! What have we warned about? The importance of the gospel being diminished.

Now we see that Enns proposes another gospel. It would be well if Enns takes the time to remember the words of Paul:

“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” (Galatians 1:8–9)

Yes, Enns is taking a slide down the slippery slope; except, as far as logic is concerned, it isn’t a slippery slope- it logically follows that a denial of the Genesis Creation Account as an accurate historical narrative could have profound effects upon how we view the gospel.

To close with the wise words of a lady who has taken the time to read Enns’ books:

there is always a domino effect when one begins to “reinterpret” Scripture. Dr. Enns does not believe that God created the world and all things in six days. Therefore, Adam cannot be an historical figure who is literally the first man created by God from the dust of the earth. Therefore, Paul must be mistaken. And, therefore, the doctrine of original sin must be “rethought” as well.

As his understanding of Scripture and doctrine continues to unravel, what will Dr. Enns be left with when he’s finished?

God The Fount Of All Truth And Rationality

“Without God there is no meaning (truth, rationality, etc.); therefore God exists.”¹

Many years ago a man asked the question, “What is truth?”² We can only speculate about why he asked this question. It is, however, a question that we all must ask. What is truth? Truth is that which conforms to reality. It is the actual state of a matter, and it is also fidelity to a required standard or law³ Having this answer will help us move forward.

The greater problem is that all of us believe that we have truth on our side. Folks who believe in absolute truth argue for their position and do so quite strenuously. Those who do not believe in absolute truth are often absolutely sure of their position as well. Those who believe that there is no such thing as truth and that all things are meaningless are also convinced that their arguments have meaning and are true. How do we judge these claims? How do we deal with this issue? Who is correct? Whose truth is true?

The answer to the above questions brings us back to our definition of truth as that which is faithful to a required standard or law. There must be a standard of truth or we will never have anything by which to measure truth claims. Every man could, and would, be a law unto himself. Truth would be relative without an absolute standard. One man’s truth would be another’s lie, and one nation’s lie would be another nation’s truth. There must be a standard.

What is this standard? First of all the standard must be absolute, or else there will be no consistency or rationality. After all, if truth is forever changing, there is actually no truth at all; because what is true at one point in history would susceptible to becoming an untruth in a moment of time, though nothing but the standard changed. The goal posts would forever be moving and mankind would have no ability to be rational. “David Hume, the great skeptic, has effectively argued that if you allow any room for Chance in your thought, then you no longer have the right to speak of probabilities. Whirl would be king. No one hypothesis would have any more relevance to facts than any other hypothesis. Did God raise Christ from the dead? Perchance he did. Did Jupiter do it? Perchance he did. What is Truth? Nobody knows.”⁴ There must be an absolute standard of truth.

We all are convinced that we have truth. Even the person who believes that truth does not exist, or is relative, is ironically certain that his position is the truth. The one who says that there is no truth, and that words have no meaning, still expects us to find meaning and truth in what he says. Cornelius Van Til responded to such ideas and said, “No human being can explain in the sense of seeing through all things, but only he who believes in God has the right to hold that there is an explanation at all.”⁵

How does God even come into this discussion? Does logic equal God? Hardly, but, on the other hand, logic cannot exist without God. Truth cannot exist without God. Speaking of the Van Tillian view of knowledge, John Frame says, “Without God there is no meaning (truth, rationality, etc.); therefore God exists.”⁶ Greg Bahsen spoke of God and said, “His existence is required for the uniformity of nature and for the coherence of all things in the world.”⁷ This necessity for God is the thing we must prove.

We have already seen that there is a necessity for an absolute standard of truth if we are to have rationality. Why must this standard be God? First of all I must be clear that I mean the transcendent, immanent, eternal, immutable, personal, Trinitarian God of the Christian Scriptures. “Nothing is intelligible unless God exists, and God must be nothing less than the Trinitarian, sovereign, transcendent, and immanent absolute personality of the Scriptures.”⁸ Here I speak of Him only as the eternal and immutable God. (The other attributes will be addressed later in this series.) This God is the standard of truth. He is the truth. John Frame has said that “the argument is transcendental. Rather than offering straightforward empirical evidence for God, it asks the deeper question: what must be the case if evidential argument and knowledge (and hence objective moral standards) are to be possible?”⁹ The answer is that God exists and the Bible provides the only grounds for truth and rationality. But we still must prove God’s necessity.

This world has no other standard of truth than God. God is one (Deuteronomy 6:4-5), and He alone is the arbiter and source of knowledge and truth (Deuteronomy 32:4;1Samuel 2:3;John 14:6¹⁰;2Corinthians 1:18;1John 2:27). Why is He the standard? Because He is the Creator. “If the Christian position with respect to creation, that is, with respect to the idea of the origin of both the subject and the object of human knowledge is true, there is and must be objective knowledge. In that case the world of objects was made in order that the subject of knowledge, namely man, should interpret it under God. Without the interpretation of the universe by man to the glory of God the whole world would be meaningless. The subject and object are therefore adapted to one another. On the other hand if the Christian theory of creation by God is not true then we hold that there cannot be objective knowledge of anything. In that case all things in this universe are unrelated and cannot be in fruitful contact with one another. This we believe to be the simple alternative on the question of the objectivity of knowledge as far as the things of this universe are concerned.”¹¹ There is simply no other way that there can be coherence and rationality. Either God the Creator is the sole and absolute standard and authority, with all things relating to Him and subordinate to Him, or there is no knowledge, truth, or rationality.

Thus we conclude by saying, if God then absolute truth. If we know anything at all, it is because God is the fount of all knowledge and truth.

Genesis 1:1-3;26-31

Why Genesis?

Why Genesis? That is a fair question, is it not? Why write a book of this sort? What is its purpose? What does it tell us about the world, about its authors, compilers, and hearers?

Briefly put, Genesis was written for a group of people who did not know YHWH. They had probably encountered the name, and even worshiped Him by that name (See Genesis 4:26); but they had not truly experienced the covenantal significance of that name YHWH (See Exodus 3:13-15;6:1-8). Genesis would be an introduction to YHWH.

Not only that, but Israel was an idolatrous people, and had been for many generations. Abraham was an idolater before he believed God, and his descendants worshiped the idols of Egypt while in Egypt (See Joshua 24:1-15). They were going to need to be instructed about the nature of YHWH, what He had done and was doing, as well as the fact that He would tolerate the worship of no other gods.

The reason that Israel was given to worship YHWH alone was that He is the God who brought them out of Egypt, and that He is the God who created all things (Exodus 20:1-11).

Another reason that Genesis was given was to show Israel their history so that they would know that they could/should trust YHWH. When one sees the hand of God as the Creator of all things, sees how sin affects and destroys, considers the covenant faithfulness of YHWH to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, he will be led to trust Him.

Finally, it is quite reasonable to assert and believe that Genesis is a historical narrative and is thus a record of things which actually happened. After all, it is not much of an inducement to faith and worship to learn that the stories which were told about your God are things which did not truly happen. While some say that truth can be conveyed in many ways, and I would agree, I would also argue that the very fact that worship is based upon the fact that God both created all things, and that He did so in six days, would be severely undermined if God truly did not do just as we have been told.

John 14:6 is a very well known statement by Jesus in which He declares Himself to be the truth.

This statement can best be understood in the opening verses of John where he testifies that Jesus is God, Creator, and life (John 1:1-4). Coupled with John 1:14, where we see that Jesus is full of truth, and John 1:17, where we see that Jesus brought truth, we can see that there is no truth apart from Jesus.

Now let’s look at this for just a moment and reflect upon this. Jesus is the Creator. Jesus is the truth. Nothing was made without Him, and there is no truth apart from Him.

The epistemological implications are profound, yet can be stated quite simply.

Since Jesus is both the origin of truth and the Creator, we must reject any evolutionary framework: even theistic evolution. The reason is that truth originates with Jesus. An evolutionary framework shows God working through trial and error until He gets it somewhat right. That makes the truth something independent of God- something that God must seek and find. Thus God is not the author of truth and is not the truth.

If any form of evolutionary theory is true, then God is not the truth and there is no absolute truth. All is irrational.

Either Jesus our Creator is the Truth, or there is no truth.

There is no middle ground.

There cannot be.

What do cosmic dust, gas stars, and the first three chapters of Genesis have in common?

Much, it seems.

You see, there is a news article that tells us of a gas star being created out of cosmic dust. It would seem at first glance as if there is an ongoing creation.

Is that actually so? Not at all.

This cosmic dust is thought to come from  dying/dead stars. (See this link, also.) While it is obvious that I will disagree with the millions and billions of years, I do find it quite interesting that what is allegedly being created (or evolving) is more likely just to be a ball of refuse from supernovas.

What does this have to do with Genesis chapters 1-3? Much, because those of us who accept these chapters as historical narrative understand that the fall led to death and futility in all of creation (See also Romans 8:19-21). We expect things to die. We also expect that God will, at times, do amazing things with dead matter (Consider John 11 and Lazarus, as well as 1Corinthians 15:1-58).

Is God still creating the world? No. He is upholding and sustaining it by His command (Psalm 119:89-91;Hebrews 1:1-3).

Today the world is fallen and dying. In the future it shall be remade (See Revelation 21:1-8) into an eternally perfect habitat where we shall worship and enjoy the Triune God forever.

Related articles

• God,Creation,And Hermeneutics

Here is a statement from Infidels.org.

“NOTE: These lists are meant to identify possible problems in the Bible, especially problems which are inherent in a literalist or fundamentalist interpretation. Some of the selections may be resolvable on certain interpretations–after all, almost any problem can be eliminated with suitable rationalizations–but it is the reader’s obligation to test this possibility and to decide whether it really makes appropriate sense to do this. To help readers in this task, these lists are aimed at presenting examples where problems may exist given certain allowable (but not always obligatory) assumptions. It should be kept in mind that a perfect and omnipotent God could, should, and likely would see to it that such problems did not exist in a book which s/he had inspired. It should also be kept in mind that what is and is not an inconsistency or contradiction is to some extent a matter of opinion. You are entitled to disagree with the author that these are, in fact, inconsistencies or contradictions.

IMPORTANT: Please keep in mind that by “inconsistencies” I do not necessarily mean “contradictions.” Even though accepted and common definitions of the two terms often make them synonymous, I make a subtle distinction which is reflected in at least some of the accepted definitions. What I have in mind is that an inconsistency involves a lack of harmonious uniformity, regularity, steady continuity, or agreement among the verses cited. Thus, whereas a contradiction is necessarily an inconsistency, an inconsistency is not necessarily a contradiction. But certainly some of the listed biblical inconsistencies could be taken as biblical contradictions.”

What is contradictory about this statement?
The fact that they think that they are able to point out contradictions.
You see, logic is only logical in the worldview of the Christian Theist.  The atheist and agnostic cannot use logic consistently with their worldview.

Why?

Because there is no absolute, intelligent, reasoning personality.  That is, there is no standard for logic.  If we have simply evolved to where we are today, our logic has evolved.  That means that, tomorrow, our logic may have evolved even more.  If that were the case, what was an inconsistency or contradiction today may be perfectly clear to us tomorrow.  Reason would not be reason, because our thinking would be in a constant state of change.

Logic DEMANDS an absolute.  Atheism and agnosticism have no absolutes.  Thus they have no logic.

Thus they cannot logically speak of inconsistencies and contradictions in the Scriptures.

Just musing..

For the last year or so I have refused to take the bait from Joel and folk of his kind.

I simply haven’t the time for foolishness, straw men, liberalism, and the desire to misconstrue the things that are said by those with whom he disagrees.

Today, however, he decided to call me a blasphemer. Oh, he didn’t use that word directly: he just said that my words about Genesis were blasphemous. That is essentially the same as calling me a blasphemer.

The problem is that Joel willingly refuses to see that Jesus is the Creator (John 1:1-3; Colossians 1:15-19,Hebrews 1:1-4  etc.) When one speaks of God’s act of Creation, one speaks of Jesus creating.

Far from denying the centrality of Jesus, I emphasize it. It is also the reason I will not compromise with unbiblical and irrational worldviews that deny that inherent and eternal authority of Christ as He is revealed to us in Scripture.

Instead of denying the centrality of Jesus, my beliefs concerning Jesus give Him His proper place not only as Creator, but as the autonomous God who reveals Himself to us in His Word (Scripture). That is very different from trying to be autonomous and declare that Scripture must conform to the irrationalism of the present age that seeks to deny that truth of Scripture.

When Jesus spoke of His exalted being He was called a blasphemer. I’m glad to know that, as imperfect as I am, that my exaltation of Jesus puts me in good company.

So, Joel, continue on the path you take if you wish. I want no part of it. I have no respect for it. I pity you for your lack of faith as well as the lack of character that leads you to willfully show disrespect with no good cause. I shall continue to pray for you, but I have no more time for your foolish denial of the truth of Scripture.

God’s act of creation is the foundation for the entire biblical history.

ESVSB Gen 1:1

If the foundation of a house is not square, or level, the whole house will be difficult to build correctly. There will have to be serious adjustments to the rest of the building, the building will be unlevel or not squared, or the foundation will have to be reworked.

It is the same with our understanding of the first three chapters of Genesis. If we get them wrong, the whole of our biblical understanding will be out of line to some degree.

God As The Fount Of Knowledge

“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1)

“Let all the earth fear the Lord: Let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him. For he spake, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast.” (Psalm 33:8–9)

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.” (John 1:1–3)

“Thy righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, And thy law is the truth.” (Psalm 119:142, AV 1873)

“If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son. He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.” (1 John 5:9–10, AV 1873)

English: Psalm 90 of The Holy Bible, King James version, 1772. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The texts that head up this article provide us with some insight into the issues that this article introduces.

First of all we encounter the eternal God who is both the Creator of all things as well as the fount of all truth and knowledge, being the Word. He is eternal, prior to Creation, and of infinite intelligence.

Next we find that this God, the all-knowing Creator of all things, is also ruler of all things. We find that He is sovereign in His wisdom and intelligence.

We also read that God has revealed Himself to us in a written record, and that record is true.

In this article I simply plan to present the things for which I shall argue in future articles, and I shall presently provide no arguments for the things I am asserting. That being said, here are the things for which I shall argue:

1. There can be no knowledge or truth apart from God as the source of all truth. No God, no rationality.

2. The God who is revealed in the Bible is the only sufficient ground of knowledge and rationality.

a. He is truth.

b. He is unchanging.

c. He is a plurality in unity.

d. He is transcendent and immanent.

e. He is sovereign over all.

3. The Bible, being the only sufficient basis for knowledge and rationality, and being a revelation of God, is absolutely true.

4. Thoughts toward a presuppositional, inerrantist hermeneutic.

There is much to be said on these subjects, and it will take a long time to flesh these things out. Please feel free to leave any suggestions or recommendations in the comments