Four Christian Views of Evolution

@swamidass @cwhenderson @JonGarvey, @Guy_Coe, @gbrooks9,@AndyWalsh,

I found an article on the internet that I felt might be interesting. Many of you might already have known about this and attended this meeting in Irvine, California. The following is how you get to it. I hope you will find it interesting. God bless.

Your Brother in Christ,

Deacon Charles Edward Miller, retired

http://evidenceforchristianity.org/four-christian-views-of-evolution-an-essay/

1 Like

All four are wrong.

1 Like

Question: How do you mean all four are wrong? In reference to religion or science. I would assume from a philosophical point of view.

Have a good evening.

Edward

He is an atheist and thinks they are all wrong.

I, however, am more complex. I also think they are all missing important things. The Genealogical Adam reshuffles the deck. We need a fifth option.

All four are wrong because what you call evolution isn’t what the real cutting edge 2018 science understanding of what evolution is. All four are wrong because all four are discussing a theory of evolution that has been falsified by current research. Take a look at the Neutral Theory of Evolution. In the past two days, Dr. Swamidass has raised my level of understanding of evolution dramatically. Your conference is discussing old, out dated science. Therefore all four are wrong before you even start the discussion. Please send us your millennials (if you have any left) who can learn and adapt quickly to the rapidly progressing science called evolution. Once they get it, they can explain it to you.

1 Like

That is exactly correct.

Though this is from a long time ago, from the 1960’s that this change happened (The Neutral Theory of Evolution). It is just getting validated in spades right now and becoming centrally relevant because of the genome revolution.

Moroever, evolutionary science is silent on God’s action. It does not tell us if God intervened or not. It can’t answer questions like that.

In fairness, they do mention drift, but much of their debate is theological. We need a neutral scientific voice. We need another option.

1 Like

@Patrick

Explain this. I believe that your views come from your atheism.

No God + Nothing= Nothing( no life or creation)
God (The Intelligent Designer of the Bible) + Nothing = Creation by any means if He so wills

Isn’t logic fun? Have a good evening my friend. Oh, I am not a millennial because I am sixty-two.

1 Like

Explain this:

A universe from nothing. Before the big bang, no matter, no radiation, nothing. Then space expands exponentially. Empty space has energy in it - universes pop into existence. Our universe has matter, time, space, and radiation in it and is expanding ever since. In an inflating universe, empty space has energy.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/07/04/what-was-it-like-when-the-big-bang-first-began/#4c83895f3426

My logic still stands firm.

0+0= no creation
God + nothing = Any creation he wants.

How can a mindless universe create something? If it could, a pretty young girl could appear in my room from nowhere. Unfortunately, that ain’t gonna happen. Isn’t logic fun to consider? Oh, my friend, something had to begin the Big Bang; otherwise, there would have been nothing.:grin: How is the universe going to expand if there is nothing to create it? Remember that pretty young lady I mentioned. If there is nothing to create it, how does nothing create the radiation. What not that mean that the radiation or whatever must have a mind to create.

Infinite Mind + 0 = Creation of whatever it wants. If there is nothing, how can there be radiation. No, I am correct. How can there be Quantum Mechanics if there is nothing to create it. If this universe cannot be created because there is nothing, then how can there be a multiverse and how can that babe be there? My formula still stands firm. And if there were multiverses without a mind to call it into being, how do we know that that girl is not ugly in that multiverse? No, my friend, there must be a infinite mind that has always been to create what we see and perhaps don’t see. Even though Herr Dr. Krauss attempts to create a universe without a creator, how is that possible when there is no intelligent mind to begin it. Nothing + nothing still equals nothing. We must remember that the human mind is not capable of understanding everything. If it could, then we would be the creators. If the human mind were infinite, then we would know all and see all. We would even be able to see if there are other beings in the fourth or fifth dimensions. I am getting tired now and am having a lot of pain in my bones. I must take a rest. We can perhaps continue tomorrow. Good friends and God bless both of you. Oh, one last word from me. How can Herr Dr. Krauss know if his hypotheses are try. The human mind is an animal brain. Am I not right? A mortal brain can’t possibly know everything. Good night. Interesting discussions. Oh, doesn’t Richard Dawkins have an animal brain too? That means his ideas could be wrong.

Oh, but my friend, there is something. There is God, and he made something out of nothing. Nothing + Nothing still makes lifeless, mindless, loveless nothing.

This is not total nonsense what I have written here. Neither is what I wrote about the human brain. You are the one who believes that we have evolved from lower animals. If we did, then our brains are animal brains too. You worship regular men like Charles Darwin and Francis Collins. I do not. I worship the creator of the universe who has lived from everlasting to everlasting. 0+0 = nothing. God + 0 = creation and life. I know who you are now. You were on Biologos and used the same arguments there. Your arguments do not make sense. Oh, there are many things that the human mind can’t understand. If that is not true, why can’t scientists heal cancer in all cases? Why can scientists not send someone back into the past or into the future? What is time itself? Why can’t you remember the day you were born? Why can’t you understand why 0+0 = 0. Why do you think that Francis Collins knows everything? If you believe he does, why don’t you accept the reality of an infinite creator? Yet you worship Collins as if he were a god. Hugh Ross is an intelligent man; however, he doesn’t know everything and I do not worship him.

Your logic is flawed when taking into account Quantum Mechanics (QM). Empty space is not empty. It is filled with energy. In an inflating universe, at any location and at any time, particles, whole universes, and pretty young girls can appear when nothing was there before. So yes, though highly improbable, a pretty young girl could appear in your room from nowhere. And since QM allows an infinite number of universes to pop into existence (Multiverse), there is a universe where she is already there!

You are going to have to explain that more. Quantum empty space is not nothing, it is something. The inflationary membrane is something, not nothing. Look at this review of Krause’s argument by the Chair of Physics at WUSTL, a cosmologist, who certainly knows what he is talking about.

1 Like

Krause’s newer book is better in explaining “A Universe from Nothing”

Agree. There is no such thing as “nothing” in the real universe. There has to be something. Nothingness is unstable and will create something out of nothing.

The attachment is from 2010. Evolutionary Biology knowledge has increased by 1600% since then (doubling every two years for the 8 years since the announcement). Try to keep up with what has been learned in evolutionary biology before making claims of what is provisionally true and what has been falsified. This is a good place to get accurate and factual explanation of the cutting edge of evolutionary science. Dr. Swamidass is right at that cutting edge. He is actually doing the science, at a high level, everyday. (AIG, Biologos, RTB, & EN aren’t actually doing science, they are just reporting on the results of the latest research results. Hugh Ross, Jeanson, Snelling, and Faulkner at AIG are no longing doing science. They are just reporting on it or making stuff up - pseudo-science). Ask Dr. Swamidass questions, he has the great fortune to be standing (temporarily) on the shoulders of giants like Francis Collins. He’s got the best view now of where things are headed in our understanding of evolutionary biology. And he is very kind and patient in explaining it to all of us down here.

I know they are all wrong based on what we know from 2018 science. And being an atheist does not change the science. Truth is truth whether you believe it or not.

This is total nonsense.

Then I misunderstood. I thought you meant they were all wrong because they believe in God.

Maybe try and be a bit more specific? I can point out at least one thing he said that is correct:

That seems correct. That is not nonsense.

I think it is nonsense. What is this everything that the human mind is not capable of understanding? So far in history, we (the collective intelligence of all humans -past and present) have done a very good job understanding the world and how it works. Just because Charles Miller says the human mind is not capable of understanding everything, doesn’t stop humans from making progress in understanding the world.

1 Like

Any structure had limits. To think the structure of the human mind is equpped to handle any kind if problem is more faith I can muster.

Not the accelerating expanding universe.