"In the beginning God Created . . . "
Then came Charles Darwin who, in 1859, published his book "On the Origin of Species". In it he proposed his theory of evolution based on survival of the fittest and natural selection. Organisms evolve by undergoing spontaneous mutations, a very small number of which may be beneficial to their survival. Because those lucky few organisms now have a selective advantage, they pass on their genes while the others die off and the species then "evolves". Cool! Woolly mammoths become less woolly as "global warming" causes the ice age to end and wallah, we have the circus elephant. Animals can adapt to their environment as it changes but supposedly thay can even change from one species to the next. Darwin didn't know how life began in the first place and expected future investigation to find a plethora of examples of transitional species in the fossil record (Like an elephant with the tail of a whale or a lizard with little wing buds). Neither has been found.
Regardless, a few years later, Friedrich Nietzsche, a German philosopher declared, "God is dead."
Well? Is he? Is God effectively "dead" because science and philosophy have made him obsolete? Is it possible for any rational human being in 2009 to believe in an all knowing, all powerful, creator God? Is faith in God more of a leap than faith in the spontaneous, random development of "life" and its subsequent evolution to its present state? I'd like you to be open to the truth regardless of where it leads. If God didn't create (or design) and we are truly random molecules that have gotten significantly more organized by time and chance then it changes everything. If those that have used Darwin's theory to kill God are right then we are no more valuable, no more important, and no more significant that an ice cube. If God did create and the Bible is true then we are accountable (but loved) by him and the world better look up.
Like I said in my previous post, I am a scientist. There was a time when I believed that life began in the "primordial soup" of the cooling earth and a few chemicals gathered into a little genetic material which began to self replicate and then a little bacteria popped out. A billion or more years later humans are flying to the moon and have developed weapons that could destroy the earth from which we evolved. I lived like I wanted to live and God couldn't tell me what to do or how to live because he either didn't exist or at a minimum wasn't really involved. I wasn't accountable to anyone greater than myself. I certainly didn't take a critical look at what I was being told by science but what is WAY more important is that I didn't take a critical look at myself. It was much safer for me to be content being a more evolved monkey in a society of evolved monkeys. I was thus a product of my instincts and environment. If I did wrong, it wasn't really my fault. It was instinct. We are survivors and my goal was to be one of the fittest then pass on my highly advanced genes to the next generation. Actually, if we are just chemicals without a creator then there really is no absolute right or wrong anyway. We can decide for ourselves what is "good" and what is "bad". Sorry, this is a topic for another day. Back to creation.
Do I, as a Christian, need to open my skull and drop my brain into a large box outside the church as I walk in on Sunday or can I reconcile my biblical worldview with the scientific evidence. I think I can do the later and I am not alone.
Doctor Ben Carson is one of the world's best pediatric neurosurgeons. He graduated from Yale and then the University of Michigan Medical School. He gained national attention for leading the team that separated conjoined twins that were joined at the back of the head. He has received the Presidential Medal of Freedom and is now the director of pediatric neurosurgery are Johns Hopkins University. Ben Carson believes in the creation story.
In the 1970's Dr. Francis Collins was a scientist and an atheist. In medical school he was faced with life and death every day and a patient once asked him, "What do you believe doctor?". He began to search for answers. He said, "I had to admit that the science I loved so much was powerless to answer questions such as 'What is the meaning of life?' 'Why am I here?' 'Why does mathematics work, anyway?' 'If the universe had a beginning, who created it?' 'Why are the physical constants in the universe so finely tuned to allow the possibility of complex life forms?' 'Why do humans have a moral sense?' 'What happens after we die?' (Watch Francis Collins discuss how he came to believe in God 
). Francis Collins is now the director of the Human Genome Project whose task has been to map out the 3.1 billion letter code of the human DNA code. Francis Collins believes in a creator God.
). Francis Collins is now the director of the Human Genome Project whose task has been to map out the 3.1 billion letter code of the human DNA code. Francis Collins believes in a creator God.Look, I have come to the place where I realize that I can't convince you of the existence of God by intellectual might. I can't wrestle you to the ground with my copy of Genesis. That is not my intent today. But, I do realize one thing that the bible tells me to be true, "The Gospel is foolishness to those who are perishing." It was foolishness to me when I was drowning in my own sin. But I also know that the Holy Spirit of God can make the most ardent atheist the most faithful believer. My intent is to give you a moment of pause. To ask you to stop for a second and think. To look at life around you and inside of you. To set aside what you'd like to be true or what you believe to be true and say, "I want to know what IS true." If you need to follow the scientific evidence then by all means do so but do it to its logical end. Chicago tribune journalist Lee Strobel did that in an attempt to disprove the Bible and the historical Jesus and he is now Christian and an passionate sharer of the Gospel. Be careful because you may end up the same. If you already are a believer I pray that your faith was nudged just a bit higher today. I don't have the space here to put forth an argument against Evolution and for Creation or "Intelligent Design" but PLEASE feel free to ask me in the comments section of this post and I will give you plenty to keep you busy.
One last quote, from Werner Heisenberg (a Nobel Laureate in Physics for the creation of quantum mechanics):
"The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you."
Drink up!
Peace,
David
And how can evolution explain you writing this post and me reading this post and writing this response...
ReplyDeleteWell said Dr. Dave!
If you would like an Advance Reading Copy of our upcoming book The Evolution Conspiracy, Vol 1 by Lisa A. Shiel for review or would like to participate in her blog tour beginning with the book's publication date (Sep 1), let me know.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the book is a secular critique and dissection of current evolution theories, the Christian audience will find much of interest in it.
David,
ReplyDeleteWell put! You are a great writer and please do not stop until that faithful day. You are spot on and I related to what you wrote. The best part is I did not know that Collins was a believer. Thanks for sharing that. I could not think of a better man for the Director of the Human Genome Project. It is a slight sigh of relief that one of us is up there at the top giving the evidence a fair shot to shine.
I looked up Collins and found an interview of his. He said, "I was not raised in a particularly religious household. I went to church, but it was mostly to learn music, which was a good place to learn music. But I didn't learn a whole lot about theology. And for quite a while, in my early 20s, I was a pretty obnoxious atheist. Then at the age of 27, after a good deal of intellectual debating with myself about the plausibility of faith, and particularly with strong influence from C.S. Lewis, I became convinced that this was a decision I wanted to make. And I became, by choice, a Christian, a serious Christian, who believes that faith is not something that you just do on Sunday, but that if it makes any sense at all, it's part of your whole life. It's the most important organizing principle in my life."
Praise God!!
Blessings,
Dan
Thanks Dan. I have realized that the Bible's prophecy regarding people not putting up with sound doctrine and surrounding themselves with teacher who would tell them what their itching ears want to hear, is coming to fruition. But, like Paul we keep boldly preaching the truth. The funny thing is I have two doctoral degrees in Medicine and Dentistry and I have absolutely no problem with the creation story and can see the HUGE leap of faith necessary to believe that life came from random chemical reactions in the primordial soup and evolved to the point we flew to the moon. Peace Dan and may God bless you~!
ReplyDeleteDarwin didn't know how life began in the first place and expected future investigation to find a plethora of examples of transitional species in the fossil record (Like an elephant with the tail of a whale or a lizard with little wing buds). Neither has been found.
ReplyDeleteWow. Not a good start... Neither Darwin nor any serious inquiry into Evolution has ever suggested that an elephant with a whale's tail, or a lizard with wing buds, should or could be found. Rather than recklessly promote obvious lies, try honestly representing the position you seek to disprove.
If those that have used Darwin's theory to kill God are right then we are no more valuable, no more important, and no more significant that an ice cube. If God did create and the Bible is true then we are accountable (but loved) by him and the world better look up.
...And if any number of beliefs held with equal conviction are true, the scenarios they describe will play out, too. There is no point to this statement, and it implicitly sets up a false dichotomy. There is no either/or, necessarily, though clearly the two (evolution and biblical creation) are incompatible.
I am a scientist.
I highly doubt it. Even if true, you have to this point in this post demonstrated little more than a willingness to stoop to dishonest rhetoric and tactics. A scientist, indeed.
It was much safer for me to be content being a more evolved monkey in a society of evolved monkeys.
More intentional dishonesty -- stretching of the truth, at the very least. We are not "evolved monkeys," but we are evolved, as are monkeys. We are primates, and it is technically fair to describe our ancestors as 'monkey-like,' but you are well aware of the well-poisoning your undertake when you use the term "evolved monkeys."
Actually, if we are just chemicals without a creator then there really is no absolute right or wrong anyway.
Not necessarily. You are right, though -- you haven't argued this point, so you shouldn't have brought it up. If nothing else, as a scientist, and even as a reasonably competent human, you should be able to recognize that the whole can be greater than the sum of its parts.
Ben Carson believes in the creation story.
Unqualified authority -- pediatric neurosurgeons do not necessarily have an understanding of the physical, geological, and biological evidences supporting both an old earth and the ToE. While some biology background is undoubtedly involved, the focus of a surgeon is not on biology, but on human anatomy and physiology. If this guy is qualified, it's not because he's a prominent neurosurgeon. Certainly, it's possible to pass a biology course without accepting the ToE.
Anyway, are you sure you want to trot out a list of bona fide scientists who support the ToE, and/or an old earth/universe?
Francis Collins believes in a creator God.
Heh. Are you sure you want to include Collins in your list? He accepts Evolution, or didn't you know?
You can find Collins' own words regarding the compatibility of his Christian faith with his acceptance of the ToE here:
Actually, I find no conflict here, and neither apparently do the 40 percent of working scientists who claim to be believers. Yes, evolution by descent from a common ancestor is clearly true. If there was any lingering doubt about the evidence from the fossil record, the study of DNA provides the strongest possible proof of our relatedness to all other living things.
--
Stan
Oh, as to your being a scientist, I see you answered the question already:
ReplyDeleteThe funny thing is I have two doctoral degrees in Medicine and Dentistry...
I find that a noble investment of time and energy, but not funny. What I find funny is that you feel justified in describing yourself as a scientist without qualification -- the term scientist does not connote those in the medical fields, even though, yes, they practice science. You intentionally overstated your qualification by omission -- dentists are not especially qualified to discuss physics, geology, and biology (though the latter is clearly the one in which they have the most familiarity).
Anyway, this is my first appearance here, so I'll leave it at that. I'll poke around a bit, and I may lurk for a while. Depending on what I find, I may or may not stick around. Depending on what reaction I get, I may or may not be welcome.
--
Stan
Wow Stan... I love a verbose and passionate discussion. It is real and I welcome it. And, I welcome you. I will give you an equally passionate response when I have longer to write (likely tonight!) but I wanted to welcome you to the I-61 Project and thank you for actually taking the time to read and then speak your heart...
ReplyDeleteMore to come ~
David
Stan,
ReplyDeleteI want to start not with science but with God (who created science). I'm not sure if you're a "Believer" or not but if you claim to believe then we should start here. Jesus believed that Moses wrote the the Pentateuch or the first five books of the Old Testament. In John 5 Jesus spoke of the writing of Moses (which as you know includes Genesis):
"But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set. If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?"
Moses wrote that God created the wild animals each according to its kind. If you don't believe Moses then how will you believe what Jesus said? Not my words but his.
Now let's move on to the definition of a scientist and the qualifications for being able to intelligently discuss and understand the debate at hand. I have a BS in Biology with chemistry minor (Cum Laude) which involved the study of Biology, biochemistry, cellular biology, chemistry, genetics, evolutionary biology, ecology, anthropology, anatomy, calculus based physics, and animal behavior.
As you know, I also have a Medical degree and a dental degree. While you don't consider either of these to qualify me or Dr. Ben Carlson to intelligently discuss the evolution/creation debate, let me fill you in on the curriculum at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine: Genetics, embryology, physiology, histology, immunology, microbiology, anatomy, and much more. I have also worked many hours in the lab doing tissue culture work with Dr. JH Campbell.
Dental school curriculum: The basic biomedical sciences are learned through a sequence of curricular segments extending through the first year and initial part of the second year. These include the morphological sciences (The Human Body); the biochemical and physiologic sciences (The Molecular and Cellular Basis of Medicine and Development and Integrated Human Physiology); developmental and molecular biology (Genetics and Human Development); pathology, microbiology and immunology (Immunology, Microbiology & Pathology); and the neurosciences (Human Nervous System and Behavior).
Now ALL OF THAT being said, would an astrophysicist with a PhD, or a molecular biologist who studies retroviruses, or any other "working scientist" be more qualified to enter into this debate because they work in a lab and write abstracts or grant proposals? Here is the deal. Anyone with a brain can truthfully examine the evidence (or lack there of) and come up with a reasonable opinion. Even a lowly Physician.
You are right in saying that Darwin didn't know how life began in the first place and he was smart enough to not take the leap from microevolution to the spontaneous development of life from inert chemicals in the primordial soup of the cooling earth. But, contrary to what you say, transitional species absolutely should be found if there are incredibly slow changes occurring over time in a species. How would an ocean dwelling mammal, which swims with a whale-like tail (look at the evolutionist's drawings) move onto land and develop legs, slowly over time, and not have an interim tail? Would it fall off the moment it crawled onto the beach? Transitional species (and a plethora of them) should indeed be present in the fossil record which of course you and I know hasn't been found.
The statement of our innate value is germane to this discussion because the "nonbelieving" evolutionists take this debate to the level of non-directed, un-designed, and random chance formation of life. Indeed, if this is true, then we are just chemicals with no more value than coal. We will become dust without the hope of life after and life is indeed meaningless. Any faith discussion (remember Stan that this is a Christian Blog) needs to look at this angle.
More to come!
Final words:
ReplyDeleteRegarding your comment ~
"Scientist? I doubt it." That kinda hurt my feelings but I'm over it already so I'll move on to the next thing.
"Dishonest rhetoric and tactics" Can you honestly and seriously use those words and not apply them to evolutionists who dispel intelligent design. Or, to those who have put forth lies and fake specimens and fake data:
Piltdown Man (Eoanthropus dawsoni): Fraudulent fossil that was filed-down to look human-like and chemically treated to give it the appearance of age. It was hailed as proof of Darwin's theory for forty years.
Nebraska Man (Hesperopithecus haroldcookii): Refers to a poorly-preserved fossilized tooth incorrectly identified as belonging to a primate in the 1920s, but a consensus was later reached that it belonged to a peccary (wild pig).
Neanderthals (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis): Despite earlier attempts by evolutionists to classify Neanderthals as primitive "ape-men," recent discoveries indicate Neanderthals were human. Further, several Neanderthal specimens dated by Professor Reiner Protsch were found to be drastically younger than suggested
Let's be honest and admit that there is rhetoric and deception in all heated debates of this scale, so let's not be too quick to point fingers.
Lastly, DNA.
DNA is by far the best evidence for a creator and does little for the defense of evolution. DNA is a complex code whose actual function makes the PC look like a slide rule. There are 3.1 billion base pairs in the human genome which supply the code for the production of over 20,000 proteins. That is remarkable but not more remarkable than the machinery necessary to make it actually functional. The cellular mechanisms, triggers, and enzymes necessary for the development, transport, and use of the proteins is staggering. Time + Chance? Impossible.
Question Stan: How did the first DNA actually produce the first protein without the ribosomes to make it all work. All the parts had to be present and functional from the start. Irreducible complexity. How did the first cell divide without the enzymes to unzip, replicated, then rezip the DNA double helix, and wind it up tight into it's compact little chromosomal package. Irreducible complexity.
Common DNA in living creatures is not proof of evolution but evidence of design. Would not a designer who designed animals use similar building blocks to do so? Would not a grand designer integrate the ability to adapt to the surroundings into his design? Even my car adapts to the surroundings (Wipers go on when it rains, tired change traction in slippery conditions, heater goes on when the temp. goes down, radio gets quiet when the car comes to a stop, air bags pop out when the car has a head-on collision). Even the guys at GM can build adaptation into their design. Do we doubt God is as bright?
Stan, my purpose in this Blog os to point people to the Living God and his Only Son Jesus Christ. The Word says (listen up you 40% of working scientist believers) "Through him all things were made"
Peace Stan and thanks again for visiting.. I probably won't go much more into this because there is plenty of good reading out there for anyone who wants to investigate both sides of the debate..
Thank you for the welcome. Time will tell just how welcome I end up actually being... I'm known for being caustic.
ReplyDeleteJesus believed that Moses wrote the the Pentateuch or the first five books of the Old Testament.
And Jesus was wrong. Unless you mean to suggest that Moses had a scribe documenting his every move, it is highly unlikely that Moses had enough time to pen the entire Pentateuch, and certainly he didn't pen much of it when it was actually happening. Even if you would refuse to grant the above, however, you cannot possibly argue that Moses wrote Deuteronomy 34. If he didn't write that portion, which was not specifically claimed as not-authored by Moses, then it must be possible that he didn't write other portions -- or would you resort to special pleading so soon?
Now let's move on to the definition of a scientist and the qualifications for being able to intelligently discuss and understand the debate at hand.
I'm happy to rescind my remark denouncing your status as 'scientist,' though the accusation regarding your deliberate misuse of the term stands. More damning, however, is the fact that in spite of all of your knowledge and familiarity, you still feel it necessary to trot out blatant misrepresentations approaching the absurdity of the 'crocoduck.'
How would an ocean dwelling mammal, which swims with a whale-like tail (look at the evolutionist's drawings) move onto land and develop legs, slowly over time, and not have an interim tail?
Unless I'm mistaken, "an ocean dwelling mammal, which swims with a whale-like tail," seems to pretty well describe a walrus, a sea lion, or any member of the superfamily Pinnipedia or the order Sirenia.
Transitional species (and a plethora of them) should indeed be present in the fossil record which of course you and I know hasn't been found.
Every species is a transitional species, but even if you would rather something more concrete, I submit Tiktaalik. I'll not spoil the surprise if you haven't heard of it -- look it up. As I understand it, not only is it a clear example of a 'transitional' species (as creationists use the term), but it was found by looking in specific stratum based on a prediction that this sort of creature would be found in it.
Transitional species and prediction rolled into one.
The statement of our innate value is germane to this discussion because the "nonbelieving" evolutionists take this debate to the level of non-directed, un-designed, and random chance formation of life.
ReplyDeleteWhy the intentional misrepresentation? Are you so worried that your position will fail to stand up to the challenge? Evolution is not intentionally directed, but directed it is. It may not be designed, but it is not random, either. Sure, the actual mutations are random, but the only such mutations that stick around are those which are [apparently] inconsequential, or those which are beneficial. The way this is decided is not random. Using the monkeys-on-a-typewriter analogy, it would be like allowing monkeys to type, but fixing characters where a benefit, or inconsequential change, takes place. Doing this would necessarily result in the works of Shakespeare, for example, if a sufficient length of time were provided. Luckily for Darwin, the biggest direct obstacle to the ToE was the age of the sun -- at the time Origin was published, the sun was thought to be radiating heat away with no internal source. Kelvin famously calculated its age to be about 30 million years old, which was far too young for Darwin's theory.
Can you honestly and seriously use those words ["dishonest rhetoric and tactics"] and not apply them to evolutionists who dispel intelligent design.
Insofar as dishonesty is an unfortunate attribute which is all-too-prevalent in humans, the vast majority of dishonesty in the evolution-creationism debates lies on the side of the creationists. Of that there is little doubt. Sure, the love of money (including fame) affects people such that they seek to further their personal agenda -- which has nothing to do with science or truth, but only to do with financial or academic notoriety -- but aside from the scam-artists (who are equal-opportunity), the dishonesty is, as I've said, predominantly a creationist tool.
Let's be honest and admit that there is rhetoric and deception in all heated debates of this scale, so let's not be too quick to point fingers.
To be clear here, I wasn't pointing fingers at any particular position's general tactics (in spite of the above), but I was pointing fingers at you. If you have the background and familiarity you claim, then you have no excuse for clearly misrepresenting the ToE. Dishonesty is not an exclusive domain, but right now in this blog, it sure seems to be. I mean not to insult, but intentional misrepresentation is indeed dishonesty. If you would accuse me of the same, let's hear it.
DNA is by far the best evidence for a creator and does little for the defense of evolution.
ReplyDeleteUmmm. No. DNA is actually the best evidence for the ToE. If you don't believe me, ask Dr. Collins. If the ToE were true, we would expect to find a common thread such as DNA, and if we didn't find it, we'd have to either propose multiple independent (and evidently chemically different) formations of life, or we'd have to scrap evolution altogether. Since DNA wasn't even discovered until ten years after Darwin published Origin, and wasn't at all understood until fifty to a hundred years later, one can hardly argue that Darwin had this evidence available to support his claim -- which makes it all the more amazing a discovery, really.
With your claim, however, we find the opposite. For creationists to claim that DNA supports creation and/or ID, they had to know about DNA in the first place -- they retroactively refit the data to their model, and have the audacity to claim that it is the evolutionist who does this instead. If there were ID, we'd expect to see nothing in the way of 'vestigial organs,' we'd expect to see clear differences between species and higher order taxa, and we'd expect that things like ERVs wouldn't exist to further illustrate the veracity of the ToE.
Time + Chance? Impossible.
Although it's not exactly that simple, your response is still question-begging. It's like saying that time + wind couldn't possibly shape the dunes of the Sahara the way they appeared last Wednesday. Given a specific pattern, you seem to claim that it is impossible for that specific pattern to emerge given enough time. In the simple case of poker, that is easily enough shown to be pure fiction -- as unlikely as the odds are, a given player could just as well be dealt a straight-flush as he could be dealt 7-high. In fact, the odds are actually better that any straight-flush would be dealt versus any 7-high hand.
All of this notwithstanding, the bigger problem is that humans cannot reliably detect design in the first place. Human intuition actually infers design from virtually everything, and while this intuition is largely helpful in most common experience, it is actually harmful if we seek to accurately identify design, and it fails completely when we consider things which are not common experiences (e.g. QM, Relativity, etc.).
Irreducible complexity.
Unsupported assertion. Your response (and Behe's, who you are apparently channeling here) will of course be that 'goddidit,' but if you're arguing that DNA, certain complex adaptations and cellular features, etc., are too complex to have spontaneously developed (which is, of course, a misrepresentation), how can you jump from that "irreducible complexity" to the infinitely complex? If DNA, or bacterial flagella, are too complex to have developed through gradual means, then so much the worse for the alleged designer.
Would not a designer who designed animals use similar building blocks to do so? Would not a grand designer integrate the ability to adapt to the surroundings into his design?
Are you honestly suggesting that DNA and adaptability are better evidence for a designer than they are for the ToE? Do you not realize how stupid that sounds? The ToE could not work if adaptability and something like DNA weren't present. If you propose an intelligent designer, however, all bets are off -- anything would be possible if that were the case.
--
Stan
Stan,
ReplyDeleteJesus was concidered by many to be caustic so far be it from me to point fingers. I would like to know your scientific background for the record so that those reading can know where you come from. You are passionate and I respect that. Not that I don't want to or am able to debate you further but my ministry reaches far beyond the evolution/ID/creation debate. I have, without reservation, posted your comments for all to read and would ask the readers to take it from here. I would only ask that you, for a brief moment, set aside your firm grasp on your beliefs and think. I have lived on both sides of this issue and have argued from both sides. I was blessed to experience God and see this from a new set of eyes.
Given the proposed age of the earth (4.54 billion years) and hoping you agree that "life" likely didn't start on day one, do you find it plausible that life as we know it (the human body and the diveristy of live)developed by mutations and natural selection? Oops... oops... wow! Cool new structure that sees light.. I can find food better.. I live, my cousin ed dies because he has no new light sensor.. My genes pass on. Score one for radiation and injury to my DNA. If you do then great.. I do not. One day we will both know the answer without a doubt. By the way, Jesus was not wrong regarding the scriptures and if Joshua or another wrote the epilogue to the Books of Moses, I don't think it changes the fact of Moses' authorship. If Jesus was and could be wrong, I'll close up shop and take up a blog on what's new in Hollywood. Peace Stan and thanks for taking such a huge amount of time here. May God bless you and keep you! David
I would like to know your scientific background for the record so that those reading can know where you come from.
ReplyDeleteI am a non-traditional undergraduate physics major. My exposure to biology and evolution is based more on personal research than formal education, my knowledge of geology is sketchy at best, and my knowledge of physics is solid, yet growing. I have extensive real-world experience in computers (programming, networking, administration, support), and I am a former Christian with a solid familiarity with the bible. I am unafraid of engaging on any topic, but I am careful to research and cite sources as appropriate -- not just those supporting my position, but those which oppose it -- in the interest of fairness and expanding my own knowledge.
I would only ask that you, for a brief moment, set aside your firm grasp on your beliefs and think.
Insofar as I may be open to new information, it is only fair that you apply this criterion to yourself as well.
Given the proposed age of the earth (4.54 billion years)...
You mean the apparent age of the earth, as given by multiple converging lines of evidence.
If you do [find it plausible that a caricature of evolution is plausible] then great.. I do not.
Ignoring the continued gross misrepresentation, I do indeed find evolution plausible -- far more plausible than the combined claims of semi-literalist interpretations of fundamentalist Christianity. The apparent ages of the earth, the solar system, and the universe cannot reasonably be argued by anyone with a modicum of knowledge in the fields which provide this evidence. Evolution not only requires timetables of this magnitude, but it predicted the same (with the aid of geology). If you wish to assert young-earth creationism, including Noah's flood and the rest of the Old Testament (including miracles), I'm happy to engage any points you might try to make. That position is, as I've come to recognize, quite untenable.
Jesus was not wrong regarding the scriptures and if Joshua or another wrote the epilogue to the Books of Moses, I don't think it changes the fact of Moses' authorship.
If the Pentateuch is nowhere explicitly identified as the work of a specific author, and if Deuteronomy 34 cannot have been penned by Moses, then it is just as likely that other sections of the Pentateuch may not have been written by him, either. You cannot argue that "Joshua or another wrote the epilogue," while maintaining that Moses wrote the rest, without resorting to special pleading.
If nothing else, I'll lurk and possibly post comments on other interesting threads I find here, and I look forward to the unleashed hounds of I-61...
--
Stan