I appreciate the end disclaimer. I was raised in a non-denominational Evangelical megachurch, and growing up I would hear this same argument over and over and over again, I think the pastor used to preach it, that believing in evolution is like blowing up a pile of lumber, paint, and sheetrock and expecting to get a house. It’s kinda like a weird, inverted Watchmaker analogy or something… I never like that argument, even at single-digits of age. Surprise, surprise, then, when I finally learned basic evolutionary theory in freshman bio that it was a lot more compelling than I had been told, which I fully expected but severely underestimated. For example, some of the structure diagrams that would show analogous bone structures between the limbs of a whale, turtle, bird, bat, human, cat, dog, horse, and tortoise, etc. That was what actually pushed me from implicit agnosticism and even explicit agnosticism over to atheism. Even when I became a Protestant myself about a year later, I held on to Darwinian Evolutionary Theory through another semester before starting to really fall upon the incompatibility between it and the Bible. It took me a lot longer to shake Existentialism/Nihilism though, but I digress, lol. Basically, for me the very, very bottom bar to talking about evolution is that the parties involved must at least understand or be willing to be briefly introduced to the idea that in Darwinian Evolutionary Theory individuals do not evolve, populations do. A test of understanding this is if they can explain why the Theory doesn’t claim the humans came from chimpanzees, or that it doesn’t claim that humans came from apes but that they are apes. Once they get that and grasp what’s being claimed by the proposition that all life on earth are literal cousins, even us with cats and broccoli and the Plague and tapeworms, going all the way back to “LUCA”. Also, a distinction I’ve seen atheists often bring up, which therefore is probably useful to know, is the one between Darwinian Evolution and Abiogenesis. Darwinian Evolution doesn’t actually claim how life began in the first place, which is what Abiogenesis (genesis=beginning, abio= not life, i.e., the beginning of life from non-living processes) attempts to explain. Darwinian Evolution simply says that life is and attempts to explain the diversification of that life and the origin of species and adaptation and survival of the fittest, that sort of thing. Side note: is it any wonder morality would be so bankrupt when we’re being told we and everyone else are literal animals and cosmic accidents for no reason and with no ultimate consequences to face which could be stripped from us at any second from the unfeeling universe impersonally playing itself out through physics and chemistry and biology?
Do not confuse the economia of the Old Testament with the meaning word of God. More properly it was the word of God until Christ came to fulfill the Testament. There is no meaning in calling yourself a Christian while rejecting Christ. Science is the study of God, since God is all there is. The myths of the book of Genesis which have their origin in Mesopotamian mythologies, are not a substitute for the Gospels, the Fathers of the Church, the liturgy and the Synods, indeed of the Christian Church as a whole.
Evolution in the sense of a monkey becoming a person is nonsense but a monkey becoming 30 different types of monkeys is absolutely a thing and highlights how brilliant God is.
@@lesscoRyden Humans are a subset of "monkeys" (Simiiformes or Anthropoids) though. The same processes which can produce 30 different species of monkeys is the same one that can bring about different "types" of Anthropoids. You are setting an arbitrary barrier without any objective barrier showing such demarcation
Welp, I'm befuddled now. I went from being a YEC to a theist evolutionist about a decade ago, over a period of probably 15 years. Your videos back then played at least a small part in showing me how one could hold to evolution AND have a historic Christian faith. I was a bit humbled by the fact that a 14 year old - you - could know so much about science, and learned quite a bit from you, even though I was in my late 30s at the time. Honestly, at this point (almost 50 now), I don't know if I can go back to YEC...I feel like I have seen too much about common ancestry now to unsee it. Have you removed all those videos from your TE days? They were fun, educational and entertaining.
You haven’t seen anything. You’ve just deeply ingrained the worldview so that you view EVERYTHING though that lens. I’m speaking from experience btw because I also used to believe Darwinism and try to balance its religion with Christianity.
This is true for most “science” as it often referenced, although scientific theory or opinion, even consensus, would be closer to the case, also it is very important to keep in mind, bias always finds a way into people’s, including scientists and historians etc., and the theory of evolution has reached the level of dogma, if not quasi religious, for the western, indeed, global, contemporary society and public sphere.
@@pierceh.5670 Yeah, some creationist scientists have recently criticized atheist scientists’ reactions to the new data from the James Webb Space Telescope, like for example how we saw galaxies already having complex structure way earlier than expected, so many theories have just pushed the dates back, and if we discover older galaxies again they may just push it back again. At this point it’s not so much about the data in such a case but maintaining the general narrative
On the other hand, The myths in the Book of Genesis is what Christians recorded about what the ancient Jews thought about the myths of ancient Mesopotamian civilisations such as the Assyrians (e.g. Noah's Ark) or the Babylonians (e.g. Garden of Eden) which were transmitted orally over many generations and passed around from one mythology to the next at a time when no encyclopaedic knowledge existed at all.
Actually, evolution is extremely well evidenced with causal relationships of data showing common ancestry, faunal succession, biogeographical relationships, genomic correlations to the same, and so on. We can test this predictively in everything from vaccine research to Petroleum mining. We know more than squat, we know 'where' to squat.
A lot of those protestant YEC’s are good at simplifying and explaining the *scientific* arguments against Darwinism. They fall short in terms of tying the facts in with Christianity because of their limited understanding of Holy Scripture. Father Seraphim Rose is, in my opinion, the main person for Orthodox Christian’s to look towards for answers on this subject because he looks at it through a Patristic lens.
On pain of heresy you have to believe that Noah cut little circular holes in the roof of the ark, so the bigraffes could stick their heads out. In seriousness, there are problems with the way the Church interprets Genesis, and particularly the question of whether there was death in the world before the fall of Adam. This doesn't refute creationism itself, but begs the question of how it truly occurred. For one thing, some dinosaurs (or dragons) clearly ate flesh, which means that death was part of the economy of existence from their inception. The notion that all of creation fell with Adam, in such a way that death first came into the world 6000 years ago is simply not adequately proved anywhere. If we take as a fact that Adam existed in a special place called the Garden of Eden, whicb was separate and distinct from the rest of creation, we can clearly see that Adam's fall ended the particular state of immortality he enjoyed in the presence of the Tree of Life. But if he needed the Tree of Life to be immortal, then death already existed as a potential for ordinary created flesh, didn't it? What seems most likely is that the Garden of Eden and Adam's formation (not creation) occurred more or less exactly when the Church reckoned, about 7000 years ago. But that outside of the Garden there was a world of theistic evolution in which already existed both man and woman, large carnivores, and death. The reason death was already in the world was because the War in Heaven and the fall of Lucifer had already come to pass eons ago, such that Christ was the, "lamb slain from the foundation of the world." In other words, the physical universe came into existence after the fall of Lucifer, and was permitted to be the battleground between the titanic forces of God and the fallen angels. Which is also why there are ancient "alien" races flying around in space, which are in fact demons. Lucifer was cast down into the physical universe from the spiritual heavens, and the chaos of death was also found wherever he went. Basically, Lucifer screwed up the blueprints of the physical creation from before they began, which is why the entire cosmos will be destroyed and reborn in the final eschaton. Otherwise, it would be saved, not destroyed completely.
Some how i knew this kid would eventually leave evolution when he grew up. Feelings are stronger than reason for some ppl. I bet old kabanne as a kid would refute the new kabanne's arguments for creationism hands down. lol, anyway I hope he found inner peace.
Considering that he was always a theistic evolutionist, and his knowledge of the subject was 'pre-teen' I wouldn't have doubted his departure either. I've seen his blog documenting his 'path' to YECism, but he subscribes to a lot of pseudoscience that he apparently always held to even in his younger days, so it fits.
We could just be horribly wrong about the evidence. One thing to note is that the modern perception of the age of the earth is based on a ton of presuppositions about how long these processes would take absent a creator. We know that evolution in the sense that the secular world uses it would need millions of years to work. Well, they've decided that evolution is true so that means the earth must be old.
@@showmeanedge There are other things like genetics and that support evolution. Also it explains why animals share physiology so closely. A common example is, every vertebrate has a laryngeal nerve that takes the same path around the heart. In a fish, It takes a direct path from the brain, around the heart, to the gills, but in a human it goes from the brain, past the larynx, down the neck, around the heart, back up the neck and finely to the larynx. The same thing happens in a giraffe. Evolution seems like a good explanation for why this is the case. This doesn't change my faith in God but it's just a curiosity.
@@showmeanedge For me, my faith in God doesn't hinge on whether evolution is true or not. I agree that the overall narrative of evolution as an atheist creation story is loaded with wild presuppositions like you said, but hear me out. In the Garden of Eden there was no death yet all the animals were created and existed in that state. This is very different from the state of the fallen world. Animals in the fallen world need to fight for survival and must adapt to changing environments. Animals look well adapted to a world, which is much different than the world they were crated for. What if, during the fall all of evolutionary history, and geological history was generated, by the fall, to account for and enable animals to survive in this fallen state. There is genetic evidence that the human population dropped close to extinction at one point. That could be the point of the fall, when Adam and Eve were the only two humans. All the apparent history before that could have been generated to basically "catch them up" to the fallen world. Or maybe its evidence of the flood, I'm not sure. That being said, I'm not at all married to that idea. I just think its and interesting possibility and i haven't heard it before. Maybe all the evidence for evolution is total bogus. Aberrations of a incorrect worldview as you say. I'm not bothered by that.
@@Blenzo480 a very cogent and well thought out reply. It could very well be that the evidence was generated during the fall. It was a very different world back then. I'm still trying to wrap my head around Adam and Eve being allegorical in a sense. I'm aware of the genetic bottleneck but I always took it as evidence that there were two people just as the Bible says. It strikes me as odd to infer that there were many people before the fall and then most of them died out entirely as a way of accounting for the evidence. We're told Abel died, Cain was banished, Seth was born and we're given his lineage but if their parents were just allegorical how do we know where to pick up the thread? It seems to imply that Seth is the first historical person noted in the Bible but that interchange between allegorical parents and historical Seth is a puzzler to me. The nice thing about mulling this over with a fellow Christian is that we can actually have an interesting discussion with depth. I'll just say that my instinct is to take these things literally until specifically instructed not to. When we're talking to the world about God I don't see the harm in this approach - we're bound to affirm the birth to a virgin, death and resurrection of our Lord. This is already foolishness to the wisdom of the world. If we proclaim it boldly as a matter of duty it seems a bit.. disingenuous to become parsimonious about other supernatural aspects of the Bible. Through Him all things are possible etc. It's something to think about. Bless you, brother. 🙏☦️
Do you think speciation by natural selection is inaccurate or is it more likely a consequence of the fall? As far as I know it can be genetically demonstrated but it could just be misleading conjecture. In any case, idiosyncratic traits being focused in on over generations sounds like a dispersion/corruption in itself but I haven't thought it through a ton.
Speciation & variations within species relies on existing genetic information. The original animals in that group would have had all the necessary genetic code needed to produce such a creature, which was produced overtime via breeding. It is scientifically impossible for new genes to be created by natural selection. This is something we don’t observe. No reptile will gain the genetic code for feathers under any circumstances. No human will gain the genetic code for gills under any circumstances. For every organism that has something, it’s earliest ancestor must have also had it. If a rabbit lives in a hot climate and grows longer ears to cool off, it is possible *only* because the original rabbit ancestor already had the genes for ears. The only difference is the size and maybe fur, blood flow, muscles etc… around the ear. All of these things already existed in their ancestor. Remember it’s “natural selection” not “natural creation”. It can only select from the existing gene pool.
@@nickkerinklio8239 Makes sense, as far as I know though if populations are separated and existing genes are changed to a high enough degree, first they would choose not to mate therefore exacerbating the changes then to the point they are no longer genetically compatible. I'm not trying to claim any jumps from asexual to sexual reproduction, or a horse to a donkey for example, just trying to figure out the role of genetic changes in a creationist model.
@@DoctorLazertron the whole world was made to be inhabited originally. Every plant and animal lived on all parts of the earth. God designed them with the ability to change so that after the flood there could be life surviving in all climates of the world with their changing seasons.
@@nickkerinklio8239 Well said. What I was commenting on was kind of referring to dispersion into smaller and smaller identities after the fall, similar to protestant denominations leaning into specificities after schism. I was wondering if it was a function of survival in a fallen world or a natural consequence of death being introduced to the world. I hadn't considered the flood relating to it. I've always just bought evolution because some of the main aspects are observably true but lately am more and more skeptical so, just need a place for the reality of adaptation and it's starting to come together. Appreciate your input.
@@nickkerinklio82396 months too late but this is the worst interpretation of natural selection I’ve ever read you have a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution dawg but it’s ok keep looking into it if you really care
I wish you would redo this video. The audio was off. You see to be distracted pausing in the middle of sentences. I'm waiting for you to say why you're a young earth adherent and left puzzled at the end. I'm an Orthodox Christian of 25 plus years. I've been a doubter of the Genesis account as being literal history. You might say I'm agnostic about creation vs theistic evolution. That is I'm undecided and even consider it unimportant to have an opinion. I have a friend was went from Orthodox to atheist over this issue. Sadly he has reposed since then. I do believe that it shouldn't have caused him to lose his faith. That said I'd be interested if you readdress this in a better video on the topic. I know you're more than capable of this...
We see that non-Christian faiths such as Islam view death as Allah's will, designed and planned by Allah. Is this compatible with Orthodoxy? Spiritual Vision sees God as warning man about death, not planning it. The two serpents of Pharaoh. Who swallowed those? It's the Noetic Serpent. Creation is a Spiritual Vision and also the fruit of Spiritual Vision, not rational knowledge. We should gently guide young men to acquire Spiritual Vision, not become stuck in the first degree of Spiritual illumination. Faith is higher than reason. Our Tradition is the True Wisdom.
Mr. Hamilton, you excel at theology, so you'll always know it better than I do and maybe better than I can. But I'm an old-earther who believes in natural selection and rejects Darwin's theory. That's because it can't explain animal body plans. In my opinion, young-earth creationism can harm faithful Christians. Suppose I teach my children young-earth creationism when homeschooling them. But I don't teach them what Darwin believed since I think it's false. They go to a university where their degree programs require them to take evolutionary biology. Their professors convince them that Darwin was right and that though God might be real, science doesn't need him. My children enter the university as devout Christians and leave it as agnostics or athetheists because they weren't equipped to argue against YEC. Had they done that, it might have lowered their grades in that course. I'm not suggesting that they would need to lie to protect their grade point averages. No, they can show that the understand what they've learned without believing it. Another point seems woth considering. Catholics and maybe the Eastern Orthodox faithful distinguish between creation, concurrence, and and conservation. All three works stand for basically the same thing. God creates an object by making it exist, even it has always existed. He conserves or sustains it by continuing to give it existence. If he stopped doing that, the object would get annihilated. Concurrence means that he gives his creatures their causal abilities. If populations evolve by random mutation and natural selection, that presupposes creation in the sense I've described. That's because natural objects and natural processes depend on God. If there was no God, there would be nothingess. So I like to tell atheistic evolutionists that if God didn't exist, there would be no gaps in the fossil record since there would be nothing at all. I think there;s a moderate position to take between young-earth creationism and Neo-Darwinism. That position seems right to me partly because young-earth creationists must explain away evidence against YEC. Maybe you're right about YEC. If you're right about it, I'm mistaken. But I can't believe YEC at least for now.
Evolution is a true fact, please deal with it rather than embarass all Christians outside America. The Old Testament was a collection of random stories often contradicting each other and reality itself. "Canonical" does not mean a book of scientific facts.
@@jg36 The Bible is not written by Christian authors and God did not say he wrote it himself. To begin with, if you ever managed to read past the first page of the Book of Genesis, you would have realised that the second page has a different creation story that had nothing to do with the sequence of creation on the first page. It would have been a very dumb God, a god who started writing a Bible and by the second page is already contradicting himself. Only Protestants, Jews and the Roman Inquisition consider the Old Testament written by God.
Evolution isn’t a true fact and should be held to the same account as the existence of God The Old Testament is not a collection of random stories and you have no justification for reality in atheism so it “contradicting reality itself” is not an argument you can make, whereas God in the Bible would be the answer to all transcendentals so obviously God would be capable of doing absurd things I’d love for you to point out the “often contradictions”, although I’m about 95% sure you have not touched the Bible just from that statement
@@jg36 - The Old Testament has been superceded by the New, otherwise you do not believe that Christ fulfilled the Trstament and therefore you are not a Christian. The Old Testament is only of interest today in the context of Economia. If you do not understand what economia is, you cannot be an Orthodox Christian. God is all around us as all he created is created through his energies. It is also created through the Son who is Logos (e.g. Nicene Creed). If you do not believe in the Nicene Creed you are not a Christian. It is ok, to be Jewish, just do not pretend to be a Christian.
I appreciate the end disclaimer. I was raised in a non-denominational Evangelical megachurch, and growing up I would hear this same argument over and over and over again, I think the pastor used to preach it, that believing in evolution is like blowing up a pile of lumber, paint, and sheetrock and expecting to get a house. It’s kinda like a weird, inverted Watchmaker analogy or something… I never like that argument, even at single-digits of age.
Surprise, surprise, then, when I finally learned basic evolutionary theory in freshman bio that it was a lot more compelling than I had been told, which I fully expected but severely underestimated. For example, some of the structure diagrams that would show analogous bone structures between the limbs of a whale, turtle, bird, bat, human, cat, dog, horse, and tortoise, etc. That was what actually pushed me from implicit agnosticism and even explicit agnosticism over to atheism. Even when I became a Protestant myself about a year later, I held on to Darwinian Evolutionary Theory through another semester before starting to really fall upon the incompatibility between it and the Bible. It took me a lot longer to shake Existentialism/Nihilism though, but I digress, lol.
Basically, for me the very, very bottom bar to talking about evolution is that the parties involved must at least understand or be willing to be briefly introduced to the idea that in Darwinian Evolutionary Theory individuals do not evolve, populations do. A test of understanding this is if they can explain why the Theory doesn’t claim the humans came from chimpanzees, or that it doesn’t claim that humans came from apes but that they are apes. Once they get that and grasp what’s being claimed by the proposition that all life on earth are literal cousins, even us with cats and broccoli and the Plague and tapeworms, going all the way back to “LUCA”.
Also, a distinction I’ve seen atheists often bring up, which therefore is probably useful to know, is the one between Darwinian Evolution and Abiogenesis. Darwinian Evolution doesn’t actually claim how life began in the first place, which is what Abiogenesis (genesis=beginning, abio= not life, i.e., the beginning of life from non-living processes) attempts to explain. Darwinian Evolution simply says that life is and attempts to explain the diversification of that life and the origin of species and adaptation and survival of the fittest, that sort of thing.
Side note: is it any wonder morality would be so bankrupt when we’re being told we and everyone else are literal animals and cosmic accidents for no reason and with no ultimate consequences to face which could be stripped from us at any second from the unfeeling universe impersonally playing itself out through physics and chemistry and biology?
I believe in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. If Science contradicts Bible, it’s bad for the Science, because Bible is the Word of God.
low IQ cope tbh
Do not confuse the economia of the Old Testament with the meaning word of God. More properly it was the word of God until Christ came to fulfill the Testament. There is no meaning in calling yourself a Christian while rejecting Christ. Science is the study of God, since God is all there is. The myths of the book of Genesis which have their origin in Mesopotamian mythologies, are not a substitute for the Gospels, the Fathers of the Church, the liturgy and the Synods, indeed of the Christian Church as a whole.
You're gonna have to evidence that at least as well as science does for itself.
@davidbutler1857 so dogmatic despite mounting evidence to the contrary?
@@KittSpikenMake a list of this mounting
If evolution is true how come Adam named ALL the animals in Genesis?
Evolution in the sense of a monkey becoming a person is nonsense but a monkey becoming 30 different types of monkeys is absolutely a thing and highlights how brilliant God is.
@@lesscoRyden Humans are a subset of "monkeys" (Simiiformes or Anthropoids) though. The same processes which can produce 30 different species of monkeys is the same one that can bring about different "types" of Anthropoids. You are setting an arbitrary barrier without any objective barrier showing such demarcation
@@lesscoRyden Why would that be nonsense ?
@@tamanwar203because things give birth to their kind
@@Gofawand that’s how evolution works to, we are still tetrapods and primates but also humans
Welp, I'm befuddled now. I went from being a YEC to a theist evolutionist about a decade ago, over a period of probably 15 years. Your videos back then played at least a small part in showing me how one could hold to evolution AND have a historic Christian faith. I was a bit humbled by the fact that a 14 year old - you - could know so much about science, and learned quite a bit from you, even though I was in my late 30s at the time. Honestly, at this point (almost 50 now), I don't know if I can go back to YEC...I feel like I have seen too much about common ancestry now to unsee it.
Have you removed all those videos from your TE days? They were fun, educational and entertaining.
What common ancestry?
@@novaxdjokovic9592 Of all life
I am also a theistic evolutionist orthodox Christian and I want to see those videos.
You haven’t seen anything. You’ve just deeply ingrained the worldview so that you view EVERYTHING though that lens.
I’m speaking from experience btw because I also used to believe Darwinism and try to balance its religion with Christianity.
@@ionictheist349
What about the Fall causing the distant past, but retroactively? Time without entropy is a very strange concept to us, so 🤔
Not Evolution Instead OF Creation
Evolution FROM Creation.
Amen
Evolution is just what “we think we know” but we don’t know squat.
Or what we think we’ve figured out about what we think we know
This is true for most “science” as it often referenced, although scientific theory or opinion, even consensus, would be closer to the case, also it is very important to keep in mind, bias always finds a way into people’s, including scientists and historians etc., and the theory of evolution has reached the level of dogma, if not quasi religious, for the western, indeed, global, contemporary society and public sphere.
@@pierceh.5670
Yeah, some creationist scientists have recently criticized atheist scientists’ reactions to the new data from the James Webb Space Telescope, like for example how we saw galaxies already having complex structure way earlier than expected, so many theories have just pushed the dates back, and if we discover older galaxies again they may just push it back again. At this point it’s not so much about the data in such a case but maintaining the general narrative
On the other hand, The myths in the Book of Genesis is what Christians recorded about what the ancient Jews thought about the myths of ancient Mesopotamian civilisations such as the Assyrians (e.g. Noah's Ark) or the Babylonians (e.g. Garden of Eden) which were transmitted orally over many generations and passed around from one mythology to the next at a time when no encyclopaedic knowledge existed at all.
Actually, evolution is extremely well evidenced with causal relationships of data showing common ancestry, faunal succession, biogeographical relationships, genomic correlations to the same, and so on.
We can test this predictively in everything from vaccine research to Petroleum mining.
We know more than squat, we know 'where' to squat.
I used to believe in evolution but came to realize as an Orthodox Christian that it is heresy, even apostasy,
What is your justification for that claim?
Oh dang Kabane was in the 2000s creationist UA-cam sphere. Do you remember Jesusfreek777, Venomfangx, RabidApe, Thunderf00t, etc?
Kent Hovind speculation was WIIIIILD! I had a great time with that, lol
Does anybody know about Jason Lisle? He's a Protestant but YE and seems pretty solid.
A lot of those protestant YEC’s are good at simplifying and explaining the *scientific* arguments against Darwinism.
They fall short in terms of tying the facts in with Christianity because of their limited understanding of Holy Scripture. Father Seraphim Rose is, in my opinion, the main person for Orthodox Christian’s to look towards for answers on this subject because he looks at it through a Patristic lens.
Excellent discussion, Seraphim.
On pain of heresy you have to believe that Noah cut little circular holes in the roof of the ark, so the bigraffes could stick their heads out.
In seriousness, there are problems with the way the Church interprets Genesis, and particularly the question of whether there was death in the world before the fall of Adam. This doesn't refute creationism itself, but begs the question of how it truly occurred. For one thing, some dinosaurs (or dragons) clearly ate flesh, which means that death was part of the economy of existence from their inception. The notion that all of creation fell with Adam, in such a way that death first came into the world 6000 years ago is simply not adequately proved anywhere. If we take as a fact that Adam existed in a special place called the Garden of Eden, whicb was separate and distinct from the rest of creation, we can clearly see that Adam's fall ended the particular state of immortality he enjoyed in the presence of the Tree of Life. But if he needed the Tree of Life to be immortal, then death already existed as a potential for ordinary created flesh, didn't it? What seems most likely is that the Garden of Eden and Adam's formation (not creation) occurred more or less exactly when the Church reckoned, about 7000 years ago. But that outside of the Garden there was a world of theistic evolution in which already existed both man and woman, large carnivores, and death. The reason death was already in the world was because the War in Heaven and the fall of Lucifer had already come to pass eons ago, such that Christ was the, "lamb slain from the foundation of the world." In other words, the physical universe came into existence after the fall of Lucifer, and was permitted to be the battleground between the titanic forces of God and the fallen angels. Which is also why there are ancient "alien" races flying around in space, which are in fact demons. Lucifer was cast down into the physical universe from the spiritual heavens, and the chaos of death was also found wherever he went. Basically, Lucifer screwed up the blueprints of the physical creation from before they began, which is why the entire cosmos will be destroyed and reborn in the final eschaton. Otherwise, it would be saved, not destroyed completely.
Some how i knew this kid would eventually leave evolution when he grew up. Feelings are stronger than reason for some ppl. I bet old kabanne as a kid would refute the new kabanne's arguments for creationism hands down. lol, anyway I hope he found inner peace.
Considering that he was always a theistic evolutionist, and his knowledge of the subject was 'pre-teen' I wouldn't have doubted his departure either. I've seen his blog documenting his 'path' to YECism, but he subscribes to a lot of pseudoscience that he apparently always held to even in his younger days, so it fits.
Could geological and evolutionary history just be a byproduct of the fall?
We could just be horribly wrong about the evidence.
One thing to note is that the modern perception of the age of the earth is based on a ton of presuppositions about how long these processes would take absent a creator. We know that evolution in the sense that the secular world uses it would need millions of years to work. Well, they've decided that evolution is true so that means the earth must be old.
@@showmeanedge There are other things like genetics and that support evolution. Also it explains why animals share physiology so closely. A common example is, every vertebrate has a laryngeal nerve that takes the same path around the heart. In a fish, It takes a direct path from the brain, around the heart, to the gills, but in a human it goes from the brain, past the larynx, down the neck, around the heart, back up the neck and finely to the larynx. The same thing happens in a giraffe. Evolution seems like a good explanation for why this is the case. This doesn't change my faith in God but it's just a curiosity.
@@Blenzo480 God used the same general principles to design life. That doesn't seem unintuitive. He made all the planets round as well.
@@showmeanedge For me, my faith in God doesn't hinge on whether evolution is true or not. I agree that the overall narrative of evolution as an atheist creation story is loaded with wild presuppositions like you said, but hear me out.
In the Garden of Eden there was no death yet all the animals were created and existed in that state. This is very different from the state of the fallen world. Animals in the fallen world need to fight for survival and must adapt to changing environments. Animals look well adapted to a world, which is much different than the world they were crated for. What if, during the fall all of evolutionary history, and geological history was generated, by the fall, to account for and enable animals to survive in this fallen state.
There is genetic evidence that the human population dropped close to extinction at one point. That could be the point of the fall, when Adam and Eve were the only two humans. All the apparent history before that could have been generated to basically "catch them up" to the fallen world. Or maybe its evidence of the flood, I'm not sure.
That being said, I'm not at all married to that idea. I just think its and interesting possibility and i haven't heard it before. Maybe all the evidence for evolution is total bogus. Aberrations of a incorrect worldview as you say. I'm not bothered by that.
@@Blenzo480 a very cogent and well thought out reply. It could very well be that the evidence was generated during the fall. It was a very different world back then. I'm still trying to wrap my head around Adam and Eve being allegorical in a sense.
I'm aware of the genetic bottleneck but I always took it as evidence that there were two people just as the Bible says. It strikes me as odd to infer that there were many people before the fall and then most of them died out entirely as a way of accounting for the evidence. We're told Abel died, Cain was banished, Seth was born and we're given his lineage but if their parents were just allegorical how do we know where to pick up the thread? It seems to imply that Seth is the first historical person noted in the Bible but that interchange between allegorical parents and historical Seth is a puzzler to me.
The nice thing about mulling this over with a fellow Christian is that we can actually have an interesting discussion with depth. I'll just say that my instinct is to take these things literally until specifically instructed not to. When we're talking to the world about God I don't see the harm in this approach - we're bound to affirm the birth to a virgin, death and resurrection of our Lord.
This is already foolishness to the wisdom of the world. If we proclaim it boldly as a matter of duty it seems a bit.. disingenuous to become parsimonious about other supernatural aspects of the Bible. Through Him all things are possible etc.
It's something to think about.
Bless you, brother. 🙏☦️
If theistic evolution contradicts dogma and creates a host of theological problems, then how is it not a dogmatic heresy?
I think he’s leaving room for the theory to be changed in an unexpected way.
Do you think speciation by natural selection is inaccurate or is it more likely a consequence of the fall? As far as I know it can be genetically demonstrated but it could just be misleading conjecture. In any case, idiosyncratic traits being focused in on over generations sounds like a dispersion/corruption in itself but I haven't thought it through a ton.
Speciation & variations within species relies on existing genetic information. The original animals in that group would have had all the necessary genetic code needed to produce such a creature, which was produced overtime via breeding.
It is scientifically impossible for new genes to be created by natural selection. This is something we don’t observe.
No reptile will gain the genetic code for feathers under any circumstances.
No human will gain the genetic code for gills under any circumstances.
For every organism that has something, it’s earliest ancestor must have also had it.
If a rabbit lives in a hot climate and grows longer ears to cool off, it is possible *only* because the original rabbit ancestor already had the genes for ears. The only difference is the size and maybe fur, blood flow, muscles etc… around the ear. All of these things already existed in their ancestor.
Remember it’s “natural selection” not “natural creation”. It can only select from the existing gene pool.
@@nickkerinklio8239 Makes sense, as far as I know though if populations are separated and existing genes are changed to a high enough degree, first they would choose not to mate therefore exacerbating the changes then to the point they are no longer genetically compatible. I'm not trying to claim any jumps from asexual to sexual reproduction, or a horse to a donkey for example, just trying to figure out the role of genetic changes in a creationist model.
@@DoctorLazertron the whole world was made to be inhabited originally. Every plant and animal lived on all parts of the earth. God designed them with the ability to change so that after the flood there could be life surviving in all climates of the world with their changing seasons.
@@nickkerinklio8239 Well said. What I was commenting on was kind of referring to dispersion into smaller and smaller identities after the fall, similar to protestant denominations leaning into specificities after schism. I was wondering if it was a function of survival in a fallen world or a natural consequence of death being introduced to the world. I hadn't considered the flood relating to it. I've always just bought evolution because some of the main aspects are observably true but lately am more and more skeptical so, just need a place for the reality of adaptation and it's starting to come together. Appreciate your input.
@@nickkerinklio82396 months too late but this is the worst interpretation of natural selection I’ve ever read you have a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution dawg but it’s ok keep looking into it if you really care
I wish you would redo this video. The audio was off. You see to be distracted pausing in the middle of sentences. I'm waiting for you to say why you're a young earth adherent and left puzzled at the end.
I'm an Orthodox Christian of 25 plus years. I've been a doubter of the Genesis account as being literal history. You might say I'm agnostic about creation vs theistic evolution. That is I'm undecided and even consider it unimportant to have an opinion. I have a friend was went from Orthodox to atheist over this issue. Sadly he has reposed since then. I do believe that it shouldn't have caused him to lose his faith.
That said I'd be interested if you readdress this in a better video on the topic. I know you're more than capable of this...
This is just a clip from a long stream where I was responding to other questions.
What is your friends name so we can pray for them?
@@nickkerinklio8239 Name: Doofus
We see that non-Christian faiths such as Islam view death as Allah's will, designed and planned by Allah. Is this compatible with Orthodoxy? Spiritual Vision sees God as warning man about death, not planning it. The two serpents of Pharaoh. Who swallowed those? It's the Noetic Serpent. Creation is a Spiritual Vision and also the fruit of Spiritual Vision, not rational knowledge. We should gently guide young men to acquire Spiritual Vision, not become stuck in the first degree of Spiritual illumination. Faith is higher than reason. Our Tradition is the True Wisdom.
You are a Gnostic.
😪
Mr. Hamilton, you excel at theology, so you'll always know it better than I do and maybe better than I can. But I'm an old-earther who believes in natural selection and rejects Darwin's theory. That's because it can't explain animal body plans.
In my opinion, young-earth creationism can harm faithful Christians. Suppose I teach my children young-earth creationism when homeschooling them. But I don't teach them what Darwin believed since I think it's false. They go to a university where their degree programs require them to take evolutionary biology. Their professors convince them that Darwin was right and that though God might be real, science doesn't need him.
My children enter the university as devout Christians and leave it as agnostics or athetheists because they weren't equipped to argue against YEC. Had they done that, it might have lowered their grades in that course. I'm not suggesting that they would need to lie to protect their grade point averages. No, they can show that the understand what they've learned without believing it.
Another point seems woth considering. Catholics and maybe the Eastern Orthodox faithful distinguish between creation, concurrence, and and conservation. All three works stand for basically the same thing. God creates an object by making it exist, even it has always existed. He conserves or sustains it by continuing to give it existence. If he stopped doing that, the object would get annihilated. Concurrence means that he gives his creatures their causal abilities.
If populations evolve by random mutation and natural selection, that presupposes creation in the sense I've described. That's because natural objects and natural processes depend on God. If there was no God, there would be nothingess. So I like to tell atheistic evolutionists that if God didn't exist, there would be no gaps in the fossil record since there would be nothing at all.
I think there;s a moderate position to take between young-earth creationism and Neo-Darwinism. That position seems right to me partly because young-earth creationists must explain away evidence against YEC. Maybe you're right about YEC. If you're right about it, I'm mistaken. But I can't believe YEC at least for now.
Yes. Evolution IS heretical.
Then several of the most important Saints of the Orthodox Church who participated in the Synod of Nicaea would be heretics.
Evolution is a true fact, please deal with it rather than embarass all Christians outside America. The Old Testament was a collection of random stories often contradicting each other and reality itself. "Canonical" does not mean a book of scientific facts.
The Bible is the word of God, and I trust God more than man. “Let God be true, and every man a liar.”
The Bible is the word of God, and I trust God more than man. “Let God be true, and every man a liar.”
@@jg36 The Bible is not written by Christian authors and God did not say he wrote it himself. To begin with, if you ever managed to read past the first page of the Book of Genesis, you would have realised that the second page has a different creation story that had nothing to do with the sequence of creation on the first page. It would have been a very dumb God, a god who started writing a Bible and by the second page is already contradicting himself. Only Protestants, Jews and the Roman Inquisition consider the Old Testament written by God.
Evolution isn’t a true fact and should be held to the same account as the existence of God
The Old Testament is not a collection of random stories and you have no justification for reality in atheism so it “contradicting reality itself” is not an argument you can make, whereas God in the Bible would be the answer to all transcendentals so obviously God would be capable of doing absurd things
I’d love for you to point out the “often contradictions”, although I’m about 95% sure you have not touched the Bible just from that statement
@@jg36 - The Old Testament has been superceded by the New, otherwise you do not believe that Christ fulfilled the Trstament and therefore you are not a Christian. The Old Testament is only of interest today in the context of Economia. If you do not understand what economia is, you cannot be an Orthodox Christian. God is all around us as all he created is created through his energies. It is also created through the Son who is Logos (e.g. Nicene Creed). If you do not believe in the Nicene Creed you are not a Christian. It is ok, to be Jewish, just do not pretend to be a Christian.