https://forms.gle/BwMpaTEHdeogbntU8

I have attached the table here as a PDF file in case anyone is interested or would like to proposes additions, corrections, or comments.

August 2019 update: The Word table now contains 164 views on Historical Adam - Yes, Maybe, No.

Ed note: Updated 4/1/2020

Since I am neither a theologian nor a pastor, I leave any analysis of these views to others. I hope the survey will be helpful to anyone interested in the topic.

Since the term "theistic evolution" seems to be suspect for some reason, perhaps we should call it an "evolutionary creation". This semantic shift makes creation the noun rather than evolution, perhaps for the better.

And that same difference would also distinguish such a divine evolutionistic creation from the Darwinian theory. Evolutionistic creation presupposes a God who first prepares the plan and then omnipotently executes it...

Abbe Georges Lemaitre (Belgian priest with a PhD from MIT) was the first to propose the expanding universe in a scientific manner (1927).  [Edgar Allan Poe had suggested it in a poem written in 1848.]  Lemaitre did this with his knowledge of General Relativity and a couple years before Hubble had discovered the correlation of distance and redshift.  [Hubble never chose to call it expansion leaving theory to the theorists.]

The entrenched Static Theory held the universe essentially immutable, so it seemed a bit absurd to many that our universe may have had a beginning.   Einstein initially looked at Lemaitre's paper and, by some accounts, considered his math as fine but his physics "abominable".  

I think most expect the vote to go without much of a.... Bang!

More on this Cosmoquest forum:

https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthread.php?169860-Praguenosis-in-Vienna-for-Possible-Hubble-Lemaitre-law

Craig has his take on Vilenkin's statement (see the above link) but I wonder if anyone knowledgable of this area of physics might be able to comment as well. I have some very specific questions and I could give exact quotations. 

For anyone interested in seeing the three dialogues, they can be found at  http://vimeo.com/73280102, 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V82uGzgoajI&list=PLJO4GoYCMBwUqhXG759Ag78x7sJ2AgNhB&index=2, and

 http://vimeo.com/73370349.

Krauss sprang the private email on Craig during the second dialogue and they discussed it in the third. 

Would anyone be interested in discussing this who understands how quantum gravity might affect the BGV theorem? 

I am struggle with the essay. I need to write something special because I hate ordinary and boring essay. But now I have lack of writing inspiration. Maybe you can help me? I think maybe I should visit some essay writing website, I know one website -  DissertationEditingHelp. My friend recently ordered some essays and he was happy! 

--Heidi Fuqua-Haviland

heidi.fuqua@berkeley.edu

This informative and enjoyable book tells about the Piltdown hoax and the fake drawings of Ernst Haeckel, the famous advocate of Darwinism in Germany. There is another hoax about evolution that has not yet been exposed. It is widely believed by physicists that evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics, according to which nature tends to go from order to disorder. In fact, the American Journal of Physics published an article ("Entropy and evolution," Am. J. Phys., Vol. 76, No. 11, November 2008) and a note ("Evolution and the second law of thermodynamics," Am. J. Phys., Vol. 77, No. 10, October 2009) with fake calculations proving that the second law is not violated. The truth is that the second law does not apply to biological evolution or the evolution of stars.

The idea that a living organism is a thermodynamic system is similar to the absurd idea that natural selection acting upon innovations explains how mammals evolved from bacteria in only 3.5 billion years. It takes a fertilized egg 18 years to produce all of the cells in a human. (I know because my urologist told me the prostate gland stops growing at this age and starts growing again at the age of 30, so much for intelligent design.) Not enough is known about the innovations natural selection acts upon to understand how the same thing happened with a bacterium as the starting point. Evolutionary biologists always speak of "adaptive evolution." Darwin expressed this by saying it was "absurd in the highest degree" to think natural selection gave us the human eye.

Windchy sees in this quote from Charles Darwin some kind of self-delusion. He also misrepresents the way mainstream biologists rebut the idea of "irreducible complexity" put forth by advocates of intelligent design. It is not rebutted it in peer-reviewed journals and biology textbooks, but it is ridiculed only in popular books, magazines, and lectures.

Windchy thinks the theory of intelligent design is reasonable. I think it is irrational because there is no evidence for it. But it is also dishonest not to admit that intelligent design is a better theory than natural selection, in some sense. This raises the question of why one side in this conflict about evolutionary biology is irrational and the other side is dishonest. The general answer is that evolution is related to religion, and religion causes conflict between people. Conflict causes anxiety, and inhibition is a defense mechanism for anxiety. Advocates of intelligent design and their opponents are inhibited from thinking rationally and behaving honestly.

My theory is that both sides don't understand the cosmological argument for God's existence. See: The One and the Many: A Contemporary Thomistic Metaphysics. They both think the argument has to do with the Big Bang and a "first cause." The cosmological argument is based on the observation that human beings have free will. This means humans are finite beings, as well as embodied spirits. Since a finite being needs a cause, an infinite being exists if the universe is intelligible. Hindus and Buddhists have a different terminology, but in the West we call the infinite being God.

God was motivated to create finite beings because He loved Himself as giving. But He just as well could love Himself without giving. We don't explain our existence by thinking God created us and keeps us in existence, and we can't use God's existence to answer scientific questions. The evidence that the universe is intelligible is the success of the scientific method and the fact that things don't pop into or out of existence. Windchy thinks the Big Bang, the origin of life, evolution, and the fine-tuning of the coupling constants in physics is evidence that God exists. In my opinion, these phenomena are evidence God does not exist.

http://www.universetoday.com/116993/cosmos-tv-show-could-come-back-for-a-second-season/#more-116993

Assuming the 3 million viewers per week for the last series, perhaps it would be helpful if they could get some assistance from us to avoid some of the more atheistic-friendly claims made in regards to the church's actions against Galileo and Bruno.  Perhaps they are done with this sort of history, however.

I enjoyed the special Cosmos comments posted here in ASA following each presentation, but how nice it would be if they would make use of the great knowledge of many of our members and  possibly avoid any unnecessary conflict.

• We accept the divine inspiration, trustworthiness and authority of the Bible in matters of faith and conduct.

• We confess the Triune God affirmed in the Nicene and Apostles' creeds, which we accept as brief, faithful statements of Christian doctrine based upon Scripture.

• We believe that in creating and preserving the universe God has endowed it with contingent order and intelligibility, the basis of scientific investigation.

• We recognize our responsibility, as stewards of God's creation, to use science and technology for the good of humanity and the whole world.

I agree with all but the second point, since I consider myself, more or less, a Biblical Unitarian, and not a Trinitarian. While I would argue that the Apostles' Creed is not even a Trinitarian creed, I would go further to say that the Nicene Creed (A.D. 325) only identifies God the Father and Jesus as being homoousia (of the "same substance"), and not the Trinity. (The Nicene Creed does not completely state the doctrine of the Trinity as we know it today.) In any case, if the SF requires one to believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, as laid out in the Athanasian Creed and many trinitarian commentaries on the Bible, are only trinitarians allowed to contribute to this site?

As I implied above, I agree with the first, third and fourth points of the SF. I am creating this post because, after signing my name in the box under the fourfold SF, I felt in my conscience that I was being deceptive, since signing suggests that I actually believe in the Triune God. I am not writing this post to argue with the trinitarians on this site, but simply stating the truth about my beliefs rather than basing my membership on a deceptive signature.

Thank you,

Kalvin

P.S. If the ASA will accept my membership in spite of my denying the second point of the Statement of Faith, I would suggest modifying the statement for believers who may want to join this site, but don't particularly hold to the trinitarian view of God.

Matt 12:38-40 NIV The Sign of Jonah
³⁸ Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, "Teacher, we want to see a sign from you.” ³⁹ He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. ⁴⁰ For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Luke 11:29-30 HCSB

²⁹ As the crowds were increasing, He began saying: "This generation is an evil generation. It demands a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah. ³⁰ For just as Jonah became a sign to the people of Nineveh, so also the Son of Man will be to this generation.

From Defending Inerrancy, Normal L. Geiser, William C. Roach, p.230-231 "For example, when Jesus affirmed that Jonah was in "the belly of the great fish," this statement is true, not simply because of the redemptive significance the story of Jonah has, but because it is literally and historically true [i.e., it corresponds to reality]." (Italics original.)

By calling attention to the verse in Matthew, the inerrantists indirectly refer to the parallel verse in Luke. According to Luke, Jesus did not mention Jonah being in the belly of a whale. Hence, instead of defending inerrancy, the authors inadvertently weaken their case and end up defending errancy. The two statements by Jesus are very different. The question of course is, which of the two is correct?

The statement may not be true if one accepts the testimony of Luke. Ignoring this significant problem for the moment, in the Matthew context, Jesus could be referring to either a true story, or a parable-prophecy of His forthcoming resurrection. It is not unreasonable to assume Jesus knew it was a parable, since He used many parables to teach about the kingdom of God.

Some level of support comes from [1] "The book of Jonah is considered by some to be a parable to convey a theological point about God's attitude towards Gentiles."

A plausible view is that Jonah was dead during his three days in the whale and, like Lazarus in John 11, his life was restored after he was disembarked onto dry land (2:10). But in ch. 2 he prays while inside the great fish. Acceptance of this as historical fact incurs a severe case of heartburn.

It is certain that Jesus was dead when "in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights," because the truth of the Resurrection demands this. But Jonah wasn't dead while in the whale, but alive and praying. Hence, if the story of Jonah is true, the comparison of Jonah with Jesus is not exact. But as a parable-prophecy of Jesus' impending resurrection, the analogy does not have to be exact.

Did the people of Nineveh know that Jonah had been in the belly of a whale for three days? Not according to the book of Jonah. He preached repentance to Nineveh after he left the whale. (Jonah 3) What "sign" then was Jesus referring to? As mentioned previously, from the context in Matthew, He was referring to the three days and nights in the whale, in spite of the fact that Nineveh was apparently not aware of Jonah's 72-hour voyage. Per Luke 11, the only sign for Nineveh was the appearance of Jonah voicing his warning of destruction in 40 days. (3:4)

The city of Tarshish is somewhere in the western Mediterranean; some think it was on the Atlantic side of ancient Spain. Jonah boarded his ship to Tarshish in Joppa, (present-day Jaffa) which is on the coast of Palestine about 35 miles from Jerusalem. The whale apparently carried him eastward from the ship back to the eastern shore of the Mediterranean in Palestine.

The city of Nineveh was located on the Tigris river, in present-day Iraq. From the closest point of eastern Mediterranean shoreline, Nineveh is about 370 miles from the Mediterranean Sea. Hence Jonah had to walk across the deserts of Israel, Syria, and Iraq to reach Nineveh. Assuming he could walk 25 miles a day (or night), this would be about a 15-day journey. Jonah could barely stand one day in the heat (4:8) much less 15 days. This is another miracle in the book of Jonah that few people take note of. However, as a parable, it is not important how he got there.

As an aside, pastor-author Chuck Swindoll is an ex-Marine, and was stationed with the 3rd Marine Division on Okinawa. In one of his sermons he said: "When the whale belched Jonah up on the beach at Nineveh, this was the first amphibious landing in recorded history."

[1] HCSB Study Bible, Holman Bible Publishers, 2010, p.1514

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bw0xQqr5YbtJRTRxOTlaeVB4WjQ/edit?usp=sharing

• A historical overview of the interaction/relationship between the Bible/theology and science, including: how a biblical worldview contributed to scientific development in the West, how several scientists were people of faith who thought theologically, and how there has been a "dialogue" of biblical interpretation influencing science and science influencing biblical interpretation.   
• An introduction to biblical hermeneutics which would include looking at key biblical passages and how the Bible-science dialogue influences their interpretation.   
• An introduction to specific issues raised by contemporary science.