Engaging Tim Keller on Theistic Evolution: Part I
Conversations That Matter, 4 Jan. 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qf_QfzwBk_U
7:21 [Jon spoke of relatives who were Christians but not YEC]
From when on do the rules change?
Is Genesis 14 within their "non-literal" or their "literal"?
8:55 As a most of my Christian life Young Earth Creationist, with a kind of "pause" in favour of myriadennia and some scenario for lost millennia on the lines of Tolkien or Howard from after my Catholic conversion to my reader of City of God before June 2000, I certainly avoided the biology section of Lund university.
Latin and Greek, for yours truly!
And admiring your bravery or confrontation preparedness to take biology at such a young age at a secular university!
10:06 For my part - no, I do not.
If Adam's progenitors were non-human and had no souls, they could not give Adam a language when on this theory he needed to get it, as opposed to having it infused. Adam was then treated ill by God, while already God's image, but before sinning.
You could try to get around this in two ways:
a) language developed gradually from non-human communications - and frankly no, plus this would make "God's image" a gradable thing, if possible, which it isn't;
b) Adam was made God's image only after growing up - and this again means God treats Adam badly, because he pulls Adam up from something he would be ashamed of, and God imposing shame on Adam before he sinned, or equally sparing him shame by amnesia, which is a loss, before he sinned, is a no no.
For a Roman Catholic, the idea "Adam is metonymous for a much wider human population" is a no no from Session V of the Coucil of Trent. CSL did this in The Problem of Pain, probably one reason why he chose Anglicanism over Catholicism, but Catholicism does certainly not allow that.
10:58 Some Deep Timers and Theistic Evolutionists would say "death before sin is no big deal, if it's not human death" (not sure how a Theistic Evolutionist would make this work for him, Swamadass seems way off the bat, and it would make "men from Eden" guilty of the at least rape part of bestiality when getting wives from "men from outside Eden").
But Adam growing up as a feral child or Adam becoming a man with memories of a previously bestial life or Adam forgetting about a previous bestial life is not even amenable to that solution - it's human major trauma before sin.
12:13 By modern ideas, I suppose you don't mean modern single concepts, like rockets or hydrogen, but modern enunciations, like "evolution took billions of years" ?
You would agree it is possible "waters above heaven" could mean hydrogen molecules above the atmosphere, along with molecules of H2O?
Or that Moses could have prophetically known and known we would be able to know that Nimrod was trying rocketry?
Or that St. John could have seen that Apoc 13:18 is calculated from ASCII?
14:10 I cannot turn off the podcast, because I'm actually watching youtube.
Do you exist on podbean too?
16:09 So far he has a point.
To x, y or z, believing in modern creation science may be the only option he has to be a creationist, but to w or v or t, the creation ministries could be about as wrong as the evolution believers.
Modern Creation Science, in any form of it, is an apologetic tool and partly an exegetic tool for belief in Young Earth Creationism. It is not identic to it.
By the way, this is also a reason why a creationist can very well challenge what is a consensus or near consensus in Modern Creation Science.
Like, to some, Carbon 14 being totally irrelevant, I hold the model C14 levels rose, so a sample from Babel, 4500 years ago, would date like over 10 000 years ago, because it started out with a lower ratio, and that gave the sample instant extra years. At the Flood, 5000 years ago, it was even lower than that, my latest carbon date for 2957 BC is "39 000 BP" ...
17:43 One obviously should verify what the main objection is - and then defend the truth heads on against that objection.
22:30 When he says "you don't need to believe in Modern Creation Science" - that is one thing, it could so far mean, you have objections on the details of the programme of AiG or CMI. Some divergence on explanations - but when he says "we know Modern Creation Science is absurd," that's very different, because that's saying "Deep Time" or "Big Bang" or "Molecules to Man Evolution" is obvious rather than obviously or at least certainly on further reflection absurd, which they are.
23:03 He just misrepresented the official position of the Catholic Church, at least by calling the Vatican II Sect "the Catholic Church" - what he says may hold true of:
Wojtyla ("John Paul II")
Ratzinger ("Benedict XVI")
Bergoglio ("Francis")
Or rather, it holds true of them, and may hold true of anyone in communion with them. But he's forgetting the Catholics who deny their papacy, most Sedevacantists are Old Earth Creationist (like Hugh Ross) and most who hold some other man is or was recently Pope are Young Earth Creationists (both Palmarians, and adherents of the late Pope Michael).
24:19 I would hold speciation is possible.
I think there was one pair of hedgehogs on the Ark, there are now 17 species.
30:38 B. B. Warfield is actually mentioned once in the wikipedia article "The Fundamentals"
The Deity of Christ - Benjamin B. Warfield
But it's not just that the pro-Evolution view of him is perhaps in another work. It may not even be there. Here's from the wiki on him:
"Warfield's views on evolution have been a source of dispute. Scholars David N. Livingstone and Mark A. Noll highlighted Warfield's statements on evolution to demonstrate his acceptance of the theory in their article A Biblical Inerrantist as Evolutionist.[4] Theologian Fred G. Zaspel argues that these statements have led Livingstone and Noll to assume too much about Warfield's views on the subject. Zaspel writes "That Warfield actually committed himself to a doctrine of evolution seems impossible to affirm simply because although there are some indications that he entertained the idea, he never admits to accepting it."[5]
"Warfield studied and wrote about Charles Darwin's religious views. In an article on Darwin's religious Life, he concluded that Darwin's doctrine of evolution directly expelled Darwin's Christian belief. Warfield writes, "Thus the doctrine of evolution once heartily adopted by him (Darwin) gradually undermined his faith, until he cast off the whole Christianity as an unproven delusion."[6] Warfield did not believe that evolution required such a rejection of faith. His 1889 review of The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin included this statement: "There have been many evolutionists who have been and have remained theists and Christians."[7]"
35:18 With a very small schooling in science, it is perhaps understandable he would go to Genesis 1 and 2 ...
If he had a somewhat wider understanding of archaeology, he might ask:
Did Amorrheans evacuate En Geddi (Asason Tamar) in 3500 BC? Or did they do so in Genesis 14, in the years around Abraham's 80th birthday?
Because, if 3500 BC (the carbon date) is immediately correct, and not just an indirect indication wrong by 1565 years, Genesis 14 is historically false.
After the evacuation at the end of the Chalcolithic, dated at 3500 BC, there was no population in En Geddi before the Iron age, well after Abraham's times.
So, if the date is correct, there was no one who could be attacked (and evacuate) in Asason Tamar.
And a 1565 years' discrepancy between real date and carbon date is not a question of wiggles as recognised by uniformitarians, it's not like the Hallstatt plateau (anything between c. 760 BC and 450 BC carbon dates at usually 550 BC), its beyond that and only fits with a major buildup of the carbon 14 content.
[Jon Harris is giving a very good exposé over why Keller's wedge between Genesis 1 and 2 doesn't add up.]
40:26 - here my blog post is marking an appreciation for your answer to Keller, I had to look up your name and it seems you are a relative of Monsignor Ronald Knox ...
[And the answer is going on for a time. And then Jon Harris goes on with another video by or with Keller ...]
50:42 I would like to know exactly what work of St. Augustine he's talking about.
I do know, in City of God, he actually does credit Genesis 5 and 11 and between them Flood with historicity.
Given the different text versions for each, the time from God creating Adam to birth of Abraham would be between 1599 and 3434 years (Samaritan plus Masoretic vs LXX plus LXX).
And if he knew modern science, he would know that this cannot be combined with the Evolutionist view, with Adam both being first real man and ancestor of all men alive today.
To have those criteria on Adam, one needs to have Dating methods dysfunction when it comes to very old ages (like beyond carbon dates 3000 to 3500 years old).
52:22 Purgatory is not a second chance.
It's about someone dying saved but still tainted.
1:01:04 He should not have accepted Science over Joshua 10:12, 13.
1:05:53 In the Progressive Era, Darwinian revolution and scientific racism went hand in hand ... I don't disbelieve you, but I know others will, so, do you have any resources you could link to?
1:06:42 And Friedrich Engels worked out some of the parallels ...
"The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State" 1884
Engaging Tim Keller on Theistic Evolution: Part II
Conversations That Matter, 5 Jan. 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMYbT04pHyU
