Reason This Doctor Says Georgia Fired Him

[aujeff11 6,243]

It seems that the belief of theistic evolution is so broad, with many having their own beliefs regarding it, that I often have a tons of questions of how the belief fits the bible. Do you think the earth was created with age? How do you reconcile the supposed age differences of the earth based on evolution's view( millions of years old) and creationism (thousands.)

Evolution doesn't really have a "view" regarding the age of the earth. Different science. Geology vs. biology.

But the earth is 4,600,000,000 (billion) years old.

You know what I meant. Wow. I was way off on the age though.

[TitanTiger 21,064]

I may be wrong but I think Orthogenesis is a subfield of theistic evolution that believes that organisms evolve via a mysterious driving force.

So do you think Adam and Eve were of the primitive human species or maybe ape men?

I couldn't say for sure. I think whoever Adam and Eve were, they were capable of making moral choices.

Orthogenesis seems to be a particular explanation of how evolution occurs that could have some parallels, but isn't the same thing as evolutionary creationism. I don't think most adherents of EC would back orthogenesis.

It seems that the belief of theistic evolution is so broad, with many having their own beliefs regarding it, that I often have a tons of questions of how the belief fits the bible. Do you think the earth was created with age? How do you reconcile the supposed age differences of the earth based on evolution's view( millions of years old) and creationism (thousands.)

Well, even if I rejected evolution and held to one of the creationist views, I think the scientific explanation of the earth's age are basically accurate - millions of years old. So I would fall in the "old-earth creationist" camp in that case. I think there is enough ambiguity in the Hebrew language and the Genesis accounts to allow for that.

As a seeker of answers, the ambiguity part is what is frustrating.

I really enjoyed this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Language-God-Scientist-Presents-Evidence/dp/1416542744

And that BioLogos site I linked to has a Common Questions section that has a lot of articles on matters like Adam and Eve, original sin, etc. One interesting take was that Adam and Eve were more archetypal or "representative" what happened with all early human beings rather than being just two literal individuals. That would also account for passages in Genesis that speak of "other cities" from which Cain found a wife and so on.

[maxwere 82]

I may be wrong but I think Orthogenesis is a subfield of theistic evolution that believes that organisms evolve via a mysterious driving force.

So do you think Adam and Eve were of the primitive human species or maybe ape men?

I couldn't say for sure. I think whoever Adam and Eve were, they were capable of making moral choices.

Orthogenesis seems to be a particular explanation of how evolution occurs that could have some parallels, but isn't the same thing as evolutionary creationism. I don't think most adherents of EC would back orthogenesis.

It seems that the belief of theistic evolution is so broad, with many having their own beliefs regarding it, that I often have a tons of questions of how the belief fits the bible. Do you think the earth was created with age? How do you reconcile the supposed age differences of the earth based on evolution's view( millions of years old) and creationism (thousands.)

Well, even if I rejected evolution and held to one of the creationist views, I think the scientific explanation of the earth's age are basically accurate - millions of years old. So I would fall in the "old-earth creationist" camp in that case. I think there is enough ambiguity in the Hebrew language and the Genesis accounts to allow for that.

As a seeker of answers, the ambiguity part is what is frustrating.

I really enjoyed this book:

http://www.amazon.co...e/dp/1416542744

And that BioLogos site I linked to has a Common Questions section that has a lot of articles on matters like Adam and Eve, original sin, etc. One interesting take was that Adam and Eve were more archetypal or "representative" what happened with all early human beings rather than being just two literal individuals. That would also account for passages in Genesis that speak of "other cities" from which Cain found a wife and so on.

Wouldn't worry about the Cain/cities problem. Time, plus chance, plus procreation. Adam lived 930 years, his grand kids were contemporaries of Noah. We're not told Eve's childbearing years end at 45. We're not told how long Cain was before he was banished or before his wife. We're not told of the female offspring of Adam. Many believe the antediluvian population to be 5m+. Unplug our relatively young, modern, rational reductionist brains and it's quite possible to imagine Eve having 100+ kids. Say nothing of technology, scholarship, civilization that we assume only to be primitive.

Be weary of attempts to undermine the incarnation of Adam. With it, you undermine the incarnation of Christ. Christ is left to be metaphor only. Reality stems from the covenant with Man, not with another "kind" who became man.

[TitanTiger 21,064]

I may be wrong but I think Orthogenesis is a subfield of theistic evolution that believes that organisms evolve via a mysterious driving force.

So do you think Adam and Eve were of the primitive human species or maybe ape men?

I couldn't say for sure. I think whoever Adam and Eve were, they were capable of making moral choices.

Orthogenesis seems to be a particular explanation of how evolution occurs that could have some parallels, but isn't the same thing as evolutionary creationism. I don't think most adherents of EC would back orthogenesis.

It seems that the belief of theistic evolution is so broad, with many having their own beliefs regarding it, that I often have a tons of questions of how the belief fits the bible. Do you think the earth was created with age? How do you reconcile the supposed age differences of the earth based on evolution's view( millions of years old) and creationism (thousands.)

Well, even if I rejected evolution and held to one of the creationist views, I think the scientific explanation of the earth's age are basically accurate - millions of years old. So I would fall in the "old-earth creationist" camp in that case. I think there is enough ambiguity in the Hebrew language and the Genesis accounts to allow for that.

As a seeker of answers, the ambiguity part is what is frustrating.

I really enjoyed this book:

http://www.amazon.co...e/dp/1416542744

And that BioLogos site I linked to has a Common Questions section that has a lot of articles on matters like Adam and Eve, original sin, etc. One interesting take was that Adam and Eve were more archetypal or "representative" what happened with all early human beings rather than being just two literal individuals. That would also account for passages in Genesis that speak of "other cities" from which Cain found a wife and so on.

Wouldn't worry about the Cain/cities problem. Time, plus chance, plus procreation. Adam lived 930 years, his grand kids were contemporaries of Noah. We're not told Eve's childbearing years end at 45. We're not told how long Cain was before he was banished or before his wife. We're not told of the female offspring of Adam. Many believe the antediluvian population to be 5m+. Unplug our relatively young, modern, rational reductionist brains and it's quite possible to imagine Eve having 100+ kids. Say nothing of technology, scholarship, civilization that we assume only to be primitive.

Be weary of attempts to undermine the incarnation of Adam. With it, you undermine the incarnation of Christ. Christ is left to be metaphor only. Reality stems from the covenant with Man, not with another "kind" who became man.

I get what you're saying, but I don't think that a non-literal Genesis account of how Adam came to be necessarily undermines his "incarnation", much less that of Christ.

My point is, I don't think God would fake us out with the scientific data. I think if things seem millions or billions of years old, it's generally because they are. I think the natural world is one of the ways God reveals things about Himself to us. I may have some quibbles with some aspects of evolutionary theory. And I can't say I've got all the particulars settled in my mind where science and Scripture intersect. But I don't think it's unreasonable or theologically unsound to believe that evolution is one of the means by which He created.

[homersapien 12,172]

Why hasn't anyone observed evolution through observational science? Why aren't monkeys still evolving into humans?

1) Evolution has been observed, directly as well as evidentially, in every branch of science dealing with biology and many that don't.

2) What makes you so sure they aren't?

[homersapien 12,172]

I may be wrong but I think Orthogenesis is a subfield of theistic evolution that believes that organisms evolve via a mysterious driving force.

So do you think Adam and Eve were of the primitive human species or maybe ape men?

I couldn't say for sure. I think whoever Adam and Eve were, they were capable of making moral choices.

Orthogenesis seems to be a particular explanation of how evolution occurs that could have some parallels, but isn't the same thing as evolutionary creationism. I don't think most adherents of EC would back orthogenesis.

It seems that the belief of theistic evolution is so broad, with many having their own beliefs regarding it, that I often have a tons of questions of how the belief fits the bible. Do you think the earth was created with age? How do you reconcile the supposed age differences of the earth based on evolution's view( millions of years old) and creationism (thousands.)

I reconciled it by becoming agnostic.

[homersapien 12,172]

I may be wrong but I think Orthogenesis is a subfield of theistic evolution that believes that organisms evolve via a mysterious driving force.

So do you think Adam and Eve were of the primitive human species or maybe ape men?

I couldn't say for sure. I think whoever Adam and Eve were, they were capable of making moral choices.

Orthogenesis seems to be a particular explanation of how evolution occurs that could have some parallels, but isn't the same thing as evolutionary creationism. I don't think most adherents of EC would back orthogenesis.

It seems that the belief of theistic evolution is so broad, with many having their own beliefs regarding it, that I often have a tons of questions of how the belief fits the bible. Do you think the earth was created with age? How do you reconcile the supposed age differences of the earth based on evolution's view( millions of years old) and creationism (thousands.)

Well, even if I rejected evolution and held to one of the creationist views, I think the scientific explanation of the earth's age are basically accurate - millions of years old. So I would fall in the "old-earth creationist" camp in that case. I think there is enough ambiguity in the Hebrew language and the Genesis accounts to allow for that.

As a seeker of answers, the ambiguity part is what is frustrating.

I really enjoyed this book:

http://www.amazon.co...e/dp/1416542744

And that BioLogos site I linked to has a Common Questions section that has a lot of articles on matters like Adam and Eve, original sin, etc. One interesting take was that Adam and Eve were more archetypal or "representative" what happened with all early human beings rather than being just two literal individuals. That would also account for passages in Genesis that speak of "other cities" from which Cain found a wife and so on.

Wouldn't worry about the Cain/cities problem. Time, plus chance, plus procreation. Adam lived 930 years, his grand kids were contemporaries of Noah. We're not told Eve's childbearing years end at 45. We're not told how long Cain was before he was banished or before his wife. We're not told of the female offspring of Adam. Many believe the antediluvian population to be 5m+. Unplug our relatively young, modern, rational reductionist brains and it's quite possible to imagine Eve having 100+ kids. Say nothing of technology, scholarship, civilization that we assume only to be primitive.

Be weary of attempts to undermine the incarnation of Adam. With it, you undermine the incarnation of Christ. Christ is left to be metaphor only. Reality stems from the covenant with Man, not with another "kind" who became man.

I get what you're saying, but I don't think that a non-literal Genesis account of how Adam came to be necessarily undermines his "incarnation", much less that of Christ.

My point is, I don't think God would fake us out with the scientific data. I think if things seem millions or billions of years old, it's generally because they are. I think the natural world is one of the ways God reveals things about Himself to us. I may have some quibbles with some aspects of evolutionary theory. And I can't say I've got all the particulars settled in my mind where science and Scripture intersect. But I don't think it's unreasonable or theologically unsound to believe that evolution is one of the means by which He created.

It they intersect at all, it's just prior to the "big bang". And your last sentence is correct. (IMO of course. )

[TitanTiger 21,064]

The other thing that I hate is that some feel like they have to choose between faith in Christ and a belief that science is valid and that the truth about the natural world is discoverable and knowable. I'm not going to begrudge anyone that believes in a literal, six 24-hour day creation narrative. But when we present it as the only valid interpretation, we end up creating agnostics like homer. j/k

[maxwere 82]

I may be wrong but I think Orthogenesis is a subfield of theistic evolution that believes that organisms evolve via a mysterious driving force.

So do you think Adam and Eve were of the primitive human species or maybe ape men?

I couldn't say for sure. I think whoever Adam and Eve were, they were capable of making moral choices.

Orthogenesis seems to be a particular explanation of how evolution occurs that could have some parallels, but isn't the same thing as evolutionary creationism. I don't think most adherents of EC would back orthogenesis.

It seems that the belief of theistic evolution is so broad, with many having their own beliefs regarding it, that I often have a tons of questions of how the belief fits the bible. Do you think the earth was created with age? How do you reconcile the supposed age differences of the earth based on evolution's view( millions of years old) and creationism (thousands.)

Well, even if I rejected evolution and held to one of the creationist views, I think the scientific explanation of the earth's age are basically accurate - millions of years old. So I would fall in the "old-earth creationist" camp in that case. I think there is enough ambiguity in the Hebrew language and the Genesis accounts to allow for that.

As a seeker of answers, the ambiguity part is what is frustrating.

I really enjoyed this book:

http://www.amazon.co...e/dp/1416542744

And that BioLogos site I linked to has a Common Questions section that has a lot of articles on matters like Adam and Eve, original sin, etc. One interesting take was that Adam and Eve were more archetypal or "representative" what happened with all early human beings rather than being just two literal individuals. That would also account for passages in Genesis that speak of "other cities" from which Cain found a wife and so on.

Wouldn't worry about the Cain/cities problem. Time, plus chance, plus procreation. Adam lived 930 years, his grand kids were contemporaries of Noah. We're not told Eve's childbearing years end at 45. We're not told how long Cain was before he was banished or before his wife. We're not told of the female offspring of Adam. Many believe the antediluvian population to be 5m+. Unplug our relatively young, modern, rational reductionist brains and it's quite possible to imagine Eve having 100+ kids. Say nothing of technology, scholarship, civilization that we assume only to be primitive.

Be weary of attempts to undermine the incarnation of Adam. With it, you undermine the incarnation of Christ. Christ is left to be metaphor only. Reality stems from the covenant with Man, not with another "kind" who became man.

I get what you're saying, but I don't think that a non-literal Genesis account of how Adam came to be necessarily undermines his "incarnation", much less that of Christ.

My point is, I don't think God would fake us out with the scientific data. I think if things seem millions or billions of years old, it's generally because they are. I think the natural world is one of the ways God reveals things about Himself to us. I may have some quibbles with some aspects of evolutionary theory. And I can't say I've got all the particulars settled in my mind where science and Scripture intersect. But I don't think it's unreasonable or theologically unsound to believe that evolution is one of the means by which He created.

Right, revelation is revelation and the universe is ordered to declare His glory (ps 19). Epistemologically we don't interpret data in a vacuum, but through our presuppositions... have to be critical of "the evidence". God is not bound by mechanical laws of nature (as Darwin would propose) or logic or even time itself. Also, I'd be real specific at defining exactly what you mean by evolution. This book reoriented my view.

[Strychnine 1,808]

The other thing that I hate is that some feel like they have to choose between faith in Christ and a belief that science is valid and that the truth about the natural world is discoverable and knowable. I'm not going to begrudge anyone that believes in a literal, six 24-hour day creation narrative. But when we present it as the only valid interpretation, we end up creating agnostics like homer. j/k

Or agnostic deists like me.

[quietfan 233]

You may be asking only Titan, and if so I apologize for intruding into the conversation. But my thoughts:

I may be wrong but I think Orthogenesis is a subfield of theistic evolution that believes that organisms evolve via a mysterious driving force.

If this is indeed what happened, it falls outside the field and scope of science. Science does not deal in miracles and the tools of science are useless in examining miracles (although useful in discrediting false claims of miracles). By definition, a 'theist' approach is supernatural and the supernatural ('outside the natural') is by definition outside the domain of the scientific method. Doesn't remove the supernatural from the realm of possibility, simply means that science doesn't do theology. But then, theology doesn't do science, either. The two methods of pursuing knowledge or 'truth' follow different rules. I like to say: Trying to put science and theology on the same court is like asking a volleyball team to play a basketball team: If each side follows its own separate set of rules, however valid those rules may be for that team, the result is only chaos not victory for either.

So do you think Adam and Eve were of the primitive human species or maybe ape men?

Personally, I don't believe in the Biblical Adam and Eve, so this isn't a dilemma for me. However mitochondrial DNA studies have shown that the female line of homo sapiens passed through a very narrow bottleneck in Africa in the distant past. Of course, it may have passed through similar bottlenecks many times, as all evidence of earlier bottlenecks would have been erased in the last one, and it could do so again. (I recall reading discussions of similar bottlenecks in the genetic history of the male line, but don't recall if those were only scientific speculations or reports of confirmed evidence.)

'Ape men" is too vague a term to decipher and not actually used by scientists these day. We know of at least four species of 'men' (i.e., genus homo): sapiens, habilis, erectus, & neanderthalenis, and possibly several others (floresiensis, rudolfensis, Denisovan, heidelbergensis, etc.). We also know that sapiens and neanderthals, at least, could interbreed (leading some to suggest they shouldn't be counted as separate species).

Monkeys are not evolving into humans because they're our cousins, not our ancestors (although if they wear Crimson, I suppose they could be both). Homo sapiens and monkey species are 'many-times-removed' cousins, descended from a common 'many-times-great' grandfather who has long since passed.

[maxwere 82]

The other thing that I hate is that some feel like they have to choose between faith in Christ and a belief that science is valid and that the truth about the natural world is discoverable and knowable. I'm not going to begrudge anyone that believes in a literal, six 24-hour day creation narrative. But when we present it as the only valid interpretation, we end up creating agnostics like homer. j/k

That's a false dichotomy that has allowed to be constructed due to strong anti-intellectualist (revivalist) movement in the church. As if every book ever written represented the tree of knowledge of G&E. Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, MIND (mt 22:37, luke 10:27, Mk 12:30).

[quietfan 233]

*Ahem*

The E. coli long-term evolution experiment is an ongoing study in experimental evolution led by Richard Lenski that has been tracking genetic changes in 12 initially identical populations of asexual Escherichia coli bacteria since 24 February 1988. The populations reached the milestone of 50,000 generations in February 2010 and 60,000 in April 2014.

Since the experiment's inception in 1988, Lenski and his colleagues have reported a wide array of genetic changes. Some changes occurred in all 12 populations and others have only appeared in one or a few populations. For example, all 12 populations experienced improvement in fitness that decelerated over time and some of populations evolved detrimental effects such as defects in DNA repair, causing mutator phenotypes. One of the significant adaptions occurred in one strain of E. coli. In general, this bacteria is known for not being able to use citrate in an aerobic environment as an energy source, even though it could use citrate under anaerobic conditions because it already has the machinery to process citrate. This strain, though ancestrally unable to do so initially, was able to transport citrate for use as an energy source after a duplication mutation that was involved in the gene for the citrate transporter protein used in anaerobic growth. Even though all the ancestors already had a complete citric acid cycle, and thus could metabolize citrate internally for energy during aerobic growth, none of the 12 populations had a transporter protein for citrate since the beginning, which was the only barrier to being able to use citrate for energy in oxygen-rich conditions. Earlier independent studies had already reported E. coli strains from agricultural or clinical settings that already had the ability to use citrate under aerobic conditions.

A genomic study was done to investigate the history of the adaption using clones to isolate the number of mutations needed to develop the trait. It concluded that multiple mutations (at least two or more) such as duplication mutations were needed to allow the transport of citrate for use in energy. For the trait to develop and stick in a population, it needed multiple mutations at three main phases: potentiation (makes a trait possible), actualization (makes the trait manifest), and refinement (makes it effective).^[5]

Thanks, Ben! I had heard of an ongoing, long-running, multi-generational study of evolution in some E. coli strains, but hadn't read any details. Interesting and appreciated.

[quietfan 233]

One of the funniest memes I saw circulating during the ebola scare a year or two ago:

"If you don't believe in evolution, why are you so worried about Ebola becoming airborne?"

[AUDub 11,784]

Thanks, Ben! I had heard of an ongoing, long-running, multi-generational study of evolution in some E. coli strains, but hadn't read any details. Interesting and appreciated.

If you liked that, you're going to love this link.

The Lenski affair was a poorly conceived stunt by Andrew Schlafly of Conservapedia to denigrate the groundbreaking research of Michigan State University professor and National Academy of Science member Richard Lenski, in which Lenski and his student Zachary Blount actually observed evolution happening. Schlafly's stunt backfired completely and led to one of the best responses to creationism to date. It is now one of the most famous incidents in creation/evolution circles on the Internet.

The fame of the affair left the safe confines of the Internet in September 2009 when it received a brief mention in Richard Dawkins's book The Greatest Show on Earth following a longer discussion of the results themselves.

[homersapien 12,172]

The other thing that I hate is that some feel like they have to choose between faith in Christ and a belief that science is valid and that the truth about the natural world is discoverable and knowable. I'm not going to begrudge anyone that believes in a literal, six 24-hour day creation narrative. But when we present it as the only valid interpretation, we end up creating agnostics like homer. ;)/> j/k

Actually that's correct. Literalism has to addressed and resolved. No one can compartmentalize enough to avoid that.

[AUDub 11,784]

The other thing that I hate is that some feel like they have to choose between faith in Christ and a belief that science is valid and that the truth about the natural world is discoverable and knowable. I'm not going to begrudge anyone that believes in a literal, six 24-hour day creation narrative. But when we present it as the only valid interpretation, we end up creating agnostics like homer. j/k

Actually that's correct. Literalism has to addressed and resolved. No one can compartmentalize enough to avoid that.

Anything is possible with a healthy dose of cognitive dissonance.

[homersapien 12,172]

The other thing that I hate is that some feel like they have to choose between faith in Christ and a belief that science is valid and that the truth about the natural world is discoverable and knowable. I'm not going to begrudge anyone that believes in a literal, six 24-hour day creation narrative. But when we present it as the only valid interpretation, we end up creating agnostics like homer. j/k

Actually that's correct. Literalism has to addressed and resolved. No one can compartmentalize enough to avoid that.

Anything is possible with a healthy dose of cognitive dissonance.

True. I'd say it's a prime indicator of CD.

[AURaptor 1,137]

Sounds to me like there may be some grounds for discrimination here. I'd be willing to wager that if he were Muslim, and all else were equal, he'd still be offered the job.

But the thread seems to want to wade into other issues, like the validity of science, evolution, what ever.

I'll pass.

[AUDub 11,784]

Sounds to me like there may be some grounds for discrimination here. I'd be willing to wager that if he were Muslim, and all else were equal, he'd still be offered the job.

But the thread seems to want to wade into other issues, like the validity of science, evolution, what ever.

I'll pass.

Yeah ok whatever you say, bruh.

[AURaptor 1,137]

Second, he failed to disclose information during the hiring process

OK. Maybe. Maybe not. Sounds weak though, imo.

[cooltigger21 0]

You can believe what you want and even go to church anywhere you like. Once you set foot outside the doors of the church or your home then your faith must be subservient to everything else

[AUDub 11,784]

Second, he failed to disclose information during the hiring process

OK. Maybe. Maybe not. Sounds weak though, imo.

Documented fact. They have him dead to rights on the failure to disclose.

[AURaptor 1,137]

Second, he failed to disclose information during the hiring process

OK. Maybe. Maybe not. Sounds weak though, imo.

Documented fact. They have him dead to rights on the failure to disclose.

And the world is saved from GA hiring this clearly degenerate and backwards thinking troglodyte.

[TitanTiger 21,064]

Second, he failed to disclose information during the hiring process

OK. Maybe. Maybe not. Sounds weak though, imo.

Documented fact. They have him dead to rights on the failure to disclose.

Out of curiosity, what was the outside employment? Because he disputes that claim:

The health department has since claimed that the sermons that officials were “assigned” to watch had nothing at all to do with Walsh’s termination. Instead, they claim they fired him because they believed Walsh failed to disclose outside income while working in California — an assertion that Walsh contests and asserts never came up at any stage of the Georgia interview process.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/434297/eric-walsh-georgia-public-health-doctor-fired-christian-beliefs