One Old Testament scholar (not a conservative), Terrence Fretheim, says that we need to take scientific research into account when we study Genesis so that we get a holistic picture.

Interestingly, John Goldingay who teaches at Fuller Theological seminary would be an example of one who subscribes to God-guided evolutionary processes. This debate is of course much less important amongst more liberal OT scholars such as Terrence Fretheim who claims that the evolutionary process is a part of the way that God is still creating today (for many liberals creation is not a completed project, but a continuing process).

I’d like to say more, but I have a crying kid…

“Perhaps what you mean is that duplication does not produce any unique information.” Yes. By “new information” creationists mean a new DNA sequence-type, not a sequence-token.

I understand, as you describe it, how (token-)duplication can be conceived–imagined–as a step in the production of a new, beneficial sequence-type. Maybe that is what happened with the citrate metabolism–if it could be proved, it would be very significant. (Although it still might not be legitimate to extrapolate to eukaryotes.)

But I am not sure that even non-harmful changes in a duplicated DNA sequence could in principle produce a new information-type. Information is more than a unique sequence of codons or letters. Mutations over time can only produce a random sequence, and I think statistics and information theory can prove that random sequencing will not produce meaningful information regardless of the time allowed.

I myself am not able to take the discussion any farther than this, but this article: http://www.trueorigin.org/schneider.asp looks to me like the latest scientific creationist response on the issue.

Charles was aware of his grandfather’s theory, at least in a superficial sense (see page 49 in Darwin’s Autobiography). You are right in that Charles did not “invent” evolution; Lamarck, E. Darwin, and others had proposed theories of the development of life that involved evolution. See Appendix One in Darwin’s Autobiography for more info on Charles’s relationship with these other authors. The significance of Origin is not evolution. Evolution was a well-known idea and commonly accepted in the nineteenth century. Darwin’s work is significant for the mechanism of evolution proposed: natural selection—a process describable without the need for the Divine.

@Tim: It’s quite common to know the mechanism of change without knowing the exact change that takes place. For a simplistic example, remember the old hypercolor t-shirts? Put you hand on it or put it in the sun and the color changes. You and I know that something changed, and that the change is caused by heat, but we don’t know the exact chemistry behind the change. Similarly, we know that genetic information controls an organism (I’m not getting into a nature/nurture debate) and that the organism’s behavior has changed (the ability to metabolize citrate). Although not knowing the exact codons that changed in the organism, a convincing explanation for the mechanism of change is natural selection. It is a model that closely fits the observed evidence and predicts the change that did in fact occur.

I used Down’s syndrome as an example of a mutation leading to new genetic information, not because it is a beneficial mutation, but because it is commonly known. Any mutation that duplicates genetic material produces new genetic information. Perhaps what you mean is that duplication does not produce any unique information. That may be true, but only for the first generation. If the trait gets passed down to other generations, small mutations in the duplicated genetic material may end up coding for some beneficial trait. Of course, and more likely, the mutation will either be non-affective or harmful. But over time, the originally duplicated genetic material changes independently from the original source material, and thus new information is produced. For Down’s syndrome, the new information coded by the duplicate genetic material can be seen by its effects on the individual. If there were no new information coded in trisomy-21, there would be no differences in individuals with it and individuals without it (aside from general variation from person to person).

Throughout Christian history literal interpretation has meant according to the intention of the (human) author. Thus Augustine’s De Genesi ad Litteram, and the fourfold way of literal-moral-analogical-anagogical. I don’t know anyone who claims literal = noninterpretive.

How can you explain the mechanism for a change when you don’t know what the change was? Only in general terms like “natural selection.” But what, exactly, was selected, and where did it come from?

Down’s syndrome duplicates a chromosome, ie pre-existing information. It does not produce any new information. And it is hardly adaptive. Nice suggestion though.

Likewise with Christianity, the historical facts are foundational to the religious meaning. The early creeds are basically claims about historical fact. You acknowledge the importance of the factuality of the resurrection. Young-earthers contend that the historical factuality of Adam’s fall with death as its consequence is also an essential historical fact, and that all of the facts of science cohere with it.

My biggest concern, I guess, is that based on your bibliography it seems your sources for creation are all theological (e.g. MacArthur’s sermons). If you look at scientific sources on evolution, but only theological sources on creation, then it will appear that evolution is science and creation is religion. You mention the talk.origins archive; have you looked, for example, at the true.origins archive run by creation scientists?

Concerning science, creationists accept natural selection and even the existence of beneficial mutations. What they claim is undiscovered and undiscoverable is a natural process that produces new genetic information. In the bacteria example that you cite, the article states that the precise genetic change is not yet known. The quote at the end of the article, that complex traits are what creationist say can’t happen, is not correct. The jury is still out on whether this bacteria produced new genetic information.

I have to object to your claim that conservatives have trouble reconciling Gen 1-2, and with the pi issue. These are manufactured problems, not real ones. For starters, take a look at http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i2/pi.asp and http://www.tektonics.org/jedp/creationtwo.html. Also, I recommed Jordan’s _In Six Days_, which gives a very sophisticated young-earth interpretation of Gen 1-2.

I challenge you to produce one example support your claim that “the fundamentalist perspective tends to limit scientific research and advancement in areas deemed sacred or unknowable.”

At the end, I understand you, to be taking the non-overlapping magisteria view (NOMA, coined by S.J. Gould), that science and religion are concerned with absolutely separate topics, fact and meaning. This view is problematic philosophically because the fact/value distinction is controversial. It is problematic theologically because it sounds like gnosticism. To say that God is “essentially other” suggests the view of Marcion and others that God is totally separate from the world. Christianity says God is distinct from the the world, but also that God created the world, and that the world to some extent bears witness to its creator.

I do think you are on the right track in emphasizing the incarnation and that God saves.