The Fossil Record and the Christian Worldview: A Dialogue between RTB and Discovery Institute

#fossilrecord #theisticevolution #scienceandfaith
Macroevolution. Microevolution. Should the discussion of evolution have a place in the Christian worldview? As paleontologists continue to make discoveries, one might ask: Are findings from the fossil record in harmony with the Christian worldview?
Distinguished speakers Fazale “Fuz” Rana from Reasons to Believe and Casey Luskin of Discovery Institute draw from similar-but not always identical-Christian perspectives, making for engaging and enlightening dialogue. Together, they delve into matters such as:
· The fossil record and human evolution
· Possible evidence for Neanderthals in humanity’s genealogy
· Dating method controversies
Help us create even more empowering resources!
Support Reasons to Believe at: support.reason...
Follow RTB_Official for updates!
Facebook: / rtbofficial
Twitter: / rtb_official
Instagram: / rtb_official
Website: www.reasons.org

[@BabyBugBug]

Good job, all. Please continue to collaborate with each other and in other religious communities to build a movement. Materialism has surpassed its 15 minutes.

[@velkyn1]

and yet still no evidence for your imaginary friend. Darn.

[@derekallen4568]

Good job. Why don't I think it's a good job?😂😂😂 Magic? The fall?😅😅😅 Apple was the tree of knowledge. Now that's technology.

[@BabyBugBug]

@@derekallen4568 You did not listen to the video, did you?

[@masterjose8483]

@BabyBugBug even if they did they're personal bias won't let them see the evidence, plus they quickly resorted to jokes which tells you were there minds at.

[@artbattson3000]

Materialism? Who put the material in Materialism anyway? To echo Laplace, "I have no need for that hypothesis." Reason tells us that either the Cosmos or its Creator has always existed. Science tells us that it's not the Cosmos. Even a Multiverse requires an omnipotent and eternally existing universe generator ... aka God. Seek and you will find Him. Close your mind and you won't.

[@9jmorrison]

Mathematics proves intelligent design. To doubt this is absurd statistically and spiritually speaking.

[@jonathanlong6987]

We should have charity w/ those we disagree. Yet, Dr. Luskin is a cat person! Heresy! 😂😂😂

[@chrismillard8222]

Gee guys, took you long enough :) you do know you live next door to each other? I’ve been waiting a while for you to come together and am really glad to see you having a live stream….. Stephen Meyer and Hugh Ross have probably had a few phone calls I’m sure, maybe another stream would be good.

[@LoveYourNeighbour.]

It's wonderful to hear these two extremely informative organizations dialoging together! I've learned tremendously from both R.T.B. and Discovery Institute! (My favorite part of this discussion was geologist Kasey Luskin getting quite spirited responding to Dan's question, near the end!! "I WANT TO FOLLOW THE EVIDENCE WHEREVER IT LEADS!" Perfectly stated Kasey!!)

[@jamesdownard1510]

Casey's ID (or RTB's for that matter) have never followed anything like all the evidence, as they miss overall 90% of the data field in their apologetics.

[@RodMartinJr]

@@jamesdownard1510 Interesting. But blindness from certainty is a disease which like strikes *_everyone!_* The moment we become certain on ANY topic, we stop looking. Structurally -- mechanically -- that is the essence of self-imposed blindness or ignorance. Scientists do this. Believers do this. And it's difficult to maintain an attachment to uncertainty, when certainty is so much more comfortable. But the use of *_uncertainty_* helps to keep us *_Humble_* -- one of the key ingredients of discovery. 😎♥✝🇺🇸💯

[@jamesdownard1510]

@@RodMartinJr Things are more complicated, and simpler, than that. The problem I spot with Rana & Luskin is their data field is very small, and they lack a clear model even to account for what they bring up. Now certain or uncertain they may be doesn't change that faulty base flaw. By the way, one can be certain of many things. One can be absolutely certain no one, not even gods, can write out a root formula for a fifth degree polynomial, for such a thing is impossible, in all universes and all times. Historians can be equally certain that Caesar and Cleopatra (assuming they did in fact exist, which there seems no good reason to doubt) absolutely never spoke to each other in Mayan or conversational Klingon. The issue is, can a philosophy claiming to make useful contributions to science be reasonably considered to have done so while ignoring most of the data field and never really thinking through what they think happened in the past. A philosophy that trips up on those two points (as Luskin's ID and Rana's OEC have) simply cannot be taken seriously.

[@RodMartinJr]

@@jamesdownard1510 Thank you for an interesting conversation. Simpler AND more complicated? While I like your examples of things about which we might become certain, I disagree with you *_both_* in principle and in the specifics. In the specifics, YOU do not know everything. Any claim of certainty implies that every possible imagination, fact, detail, possibility in this universe, and any other, has been thoroughly examined. I remain only *_relatively_* certain that you have not done this, and thus are not omniscient. *_But I could be wrong._* YOU could be a supreme being helping me through my muddled thinking. The *_active_* ingredient, here, is, *_"I don't know."_* And there is *_great utility_* in that openness to being wrong. We can be relatively certain of things, and that gives us utility. But the moment we close off all possibility of further investigation on ANY topic, we become blind to new evidence which could prove us wrong. Daniel Coyle, in his book, *_The Talent Code,_* expands on this notion of fearlessly facing uncertainty... and perhaps embracing that "discomfort." And this is where the *_principle_* comes into play. When we remain at least a little uncertain ("humble") we allow for new evidence. Absolute certainty on anything is crippling and really doesn't have a useful purpose, except perhaps at the edge of omniscience, where creation and miracles occur. And *_that_* is an interesting field of study. 😎♥✝🇺🇸💯

[@jamesdownard1510]

@@RodMartinJr You are free to be as certain or uncertain as you choose. None of that will change the data field, or what it does or doesn't show.

[@johnpinto5095]

Hey Fuzz! I drink my tea using that same mug ❤

[@FocusonJesus-le5cv]

No one addressed the Biblical cause of death and decay in the world, which is the foundational reason we need a Savior.. the Last Adam, Jesus Christ.

[@BabyBugBug]

It was a short seminar. They cannot cover everything. Though I do think it could have been a bit more focused.

[@ji8044]

Judaism has no savior. It's a post-Jesus Christian invention. Therefore Jesus could not have been a savior because he, his family and followers were all Jews. "Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice and addressed the crowd: “Fellow Jews and all of you who live in Jerusalem, let me explain this to you; listen carefully to what I say" Acts 2:14

[@kennethcarter1323]

Agree with these brothers in Christ that ultimately the practice of science is grounded in philosophy not directly accessible to the scientific method: naturalism or supernaturalism. The organizational difference appears to be whether to embrace concordism.

[@CreationMyths]

I just want to say that the "Dan" asking questions was not me.

[@davidjankowski5460]

I don't get the deceiving argument (and I'm no scientist) because all the unknowns about ages and ages for transitions can be just as confusing/deceiving. There are so many things both spokesmen couldn't explain, so maybe their old earth hypothesis is just as deceiving. Here's a question I don't understand: If "hominids" and humans all were breeding together, even a little bit, shouldn't we have a lot more "living beings" on earth today? Why did they develop so slowly? I've heard that there were wars and pestilences that have kept the populations down. Well, in modern history, there has been no lack of wars and pestilences, but in the last 2000 years, we've grown to more than 8 billion people. In the Bible, people lived and procreated for a long time, so how many people were there on earth at the flood? Couldn't there have been billions of people? Just some musings from a "neanderthal."

[@davidjankowski5460]

I'm sure you've had dialogue with young earth scholars, and that would be far more helpful and interesting to me for future podcasts.

[@justasimpleguy7211]

I leave the material world to science and the spiritual world to religion/spirituality, and quite frankly I don't see the two being in conflict. Neither invalidates the other.

[@9jmorrison]

Genesis Chapter 1 Man is created with other animals, Chapter 2 Adam was created. A day is an epic, and can last billions of years, Chapter 6 Sons if God, or as said in Job are angels birthed giants. These were so wicked it brought the flood. This is how the Bible reads, and has been misunderstood

[@LyndseyWard-o4s]

do you believe in fossils? ... how old do you think that they are?.....

[@martarico186]

How do you explain salvation for mankind if there was interbreading with other species like Neanderthal?

[@fuzrana894]

Great question: I wrote an article addressing your question and others regarding human-Neanderthal interbreeding Check it out Answering Theological Questions on Neanderthal-Human Interbreeding reasons.org/explore/blogs/the-cells-design/answering-scientific-questions-on-neanderthal-human-interbreeding-part-2

[@sliglusamelius8578]

Neanderthals were Homo sapiens, not a different species..

[@ji8044]

@@sliglusamelius8578 In that case, you just blew up the Adam and Eve story entirely.

[@sliglusamelius8578]

@@ji8044 I don't know how that would be true, and when exactly did I say anything about the Adam and Eve story??

[@ji8044]

@@sliglusamelius8578 You talked about the salvation of mankind. Without Adam and Eve, mankind does not need salvation.

[@swbaertschi]

Great discussion! Well done Fuz and Casey. And I love the way Ken moderated the discussion. 👍👏👏

[@emilymorales5887]

Class act. All three of these guys.

[@christianbensel]

Very interesting, thank you!

[@cthaun]

That was fun. Thanks!

[@garypoppel8854]

This was a very interesting and helpful program.

[@timkretzer]

This was great. Very enlightening, encouraging and motivating. More, more, more, please.

[@LyndseyWard-o4s]

of course every other religion is wrong ... or more specifically your version of Christianity is the one true way.... LLAP

[@jonathanlong6987]

Briefly, If one’s version of Christianity is that fallen humans need a Savior to be forgiven, reconciled w/ God, & given eternal life & the Savior is God the Son who became human, sacrificed Himself on the cross, was buried, rose on the 3rd day, ascended into heaven & shall return as King kings & Lord of lords to restore eternally & completely His Kingdom on earth w/ all who trust/have faith in Him alone for their salvation, then, yes, this religion is true & all others are false. So, Christianity is true or the most successful fraud in all history.

[@jonathanlong6987]

PS Even if you live long & prosper or die young in abject poverty you will still face the eternal judgment of the Holy, Holy, Holy God.

[@estherhollas7381]

Looking forward to watching this later!

[@danacamp5437]

The audio is so so bad. Seriously imbalanced. Shame.

[@rolandjacques649]

So good! 1:12:05 best answers to a question ever

[@neilenglish7433]

Excellent cross- fertilisation between these scientists. Would love to see more of these dialogues!

[@Reclaimer77]

Casey Luskin isn't a scientist. He's a Creationist working for Discovery Institute, a Creationist evangelical organization.

[@neilenglish7433]

@@Reclaimer77 If you listened to the presentation you’ll discover he completed a PhD in geosciences. That would make him a scientist wouldn’t it?

[@BabyBugBug]

@@Reclaimer77Why are you spreading misinformation? The man has an extensive list of credentials with a PhD.

[@BabyBugBug]

@@neilenglish7433I notice the trolls that constantly pop up for these kinds of discussions, 99% of them do not read the material, do not listen, and launch thinly veiled attacks to discredit. It is like a formula they all follow taken from the New Atheist movement of the late 2000s.

[@Johnny-mz9ot]

​@@Reclaimer77Aaannd, here come the ad hominem attacks! 😅

[@MerleNeed]

merle from Canton, Ga

[@philstilwell]

The conversation stayed within factual accuracy it appears. Good job on that. I gave up on Luskin several years ago due to his distortion of facts when speaking on the political aspects of intelligent design. ◉ ChatGPT: ▶︎ “ ### Factual Accuracy - **Opening Statements**: The introduction by Ken Samples accurately reflects the mission of Reasons to Believe (RTB) and their efforts to bridge science and faith. - **Guests**: Dr. Casey Luskin from the Discovery Institute and Dr. Fazale Rana from RTB are correctly introduced with their credentials and affiliations. - **Science and Faith Dialogues**: The discussion about building unity in the body of Christ and promoting truth, unity, and charity aligns with common Christian perspectives. - **Discovery Institute Overview**: The description of the Discovery Institute and its focus on intelligent design, along with various other projects, is factually correct. - **Reasons to Believe Overview**: RTB’s focus on using science to reveal God and their evangelistic mission is accurately described. - **Fossil Record Discussion**: The discussion on the fossil record, the Cambrian explosion, and the various other "explosions" in biological history are well-documented in scientific literature. - **Radiometric Dating**: The explanation of various radiometric dating methods and their reliability aligns with standard scientific understanding. - **Human Evolution**: The points made about the hominid fossil record, including the challenges in constructing a clear evolutionary pathway and the existence of abrupt transitions, are debated within the scientific community and accurately reflect some mainstream views. - **Neanderthals**: The discussion about Neanderthals and Denisovans reflects current scientific debates about their relation to modern humans and their cognitive abilities. ### Logical Coherence - **Structure**: The content is logically structured, beginning with an introduction, followed by detailed discussions on various topics, and concluding with a Q&A session. - **Arguments**: Both Casey Luskin and Fazale Rana present coherent arguments for their positions on intelligent design, human evolution, and the fossil record. - **Interplay of Views**: The dialogue between Luskin and Rana is logically consistent, with both agreeing on many points while also acknowledging differences, particularly in their interpretations of the fossil record and the role of intelligent design. - **Methodological Naturalism**: The critique of methodological naturalism is logically argued, highlighting the limitations it imposes on scientific inquiry according to the speakers. ### Testability - **Intelligent Design**: The hypothesis that intelligent design can be detected through complex and specified information (CSI) in biological systems is presented as testable using scientific methods. Examples such as mutational sensitivity tests and genetic knockout experiments are provided. - **Radiometric Dating**: The reliability of radiometric dating is discussed with reference to its consistency across different methods and samples, which is a testable claim within geology and paleontology. - **Hominid Fossil Record**: The claim that the hominid fossil record shows abrupt transitions rather than gradual evolutionary changes is testable through paleontological research and the discovery of new fossils. - **Neanderthals and Denisovans**: The cognitive abilities and genetic relationships of Neanderthals and Denisovans to modern humans can be tested through ongoing genetic, archaeological, and comparative studies. ### Conclusion The content is factually accurate, logically coherent, and presents hypotheses and claims that are testable through scientific methods. The discussion is well-grounded in current scientific debates and aligns with known positions within the fields of paleontology, genetics, and intelligent design.

[@BabyBugBug]

I am genuinely curious - would you explain your position on Luskin and how you feel he distorts facts?

[@philstilwell]

@@BabyBugBug I listened to his show ID The Future for several years, and he was always spinning things to suggest the was a huge exodus of biologists out of evolutionary theory. I would talk to my professional biologist friends and nothing of the sort was happening. It got really tiresome. His credulity is justifiably gone.

[@BabyBugBug]

@@philstilwellHmmm. Honestly, I do not see this. There is a good amount of doubt among some biologists, though admitting something like this is heresy as I’m sure you can imagine. I’ve spoken to Casey and he is a nice guy. You must understand he is passionate about this and that will naturally come through what he says. It’s pretty normal for any human being I would say. I wouldn’t personally take such a harsh stance against him.

[@philstilwell]

@@BabyBugBug That is precisely what I'm talking about. The misleading and unquantified phrase "a good amount of doubt" has had non-biologists imagining there we are in the middle of a paradigm shift. Shame on you and Luskin for using such misleading terms. Young Christian kids get excited about joining this alleged revolution, only to be shocked once they enter academia. You are shooting yourselves in the foot. Once you forfeit your credibility with inappropriate rhetoric, there are few things your kids will believe you on.

[@ji8044]

@@BabyBugBug "There is a good amount of doubt among some biologists" Scientists differ on some ASPECTS of evolution, as they should because there is so much more to learn. However no credible research institution or university in the entire world today takes the position that evolution overall did not occur. Your own DNA would be proof of the nonsensical magnitude of that idea.

[@Jigglepoke]

I bet no creationists actually hear what this guy is saying.... He believes in evolution. He also believes in God as the creator. The only reason he believes in an old Earth is because it seems impossible that it's a young Earth from what we observe. The problem with the old Earth creationist position is that it makes the bible impossible. He uses Romans 1:20 "God is clearly seen from creation".... What we observe from creation unless God is deceiving: 1. Radiometric dating - old Earth. 2. Homin fossils. - 6 million years till now... looks like a possible intermediate pathways to humans. 3. '"90" different steps or explosions of life... plants, birds, mammals etc.' Fossil record shows explosions of life in a way that that is similar in body plans to the lifeforms before them. The Bible mentions only 5 ... step 1 vegetation including fruit trees (when there's no animals to eat them) Step 2. Creatures of the sea Step 3. Flying creatures. Step 4 Domestic (when no humans existed to be called such things?!) And wild animals. Step. 5 humans. So are we to believe the 90 from Steven Meyer or God's Word? If God's word then it would seem that evolution is true within those 5 steps. If Steven Meyer, it would seem 90 steps suggests evolution is true as they closely resemble pre-existing fossils. Finally, why fight against evolution? Why not just take it ine step further and say we don't know but we believe God made it to be this way.... that way you're not in conflict with reality and you don't make a mockery of believing bitsnof the Bible are literal and bits are not without any scriptural basis.

[@ji8044]

No that is wrong. The Discovery Institute people do NOT believe in evolution. They believe in endless acts of spontaneous creation by God. The rest of your comment is very confusing, so it's difficult to know what position you are taking.

[@mugdiller2124]

Radiometric dating is based on the assumptions of man, not observable evidence. There's no deception by God if it's wrong.

[@ji8044]

@@mugdiller2124 But it's not wrong of course.

[@mugdiller2124]

@@ji8044 Just saying, radiometric dating - right or wrong, either way God wouldn't be a deceiver. BTW, do you think protein degradation rates (dino soft tissue) would be a viable test to possibly falsify the historic isotope degradation rates used in radiometric dating?

[@sliglusamelius8578]

There should be thousands of transitional forms in the fossil record, there are not. Therefore the claimed phylogenetic tree of life paradigm has no evidence. Abiogenesis has zero empirical basis, and plenty of "a priori" reasons to think it's nonsense. Not single biological protein has ever formed a-biologically. Not one. The hominin fossils are hard to interpret, many are probably apes and many are just Homo sapiens. There is no way to show what they represent..

[@paulfrank6965]

Good job, guys!

[@vikroy3777]

I asked a question twice ... was the second question asked then I asked again and you did not answer. Very poor.

[@fuzrana894]

What was your question?

[@ji8044]

I have a great deal of respect for the people at RTB, though I disagree with many aspects of their videos. They are always open and upfront about what they believe. That is not the case with the Discovery Institute people who for 30 years have attempted to disguise their push of Biblical creationism into public education by calling it "intelligent design". The founder of the ID movement, attorney Philip Johnson, was very open in his later years about creating the Discovery Institute because the Supreme Court ruled against Biblical creationism in science class in the case of Edwards v. Aguilard. The people at DI are evangelical Christian creationists (David Berlinski is the rare Jewish member). They spend much of their time speaking to church groups and raising money from Christian creationists. Stephen Meyer knows the real age of the earth, but he will usually not answer questions about it because it would cut off his YEC funding donors. If I were to ask any member of RTB the HOW question about life on earth, they would have no difficulty offering me a variation on God did it as told in Genesis. I respect that as theology no matter what I think of it as science or history. If you try to ask a member of Discovery the HOW question, they avoid answering entirely. They cannot use the God of the Hebrews in any part of their answer or they will let the legal fiction of intelligent design drop. Nor can they use the standard evolutionary process, obviously. So they avoid the HOW are new species created question like Superman near kryptonite.

[@BabyBugBug]

You have clearly not read any of their books. None of what you say is in the slightest bit true.

[@ji8044]

@@BabyBugBug What I wrote is a matter of public record. Read the transcript of Kitzmiller v. Dover.

[@BabyBugBug]

⁠@@ji8044Go directly on their website. They have stated they do not wish to have their ideas officially taught in the classroom due to the risk of having this turn political like every other thing in our society. Go look, I dare you. Read their books, just one, if you doubt what I say. Clearly you haven’t and are making the oft-made baseless claims atheists make to discredit different opinions that do not agree with their worldview. The only thing remotely true you do say is that they do not go deep into how. But you are not mentioning another aspect to this: 1) Neo-Darwinism that is actually taught in our schools is full of just-so stories and made up possibilities that have no mechanism of action nor evidence. 2) Intelligent design rests on the inference of an intelligent cause (meaning a mind) when we examine a body of evidence. Their goal in their writings is to poke holes in modern day Neo-Darwinism, also known as the scientific consensus, which is very easy to do. Don’t believe me? Look at their Evolution News website if you don’t have time to read their scientific publications. There is a Fossil Friday by scientist Günter Bechly, and he is very upfront of his beliefs in both an intelligent cause and common descent. His views have changed over time as he looks at the evidence. Once again, don’t believe me? Go read his publications and go on his website.

[@BabyBugBug]

@@ji8044In regards to the court case, you are referring to the simple mentioning of other ideas in a science class that goes against “the consensus.” Orthodoxy is not scientific. That is the whole point of the Discovery Institute and why they get under the skin of so many materialists. When free ideas are allowed to be talked about freely, materialists are keenly aware that many people would logically make the conclusion that their naturalistic dogma simply does not make sense. The Discovery Institute does not wish to legislate religion in science class, they want to allow the many holes and controversies of neo-Darwinism to be spoken of without fear of punishment by “the establishment.” If you think that’s awful, then we will agree to disagree.

[@Reclaimer77]

@@BabyBugBug That's literally a fact. Look up Kitzmiller vs Dover, and the DI "Wedge Document". They pretended to do science to get Creationism taught in schools, they failed. They also want to transform America into a theocracy. They are liars at their core. Their lies get exposed. It's public record.