Heiser is an Evangelical scholar who holds some views, or allows for possibilities, that are controversial in Evangelical circles. I'm no longer dogmatic on issues of Human Origins. Often for many of the same reasons William Lane Craig has given in his lecture series on Creation and Evolution. For the longest time my views were mostly in keeping with the RTB Model. It is still my default position. However, for years I've thought about the possibility of Pre-Adamites and/or Co-Adamites in conjunction with some form of evolution. In the following video, Heiser provides some Biblical passages that may support (or allow for the possibility of) the existence of non-Adamite humans.
The following link is to William Lane Craig's series of lectures on Creation and Evolution. They are in both Video and Audio formats. While I don't agree with all of Craig's views, his comments are nevertheless informative. There are 21 lectures in the series.
Evolution News and Views has a series of articles on the topic of Intelligent Design of the human body that I highly recommend. Here's the link to the page where the articles are listed for reading.
The article tries to claim that there are evolutionary survivability
advantages to believing in God despite Him supposedly not existing. But
frankly the article posits nothing of value on that discussion. Better
arguments have been put forth elsewhere.
Of course, all such arguments fall prey to one important fact. If
evolution selects for us to believe in some form of deity when
objectively there is no God at all, then evolution is selecting for us
to believe a lie; and since on the theory that God isn’t real then all
our knowledge comes from similar evolutionary pressures, then ultimately
we must acknowledge that evolution cannot select for truth at all.
This means we can’t exactly trust anything that is based on evolutionary
pressures. But I’m sure atheists will get right on patching up that flaw. Any time now. Any time.
The link CalvinDude provides is to an article that argues that the scientific evidence strongly supports the idea that humans are neurologically hard-wired to believe in metaphysically supernatural personal entities (like God, gods, ghosts, spirits etc.). Atheists often appeal to evolutionary reliabilism to overcome the theistic challenge of EAAN (i.e. the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism). However, if humans really are hard-wired to believe in supernatural entities and can't completely escape or overcome that bias, then that undermines the appeal to evolutionary reliabilism.
With the assumption that atheism is true, the fact that "most" people ("all" according to the article above?) are believers in the supernatural goes to show that evolution has done a terrible job of designing our sensory organs and mental faculties to be able to arrive at truth. This supports Plantinga's EAAN (Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism) which argues that it's rationally incoherent to be a evolutionary atheist because unguided evolution makes it unlikely that any of our thoughts and conclusions are trustworthy or true. Including the conclusion of atheism.
On the one hand many atheists claim that our cognitive faculties are reliable enough to enable us to conclude that God doesn't exist (or probably so). Yet, the empirical evidence from experiments is that humans are naturally and incurably wedded to the belief in supernatural entities like God. On the other hand, many atheists claim that our cognitive faculties are very deceptive and that accounts for why the majority of humans believe in supernatural entities and only a few can overcome that natural programming so as to come to the more sensible conclusion that there probably isn't a God. Yet, if taken to its logical conclusion, that gives atheists reason to doubt their conclusions, including the conclusion that there is no God or is likely no God. Why assume they can overcome such evolutionary programming if evolution did such a bad job at forming our cognitive faculties? Thus making positive strong atheism epistemologically difficult (if not impossible) to assert.
The following are three links to an article about the scientific
experiment that showed that atheists sweat when they dare God to do
harm:
Greg Bahnsen was a Calvinist philosopher and apologist who argued for the standard Calvinistic position that all men know God but suppress that knowledge in their unrighteousness. I'm no longer dogmatic that [setting aside the mentally handicapped and infants] all men do know God. Maybe we all do. But at the very least, I'm convinced that all people *OUGHT* to know God exists and that those who don't (if they really exist) are culpably ignorant.
The word and concept(s) of "chance" is something that often crops up in apologetical, theological and philosophical discussions. For example, discussions regarding evolution, intelligent design, predestination, free will, providence, superstition, mythology, quantum mechanics etc. Unfortunately, the word is often used imprecisely and equivocally. That's because the word "chance" can refer to different concepts and their different meanings are used interchangeably in discussions (often resulting in the fallacy of equivocation).
So, for the sake of clearer and more productive discussions, here are some rough and ready definitions.
Chance is one of those words that has different meanings in different
contexts. Here are SEVEN common ways the term is used (there are probably many more).
1. Chance can refer to our ignorance due to
(seemingly) random events (to finite minds). For example, we talk about
how a flipped coin ends up landing heads or tails "because of" chance (or "by chance").
"Chance" here has no metaphysical existence. It's a description of or reference to our
ignorance of the conditions of a certain situation. In flipping a coin we never know the exact amount of spin given to the coin, the distance to
the floor, the height of flipping, how air pressure/wind/humidity (etc)
affects the flipping and landing of the coin. The same goes for randomly shuffled
cards. There's only a limited number of ways in which they can be
arranged. Even if we can't predict which way because of limited
knowledge or limited mental calculating ability. The key word is "ignorance."
2. Related to the above, "chance" can refer to randomness. For example, after randomly shuffling cards we might say that whatever card ends up being on top was a result of or "by chance". The key words is "randomness."
3. "Chance" can refer to
mathematical probabilities. For example, when we speak about the
"chances" of a coin landing heads or tales being 50/50. The statistical probability does not affect the outcome even though some people might think that it does or can.
4.
"Chance" sometimes refers to an interesting coincidence. For example, you can try to call someone at the same time he is attempting to call you. As a result both of you
may talk about how it was "by chance" you both decided to call each other. Or how "by chance" you met each other at the dentist's office even though neither of you had planned on it. This usage is related to the concept of serendipity. Which Wikipedia defines as a '"fortuitous happenstance" or "pleasant surprise".'
5.
"Chance" can refer to metaphysically contingent events (including "freak events"). That is, events
that have no metaphysical and/or epistemic (rational) cause or reason. For example, if a horse were to pop into existence instantaneously without any physical or metaphysical cause. Christians reject metaphysically contingent events because of our doctrine of providence.
6.
"Chance" can refer to something that actually has
power to do something. "Chance" in this case is a power or entity that can determine things (sometimes called luck, fortune, destiny etc). As if it has some metaphysical existence of its own and
power or force to affect events in reality. So for example, some people attribute their meeting and
finding their spouse to "chance" in the same way others would refer to
fate, destiny or fortune. Another example is how people talk about "Lady Luck" when it comes to gambling or a winning streak. Christians reject this superstitious notion of "chance." However, Christians do believe in providentially appointed events.
7. "Chance" can sometimes be associated with the Three Fates of mythology (cf. Moirai or Parcae).
As noted above, these different senses of the word "chance" is often mixed up, confounded and muddled in conversation. Both between different people and when a single person is speaking about a particular topic. The first four senses are compatible with Christianity, but the last three are incompatible with Christianity.
Here's an EXCELLENT book on the topic of Chance and God's Sovereignty by Vern Poythress. Amazingly it's freely available online!!!!!!!
The following are some video introductions to the "Argument from Reason" or variations on it, or to related arguments like EAAN. These arguments have been critiqued by atheists and skeptics. While they may have shown some of the weakness of the arguments, the fact remains that given atheistic naturalism and materialism, it's more probable than not that evolution has not resulted in our having mental faculties that can truly reason to truth or resulted in sensory organs that accurately perceive its environment.
While mimicry in the animal and plant world isn't absolute
proof of design in nature, it is evidence. I'll leave it up to you
to determine to what degree since some aspects of mimicry can be
explained by natural selection. Nevertheless, I'm going to post some
pictures of mimicry in nature. Mimicry can include similarities in
appearance, behaviour, sound, scent and location. Here's a link to
Wikipedia's article on Mimicry.
Here are some examples of "leaf insects"
Owl Butterflies can look like owl heads or snake heads
The following are some recent resources on the Reasons To Believe website relating to human origins and differences. They are arranged chronologically from the earliest to the latest. Some are articles and others audio podcasts. Because of the most recent scientific data and conclusions, the Reasons To Believe organization will probably have to re-adjust and revise their testable creation model. Both Hugh Ross and Fazale Rana are in the process of updating their book, "Who Was Adam?" I'll be updating this blog every now and then to add more links.
The book A MIGRATION HEADACHE….For Evolutionists was written by cultist leader Garner Ted Armstrong (February 9, 1930 – September 15, 2003). I do not endorse the theology of Armstrongism. Though I did 20 years ago. I am now an orthodoxy Evangelical Protestant (specifically Calvinistic in soteriology, and Charismatic in pneumatology). Nevertheless, I have always considered his book on migration really interesting. When I first read it years ago, it got me thinking about how amazingly complex and mysterious animal and insect migration is. I don't know how accurate the factual claims made in the book are, but the general gist of his argument for why migration is problematic for evolution is thought provoking, at the very least. Here's a link to his book.