IMHO, the Bible’s account of historical events is well verified in many places by archaeological and manuscript discoveries.
Many of these are ‘anecdotal’ in that just the name of a certain person or a certain place described in the Bible have been verified by secular research.
But other examples are highly detailed and specific, such as the Cyrus cylinder vs Book of Ezra.
With so much correlating evidence in favour of parts of the Biblical account, it is highly likely that the remainder of the Bible – the parts not yet proven definitely factual – is also accurate.
Yet Bible skeptics continue to contend that the Bible’s historical account is flawed, fictional, or only vaguely connected to actual historical finds – this in spite of mounting evidence dug up from the ground.
But that got me thinking… Isn’t that the same thing I am personally doing with the fossil record of macro-evolution?
(Macro-evolution being from one species to a new species, rather than modification within a species.)
To be precise: The theorized evolution of whales, from land-based mammals to halfway-aquatic, then finally fully aquatic swimmers. For more on that, see these educative comments:
My objections to the reasoning that ‘fossils = proof of evolution’ is that such evidence is, to me, circumstantial – the fossils are individual and isolated snapshots frozen in time.
Three different fossils may show a whale-ish land mammal with running legs, a water-land mammal with swimming legs, and an almost modern whale with atravistic hind legs. But these fossils could merely show three unrelated animals that happen to look slightly similar.
But now I compare it to the standard I hold Biblical archaeology to: For example, the Cyrus cylinder seems to independently verify the account of the Jews returning to Israel after the exile to Babylon, along with corroborative facts such as the Jewish legacy in Iraq (e.g. Babylonian Talmud).
But these findings could merely show that the writer of Ezra had at least moderate research skills. Cyrus was a famous name, and his decrees would be heard across the known nations. It could have been that a Jewish scribe used Cyrus’ decree as the basis for a (fictional) story of the triumphal return of the Jews.
So by the very same standard with which Biblical skeptics dismiss the archaeological and manuscript evidence that I feel proves Biblical history (you need complete historical accounts!), I am dismissing the fossil evidence that evolutionists feel prove descent with modification (you need more transitionals!).
Therefore, if I am in any way consistent, fair and unbiased in my judgement, I must come to the same conclusions for both disciplines.
So here it is at last: I admit that certain aspects of the theory of evolution, namely the gradual descent with modification of certain species into different species, is highly likely to be true.
Greatest of thanks go to commentor Ed Darrell, who was quite tireless in presenting information and links to convince me of the factual truth of evolution (despite my obtuseness).
I’m not 100% there yet, but I’m middle-ground rather than strongly skeptical. I still have issues with other aspects of Darwinistic evolution, such as how the various Phyla formed and why no transitionals seem to survive to the current day.
So, to summarize: Using the same standard for both, I believe Biblical history and cetain aspects of macro-evolution to be highly likely to be true, as corroborated by physical evidence dug up from the ground.
Welcome in, have a seat and a hot cup of chocolate, certain aspects of macro-evolution!
But global warming still stays outside in the CO2-caused record snowfall.