The main difference between Evolutionary Creationism and Materialist Evolution is presence of a supernatural power. He (or She) is actively involved in the first, not in the latter. Isn’t this dichotomy mainly a matter of belief and not science? One cannot empirically prove (for example, in a laboratory) whether or not a supernatural power was involved in speciation, molecular evolution, etc.
2 Likes
Of course creation is a theological position whereas evolution is demonstrable. The evolution we can observe doesn’t establish divine creation but neither does it rule it out.
4 Likes
It rules it out all the way down to the ground of being, and whether that is purposeful, that question only arising due to the claims of the earliest Church. Without Jesus there is no basis whatsoever for ruling it in.
There is, can be, no difference whatsoever in how evolution, and [a!]biogenesis before it, works, whether God grounds being or not.
1 Like
Well I think divine creation is unlikely. It is only because I think it also unlikely that what seems rational to these evolved simian brains should be the arbiters of what is possible. Likewise your assertions of certainty do not budge my opinion. But I hope my unwillingness to strut my opinions as facts does not make you doubt my disbelief.
2 Likes
Of course, but it can undetectably be guided by God’s providence, even if you à priori and mistakenly reject that truth.
Not a problem. Rationality is prevenient, independent of brain. There isn’t a rationality where Kolmogorov complexity doesn’t apply. Where these assertions are not so.
PS I can’t imagine an intentional mind not wanting not to be meaningless, no matter how rational they are, simian or cephalopod or ant colony gestalt or forest.
Good luck (in the strict theological sense of the word 
) confining God to it.
1 Like
Yes, anyone claiming that it is possible to prove a deity (or lack thereof) by scientific means is committing one of a few possible logical fallacies. We can demonstrate certain aspects of a deity (e.g. “doesn’t seem to change physical constants around”).
2 Likes
What’s that got to do with deity?
So one cannot prove the lack of existence of the Creator God. Right
That doesn’t mean that one cannot say there is no difference as to the probability as to whether there the Creator God exists or Not?
New Atheism claims that that there probably is no God because the universe is without meaning and/or purpose, but this is not proven by science.
In my considered opinion that science and everything else in life indicates that the universe has meaning and purpose and therefore it is most very probable that God created the universe.
1 Like
Good response, MarkD. In a physics class, students are told what gravity is, the equations and theory that helps to understand it. The professor does not pause to ask how a supernatural being might be involved. Some students might believe that gravity exists because of a supernatural being, others might not. Outside of religious class, who cares? Why is the study of evolution different?
1 Like
Well, I recall that there are some arguments that the physical constants did change in the very beginning, which are probably based on inflation, etc, though I haven’t read deeply into the details. In that case, there would be (in principle) a purely scientific argument.
However, here we might be talking about testing the creationist argument that the earth is 6000 years old. One argument was that the light that is older than 6000 years was created in route. (Wow!) That one, you probably cannot fight. However, a reasonable argument is that there should be some identifiable transition between 6000 and 6001 years. Of course, it is completely seamless. Another place where we should find evidence is that creationists have to find a way to explain away all the evidence we have from radioactivity. Again, an argument would be that the constants changed between Noah’s ark, and after. Hence, we should see a detectable indication that light originating before the change in these constants is different from the light arriving after (and this is even within the 6000-year window). So it would be a plausible place where, were it true, we could (reasonably) claim “evidence” that God created the heavens and the earth according to the young earth creationist view. Of course, as with all science, we need to overcome the corroborative weight, but a genuine discovery like that would put some of the other scientific weight in question (i.e., it would have to be examined in light of this information).
Mind you, I am not holding my breath, I am just providing a plausible example. In general, on science, I go with Isaiah 45:15 “Truly, you are a God who hides himself, O God of Israel, the Savior.” God does not compel us to believe by lightning bolts and fear, nor by man and his cudgel. God grants us a choice and we are the ones who desire to be with God or not. So we cannot use the “science baton” to coerce people to believe or not believe in God.
by Grace we proceed
Part of the problem is that biological evolution challenges some popular interpretations of creation narratives from various religions. Of course, that should prompt careful examination of the interpretation as well as of the scientific data, not an insistence that one’s interpretation is infallible.
But also there is the problem that evolution is frequently invoked as supposedly providing scientific justification for a variety of ethical and social positions. In the first half of the 1900’s, evolution was commonly invoked as proving that eugenics was our social duty, not just in popular pseudoscientific movements like Nazi claims but in standard biology textbooks. Marxism and social Darwinism are additional examples. Today we have the philosophically incompetent claims that neuropsychology proves determinism and a non-dualistic human nature.
If it were possible to get through to everyone that biological evolution is nothing more or less than a very successful model for how kinds of organisms change over time, we could get rid of a lot of the fuss and I could study it in peace.
3 Likes
Nor should they, depending on the syllabus. In a class focused on science I wouldn’t think so either.
Did you have the idea that theistic beliefs played any role in the way scientists who are Christians approach evolution? I don’t think that is true. Do you have any reason to think otherwise?
I use the term evolutionary creationism to define my position. Now when I use the term creationism it’s more of a reference for the unknown cosmic origins and has nothing to do with the evolutionary process, or even abiogenesis. I don’t believe we were planned. I don’t think God guided the evolutionary process. So I believe in a materialistic evolution and evolutionary creationism.
I do agree that it’s a matter of faith. Belief in god is a matter of faith. I don’t think there is anything in science, beyond god of the gaps, within science.
I believe Yahweh interacts with humanity through the supernatural experience of the Holy Spirit.
Also very applicable is Jeremiah 33:25, especially when YECs want things to vary whenever it suits them,
1 Like
At what point after 2348 BCE did the physical constants change and why would they have to?
Do have pigs have wings?
Ever since Leibniz at least we have asked why is there anything at all, so it is perfectly reasonable, rational to ask what in the eternity of physis grounds it, instantiates prevenient order. All we know, and we do know, is that absolute nothingness would be unstable, if ! p then p. There is no reason to invoke meaning, purpose in that. Apart from our desire which focuses on Jesus as the only possible way out. In fact if there is purpose in eternal nature then there has never been nihilo. But positing purpose is problematic as it introduces another unnecessary inexplicable infinity of complexity.
Again, creationist evolution is materialist evolution, the only question is, is Jesus the real deal, which just changes the nature of the ground of being. And it is extremely easy to rationalize the claims of the early Church.
Have you got links on your claims? Arguments by the philosophical and neuropsychological consensus for free will, whatever that is, and magic?
for clarification… one cannot empirically prove that a supernatural power was involved, granted.
but one can conceivably empirically demonstrate that intelligent agency or purposeful design may well have been involved in aspects of speciation and molecular evolution, no?