Evolutionary Creationists Apologetics

Any docrine or view that starts with “God did, or is …”, is by definition theology. Thus, EC and YEC are both religious outlooks and are both failures. Science stands as the study of objects and phenomena natural. Any extension of science is properly the business of philosophy of science. Any discussion of God related doctrine is theology.

Both EC and YEC create narratives that may be apologetics, but are mostly arguments against each other’s narrative.

Of course, you can refute this with one word.

“Money.”

But then that is the root of all evil… says the Bible… 1 Tim 6:10. It is an exaggeration with a lot of truth to it nevertheless. Money tends to make hash of ideals because as the lifeblood of civilization it makes us face some of the unavoidable realities of life. But I wonder what God would say about this? Would He not suggest that sometimes our lofty ideals need to be brought down from the realm dreams and fantasy into a greater contact with reality? This is not say that the realities should rule… but more that life is found in the tension between them. We need to insist on our ideals AND deal with reality – BOTH.

Ah! Correction! 1 Tim 6:10 says “LOVE of money” is the root of all evil! So the Bible is more correct than I gave it credit for!

Well… it is still an exaggeration. There is a great deal of evil which has nothing to do with a love of money. There is also a love of power and mere gratification of physical desires which causes a lot of problems… not to mention love of self which when it goes too far is pretty destructive also.

I disagree a little bit.

Evolutionary creationism/ theists who believes in evolution is simply a way to state two things. You believe in God and you believe in science including evolution. It’s not a subject of evolution. It’s not a subset of religion. It’s a persons view. A persons faith in EC/TE is not influenced by God. Believing in a god or not does not change what the evolutionary theory is.

A EC is not going to use the fact they believe in God and that God was involved with his creation as a scientific approach. But a philosophical one about where they stand on faith and science.

But literal creationist are combing faith, theology, and science to say science is influenced directly and predominantly by their religion.

If a atheist and a theist both wrote a paper on the evolution of spiders it should look the same. If a creationist wrote one then it would most likely fit a very different narrative of the others.

2 Likes

EC state clearly that they believe God somehow (specifically) works through evolution - this places their ideas on Darwinian thinking in the realm of revelation. YEC place scripture in the place of science, making this some sort of divine teaching.

There is a great difference between personal views, scientific theories as discussed within philosophy of science, and theological discussions grounded on scripture. It is sufficient to show that overall science and a general understanding of “in the beginning God created the Heavens and earth … and mankind … etc.,” are not in conflict and each activity teaches us certain things.

Science cannot step into revelation.

Not really sure what that means.

Science can certainly alter how you understand revelation.

Oh, maybe you mean that science cannot evaluate revelation directly and make judgements about it. That makes sense. Science cannot speak to things which are neither measurable nor falsifiable.

science can very well step into revelation and vice versa, as I use it methodological to test the validity of the ideas that are revealed to me.
It’s funny that a couple of days ago I was asked by a researcher to pray for her experiments to show the sensitivity to detect the level of COVID she hoped to detect as she fathomed that believing in God this would be my approach to science.
I explained to her that this is not how prayer works as to ask God to provide me with the reality I wish for but to ask God to help me to understand the reality he provided. Thus it is to me no surprise that those who think God to be Big Santa do fail to find God in reality and instead of thinking critically about why they think God to be Santa find it easier to declare that there is no God.
It is then so amusing to see those “skeptics” at the PHE to expect to detect 10^2 virus copies/ml using a pregnancy test style lateral flow test. 10^2 viral copies /ml are only 50 in 100ul and even if each of them carries 1000 copies of the nuclear protein and we would catch them all we would only have 50000 molecules, e.g. 8.3*10^-20 moles or 0.083 attomoles. One can only hope that those professional sceptics would suffer a revelation of common sense, but as there is so much politics involved in science, sadly it becomes a thriving snake oil business.

Someone says, “Veridisonip is ako.”
And I reply, “I do not know what this means.”
Then you say, “Veridisonip is not ako, because goobie is benak”
And guess what? I know what that means even less.

I mean… I know what science is, and I know what revelation is. But I do not know what “step into revelation” means when we are talking about science. I suggested a possible meaning which makes sense of the claim that science cannot do it. But then your denial is of no help whatsoever, giving me something which makes even less sense than ever.

1 Like

Hi George -

Since your field is chemistry, I’d like to ask how you practice both chemistry research and Christian faith at the same time.

Is it possible for a Christian chemist to say that they believe God created everything, including all of physics and chemistry?

Is it possible that – even though you can’t tell the difference between an International Journal of Chemical Sciences article written by an atheist researcher and one written by a Christian researcher – a Christian researcher (such as yourself) might come to the conclusion that what we learn from chemistry somehow gives glory to God?

Can a Christian chemist say that God has designed chemistry–that it’s part of His design of the universe? (But in a faith-oriented discussion forum, not in a peer-reviewed journal.)

Can a Christian chemist say that God works through chemistry just as He works through everything else in the universe? (But in a faith-oriented discussion forum, not in a peer-reviewed journal.)

Some of the Pharisees in the crowd said to Jesus, “Teacher, rebuke your disciples!” “I tell you,” he replied, “if they keep quiet, the stones will cry out.” - Luke 19:39-40

Peace,
Chris

1 Like

@NickolaosPappas,thereareseveralimportantissuesinvolvedhere.

The first is that Apologetics usually pits faith against science or vice versa. BioLogos wisely seeks to avoid this pitfall However that means that the issues are best discussed by putting science against science and faith against faith. When we put faith against science, we can see that neither side is going to give in, and that is why there has been so little progress in resolving the issue of evolution over the years.

Of course that is why Creationism creates Creation Science based on the belief that true science would reflect the “Biblical” truth that God created the universe in 6 days. Predictably Creation Science and ID do not work, because they are not really scientific. Nonetheless the debate discredits the fact that Christians should be Truth seekers, and this Truth goes beyond the Bible.

Therefore we need again to discuss good theology.as opposed to bad theology and sound science vs. unverified science. On discussing theology with YEC it is clear that their theology is fixated on one passage in the Bible, Gen 1. That is not how to do theology, esp. when it contradicts an important NT passage, John1 Oddly BioLogos does not use this fact in its search for Truth…

So a serious problem is how to penetrate the evangelical ghetto that allows for only one understanding of Gen1. But there is still another conflict that separates all Christians from evolution, and that is our understanding of the basic nature of the universe. Do we live in a Chaos or a Cosmos?

The answer is clear according to both science and theology, we live in a cosmos! Neither nature nor God makes any sense if there is no order in the universe, and yet Dawkins wants us to believe on little hard evidence that evolution is a special case where science is not based on rational natural law, but chance. Good science as practiced by the late Lynn Margulis, E. O. Wilson, and many others disproves this untruth.

These issues need to be addressed, so science can better be science, and creationists can be better Christians, and so we can reduce the needless division, confusion, and conflict in the world today.

Im sorry but that really makes no sense at all at least for me. How is asking questions here which is the equivelent to apologetics(not so about defending faith but to better understand the biblical narrtive,at least thats my biew of apologetics) is against science? In what sense? And if apologetics pits faith against science its the YECs fault. Thats why i asked if any EC scholars would be trained by this organization since we are the only EC organization in the world(at least i dont know any other)

Hi Chris, always nice to discuss things with you, and the answer is yes, in the beginning God created heavens and earth from nothing, by His Word Jesus.

So why do you need to say - including physics and chemistry? Is there some theological meaning to these? In fact they are human constructs as disciplines of study.

I do not wish to offend anyone, but I cannot make sense of the rest of your comment - since chemistry is a human study, obviously chemists may agree or disagree on research outcomes obtained by us. Why should theism or atheism matter?

No. If he says that he must have scripture that specifically shows what God did to design chemistry. (again, chemists created the discipline of chemistry).

@NickolaosPappas,Thnak you for your response.

What I am saying is that the best way of doing what I think you want done is to teach Creationists about the Logos, and non-believers about ecology, but I do not think BioLogos is interested in this. I hope you are.

Whould that make them less non-believers ? I dont see how. Can you explain it for me? Thanks for your answers as well!!!:slightly_smiling_face:

@Chris_Falter, I think I agree with you. Of course chemists and other scientists can glorify God for what God has done through chemistry or whatever, with the proviso that this is not a scientific statement. I see no reason that scientists are deprived of freedom of speech and religion.

Theology is a human constructed discipline of study, even though it deals with divine revelation. All knowledge originates with God although all knowledge, both scientific and non-scientific is not equally accurate…

Theology for Christians must be based on scripture, even if theologians may disagree on some matters.

Hi George,

I for one am not taking any offense, and yes I enjoy our discussions.

Here’s another way to phrase my questions: When chemists study phenomena in their discipline, are they learning something about what God created?

Now suppose a chemistry researcher discovers that the structure of H2O facilitates a wide variety of processes that make life possible and publishes their findings in a peer-reviewed journal. Could a Christian say that the findings, although they do not mathematically prove God’s wisdom, do in the perspective of faith reflect God’s wisdom in how He created the universe?

Blessings in the new year to you,
Chris

2 Likes

Strictly speaking, no.

A Christian begins with the premise that all is created by God from nothing and thus needs to be sustained through the energies/dynamics of God - this speaks to how He created. The properties of space, time, matter, etc., are there to be studied objectively, and we may infer (philosophically) it all points to God as Creator. No specific study of a substance is anything more that data obtained via the scientific method.

The relevance of science is shown in the debates between YEC and EC, both working from an erroneous assumption.

Hi George - I pray your new year has begun well! I am having trouble understanding how it is that (A) chemists are not (strictly speaking) learning about what God created, but at the same time (B) the objective study of the properties of space, time, matter, etc., allow us to “infer (philosophically) it all points to God as Creator.”

In my opinion, A & B are contradictory propositions; yet you hold them both. I feel I must be missing something, if you would care to explain at greater length. If you don’t have the time or inclination, that’s fine, too.

Peace,
Chris

Hi Chris, thanks and may your new year be healthy and filled with happiness.

The (A) reads the scientific study by a chemist provides facts about substances, and not data on what God has created, since chemistry cannot detect God. The (B) begins with a premise (which may be discussed philosophically and is beyond scientific study) and from this premise, that God created everything, we may infer the creation points to its creator.

I trust this is clear.

1 Like

It seems to me that while science cannot detect conclusive evidence that God exists, it can provide conclusive evidence that God does not exist. God is the Creator, Who not only puts the universe together, but keeps it together. Therefore if the universe is a Cosmos, that is evidence that God exists, but not fool proof evidence, because many still do not believe. We still have that freedom.

On the other hand if while doing research a scientist discovered that the universe is not a Cosmos, but a Chaos, that would be very strong evidence that God does not exist and the universe has no meaning and purpose. Thus far only Dawkins and evolutionists have made that claim, which has not been backed up with hard data. Since other research is unremarkable, presumably it indicates that the universe is a Cosmos.

Some might say that quantum physics raises questions about the harmony of the universe, and I would agree. That is why I am doing research in this area. Still even though there seems to be questions, there is no evidence of unexplained events taking place that threaten the rational order of the universe.

Therefore I would observe that the vast balance of human experience, scientific and non-scientific attests that the the universe is a cosmos. While I would agree with you that science cannot detect God, because God is not spatial, but science can observe the effects of God, which is all it normally does and the effects of God indicate that God exists.

“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6

This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.