How do you talk to committed YECs?

Faith & Science Conversation
87

Why would I want to or need to?

How does thermodynamics affect the creative power of God?

What has germ theory got to do with creation?

The Bible writers do not understand germs and bacteria but that is hardly the point here

You keep comparing Evolutionary theory to other Scientific theories. as if they are based on the same idea or data. They are not. You clearly cannot conceptualise.

Again, I have tried to explain this but clearly you have no idea what I am getting at.

Richard

88

Thermodynamics is pivotal in everything that is created in nature, from solar systems to geology to weather. Germ theory is pivotal to infections which is as much a part of the creation as anything else.

You seem to separate out evolution for no apparent reason.

That’s because they are.

I know exactly what you are trying to get at, and you are wrong. You don’t know how the scientific method works. You seem to think that we have to observe the hypothesis. That’s not how science works. You don’t observe the hypothesis. You TEST the hypothesis, and you do so with observations. The theory of evolution is the same as any other scientific theory.

3 Likes
89

There is no need to take the week as any sort of timescale so your conclusions are meaningless.
Genesis 1 puts God at the helm of creation. How He did it is another matter. To ignore all scientific data is to put your head in the sand. Science is not at conflict with scripture. Science is man’s understanding of God’s creation. There is no need to hang on to a literal understanding of Genesis 1. How evolution fits into God’s creative work is still a work in progress, but evolution cannot be just ignored or denied in entirety. (or IMO accepted entirely)

Richard

90

Let us not disagree over that on which we agree.

It is not my position or conclusion, it is that of Jason Lisle through AiG. I offered a quote, with link for context, from a recognized YEC organization in response to a post by Adam, concerning the typical YEC belief concerning the age of the universe.

91

I am sorry, but I am not YEC.

I promote theistic evolution not 7 day creation in any shape or form

Richard

92

I did not say you are. My YEC comment was responding to Adam, not you.

I hereby swear that I am and always have been in complete and amiable agreement with the above statement from Richard.

I hope that is satisfactory.

1 Like
93

Not in the second creation story. In that story, Adam was created the first day, before plants had sprung up. He was alone, so the animals were created later in the search for a suitable companion.

94

Richard, I don’t understand how you can claim Evolutionary theory to be so damnable, when you believe in theistic evolution! I personally agree strongly with theistic evolution, as I suspect almost everyone who has been responding to you in this thread! But in all of your claims that Evolutionary theory is in direct conflict with Christian faith you fail to make the distinction between theistic Evolutionary theory, and the unverifiable belief that Evolutionary theory demonstrates that God does not exist.

To assume without stating it explicitly that the belief that God does not exist is a central tenet of Evolutionary theory, thus demonstrating the incompatibility of Evolutionary theory with Chritian faith, is a serious mistake, that has led to a lot of misunderstanding in this thread. This points out yet again that we all have different assumptions, many of which are not stated, as we engage in these complex discussions!

1 Like
95

Non-theistic evolutionary theory does not demonstrate anything about God. It ignores Him altogether. However, if you are going to just accept it you are robbing God of most of His creative power. Yes God could have just lit the touchpaper and retired immediately (Left Evolution to run its course without guidance) It would be the same as creating the earth as a self-controlled system, which, I guess it is now. But…
Theologically God is not just the creator in terms of making it, He is the creator in terms of purpose. And purpose is the one thing Evolutionary theory denies.
The only comment Scripture makes on the perfection and self-regulation of the earth is in Ecclesiastes, and that is actually a complaint that nothing we do can affect God’s creation (which we have also proved inaccurate) Seasons come and go without any need for interference from God. The fact that we have disrupted the perfection is not really the point.
When God answers Job He goes to great lengths to emphasise what he has done in creation. This is more than just fluke or random deviation, this is a plan, a complete one which makes the perfection of Ecclesiastes 3. Evolution is not planned. it is random tempered with survival Any order is due to the dynamics of survival not any design. God claims sovereignty. Non-theistic evolution denies it.
So we are back to the claim that the perfection of Ecology (or physiology) could not be produced by random evolution… a claim that I cannot possibly prove but underpins most of my criticisms.
This is still pitching evolution against the Bible, but not by claiming that the bible understands the mechanics of creation, (or science) only that the bible claims a control and planning that evolutionary theory does not.
(And I reckon I am wasting my efforts trying to explain it)

Richard

96

Evolutionary theory only says that there is no scientific evidence for purpose. No scientific theory makes absolute claims about anything. The idea that God gives nature purpose and the scientific theory of evolution are completely compatible, as shown by the millions of Christians who accept both.

This seems to be what you keep tripping over. Science is a methodological approach to understanding nature. It is NOT an ontological approach where absolute truths or absolute conclusions are made. You have even stated that we would not see evidence of God acting in nature, so I fail to understand why you can’t see how the two can be made compatible.

The theory of evolution says that there is no evidence for planning. Big difference.

It’s strange how you keep ignoring natural selection. Evolution works through selection which is the opposite of random.

1 Like
97

I think that just about covers it.

Oh I dunno, you seem to make a few.

Clearly you are not following me. Theistic evolution is precisely that.

Ah, but do they blindly accept evolution as taught or just do what others here seem to and blindly merge them? I dare to criticise and argue… and get criticised back for doing so, by both Christian and scientist alike. (especially those who claim to be both)

The Devil is definitely in the details.

Richard

98

I don’t.

Just to see if we are on the same page, do you accept that all vertebrates evolved from a common ancestor?

I know plenty of Christians who accept evolution because of the evidence, not blindly. They also don’t blindly merge them, as shown by the statements made by BioLogos.

99

No, that is too general. My delineation is at the class level. I do not accept a progression that crosses from fish to amphibian to reptile (bird) and finally Mammal. No matter which order you care to make it or even splitting them off from a single parent.

There is one basic skeletal form. That is just plain common sense. It does not prove an ancestral connection, sorry.

Richard

100

You are very dogmatic about nested heredity.
(and will not even consider that the evidence means anything else)

Don’t worry, I am no less dogmatic or unwavering.

Richard

101

Then you reject theistic evolution, correct? From my understanding, theistic evolution accepts universal common descent.

102

The nested hierarchy is an objective observation, not a theory. I do tend to be firm on facts.

1 Like
103

I do not think that theistic evolution is that defined. I doubt that there is an agreed form

Richard

104

@T_aquaticus, keeps begging you to come up some evidence or with an explanation of how the existing evidence could work to support your conclusions, Richard. So your quip that he refuses to hear you is simply not true. You can always say, “Well, God did it exactly the way that fits my interpretation” - but that then is useless for any further understanding and could not be used to make any predictions in any case. Science just favors those explanations which best conform to the reality we can see.

As for dogma - most of us are pretty dogmatic that the earth is round and goes around the sun. We even get crotchety and refer to such things as ‘proven’ just because of the overwhelming amount of evidence and the absence of contrary evidence. That’s a different kind of ‘dogma’ then me making religious or philosophical claims that can’t be directly or empirically tested in a universal sense. Yes - technically speaking nothing is ‘proven’. But a great many things are so well-evidenced by this point from so many different angles that any reasonable person just doesn’t find them disputable any more.

-Merv

4 Likes
105

I don’t see how theistic evolution could incorporate separately created kinds which is a feature of creationism.

106

Forgive me, but I have been arguing theistic evolution for 40 years. Neither you, nor anyone else here can tell me what is involved or what can or cannot be.part of it.

I am sorry again, but it is not a case of giving evidence. it is a case of reviewing evidence. There is no new evidence to submit…
I have been reviewing everything I can find about Nested hierachy and nothing has shown any sort of attempt to view the evidence in any other manner, but

Niether is there any sort of theory that even considers the possibility of building blocks as opposed to ancestry. So either
I am excedingly unique and a genius (vanity)
Or The arguments against it are not available

The only arguments given here or elsewhere are promoting nested hierachy. There is not one criticism. Are you trying to tell me that no one has ever criticised it? There is not even an acknowledgement that any sort of criticism is possible.Such single-mindedness is unheard of, even in science.

Oh, sorry, there are, but they are all on Christian Creationist websites so will be automatically dismissed here. It would be a waste of my time to even cite them.

IOW I can find no evidence that evolutionary Biologists have ever considered any other interpretation of the data. And as there is no acknowledgement there is no counterargument. I repeat, all argument is explaining how perfect the algorithms are or what the evidence is. They do not criticise or suggest that any other view is even possible.It must be

That is not an argument in anyone’s book.

Show me why nested heirachy would be seen in design,

is a loaded question that insists on a single view that it exists.

Believe me, I have looked.

edit. I think I know why but we have been there many times. Building blocks are part of design, which involves God, so science would not even consider it

Richard