Then neither does this
God cannot be praised for something He had no hand in designing or constructing
Your hybrid psalm is meaningless because
God did not design or create anything
All God did was provided the mechanism for them to be created.
But you do not seem to understand the difference between those two statements
Richard
How about the difference between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism, science and theology? I don’t think we have seen a ‘mechanism’ offered by anyone. What is the ‘mechanical’ connection between methodological and philosophical naturalism, science and theology, faith and science? It seems you want one and it should be scientifically demonstrable?
Does meteorology show how God’s hand is involved in designing and constructing the beauty of the skies? Don’t just single out evolution. Meteorology ‘as taught’ has a problem? Physics?
You still do not get it.
And i have run out of ways to explain it.
Richard
How is meteorology different than evolution with respect to God’s hand in the beauty? All I hear about is how terrible evolution is as taught.
That is the question you cannot answer.or understand
Richard
I do answer it. There is no difference, scientifically or theologically, methodologically or philosophically, with respect to God’s activity.
Hi Dale,
That is a great question. The simple answer is God, as Creator, is the “creative mechanism” if you will…Genesis 1:1. God’s creative will, power, purpose, majesty, glory, wisdom are put on display in Genesis 1-2. Throughout scripture His creative will, power and purpose is a recurring theme. He “spoke” creation into being…all things were created by the “word of God”. Theologians call this fiat creationism. No where in God’s revelation of origins does He remotely allude to a millions or billions of years process that led to the existence of things as we see them now, nor of man “evolving” from some lower form into his present form. God’s revelation is clear that His creative will, power, wisdom and purpose are without question and no where does He speak of His creative work involving a long “process” or a need of Him to experience some “learning” or of Him requiring some “evolving” to arrive at His plan and purpose. He Created and it was “very good” without any need for iterations or corrections. This is simply the Biblical God as revealed in His word.
Tom
Rev 4:11 “Worthy are You, our Lord and our God, to receive glory and honor and power; for You created all things, and because of Your will they existed, and were created.”
The Bible simply does not speak to modern science, nor does it contradict it.1
YECism belittles the import of Psalm 8:4, not only because of the vastness of the size of the universe, but also because of the vastness of its antiquity.
What is man, that you are mindful of him?[!]
1 Truth comes from the reality of the data in God’s creation and from the reality of the data in the Bible, and if they appear to conflict, the interpretation of one or the other or both is in error.
Hi Dale,
Science and learning is great and even a gift from the Lord…but “modern science” should not be viewed too highly as though it is something in and of itself or has arrived at some “ah ha!” moment. Man will never exhaust in discovering the glory and majesty in all that God has created. God’s word will always be without question the authority and source of truth to know the character of God and all that He has done and will do to display His glory in creation and in the Gospel of Christ. I most certainly can be accused of belittling science but hopefully never of belittling the word of God.
Tom
Isa 40:8 The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.
And baking – don’t forget baking!
You don’t seem to understand that God does not let Creation run like a machine.
Instead of looking at them as science, try understanding their mechanism in terms of principles. The way they function.
A human could be compared to a motor vehicle in terms of being machines. The study f them are branches of science. The approach to studying them is similar .But there are also major differences between biological functions and mechanical ones.
Everything in meteorology is identifiable and measurable. And the “rules” can be identified, clarified and the results predictable to a very high degree of accuracy.
Most of the data needed to form the theory of evolution is not visible. Scientist cannot use the same methods to identify what went on in the distant past with the same certainty as they can with a thunderstorm. The data is not available and the variable have different components. No one has ever seen a fish develop into a new type of creature. They have seen mutations in creatures (not necessarily fish). They have seen how a beak can vary in shape and size (Not fish at all). They have seen that some feature can be advantageous or not depending on circumstance (environment etc, not specific to fish) but they have not witnessed the full evolutionary change. All they have done is pieced together an idea of it. They have theorised
But it is still theory. It may be the best they can come up with, but it is still theory. It cannot be fact. It cannot be proven for certain. There is no means to watch it happen. The data is just not there Meteorology is as near certain as it is possible to be. On as scale of 1-10 Meteorology is at 10 Evolution is nearer 4.
Meteorology and evolution are not the same in terms of certainty
But that is only half the difference.
You are refusing to view any science from any perspective other than science. (The dogma about how to criticise a scientific theory) The other differences between meteorology and evolutionary science are esoteric. They cannot be viewed by a scientific method. Philosophy transcends both science and theology. It can sit in both worlds and bridge them.
There is a philosophy of evolution. Meteorology has no philosophical elements.
Natural Selection is more philosophy than pure science. It is trying to include elements that are not data. Survival is not data. Being advantageous is not data.
The controlling elements of meteorology are identifiable and measurable. You can measure temperature and barometric pressure and use that data. You cannot measure adaptability. You cannot measure herd dynamics. You cannot measure competition for resources.
Each situation in evolution is different. Meteorology has a specific setting with specific boundaries.
El Ninio and the Jet streams are both forms of wind but that is the only similarity between them. You are trying to compare sciences in the same narrow manner.
Richard
Why would it? What theological point would have been served by mentioning billions of years? The Genesis writer doesn’t tell us that stars are giant balls of plasma, or that the Earth has tectonic plates, either.
What’s said doesn’t rule out a long process, either; in fact there were ancient Hebrew scholars who on the basis of the Hebrew text concluded that the universe was old beyond human comprehension and the Earth was old beyond counting.
The Genesis Creation narrative manages to be two different kinds of ancient literature at once, and neither one is meant to be taken literally. It carries three different messages, and none of them has anything to do with the age of the universe or of the Earth.
Wow – those are so far from true I’m amazed.
Even back in the early 1990s biologists had mathematical equations for both of those, including how the two function together. They were parts of models developed by ecologists.
The real irony here is that the math for herd dynamics and for competition for resources are as solid as those for forecasting the weather – possibly more so, these days, since modeling those is far less complex than modeling the weather. Weather forecasts farther ahead than four days are still not very accurate, while forecasts for wildlife populations are sound enough that they’re used to decide how many hunting licenses should be given for each different game species every year.
In my conservation work I have to recognize that the weather forecast is likely to change quickly; as an example, just a few days ago when I was planning to go out and do some dune-building activity, two days beforehand the forecast was that it would be 75° F where I was planning to work, the next morning the forecast was for 73°, that evening it had been changed to 72°, the morning of the day when I woke up it was 70°, and a couple of hours later when I was nearly ready to go it was 69°. On the other hand, when the wildlife people forecast that the size of the elk herd on that peninsula is going to shrink by two elk per year for the next three years I’ve been able to count on that.
Not sure what three messages you are referring to. The key message in Gen 1-2 is that God created all things in the beginning. Space, time, matter, worlds, stars and life. It was “very good”.
One must be very careful about claiming Genesis is not to be taken literally. How does one interpret Exodus 20:11, Matthew 19:4 or Romans 12:5 if these are not based on literal, historic events and people? How do you view man on every level of relationship within society without understanding origins literally and historically? Not taken literally only sends one into the fog of unending speculation and wild opinion and away from the revealed truth in the word of God and the saving Gospel of Christ.
Yawn!
Talk about misconstruing a statement.
The data and usage you are talking about has nothing to do with Evolution.
Richard
Population dynamics has nothing to do with evolution. Right. Try a Google search on genomics and population dynamics.
He was talking about the sizes of populations. Size is not the factor when talking about the progression of a deviation within a population.
THis is a case of definitions. The same word, but a different usge,
Richard
A quick scan of the last two dozen posts shows that this thread has gone pretty far off-topic. Going to wrap things up here. As always if you’d like to pick anything up in new threads please do.
“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.
