Yes, we all know you do not understand.
To a Christian, all science is theistic. But you overlook the little detail that science does not include God nor allow for in its methodologies. You make the same error that ID proponents do, in thinking that they can demonstrate the existence of a Designer scientifically.
Only inasmuch as He created everything that science looks atā¦
Christians beleive in science. Science by defacto does not reciprocate, but there are Christians who are scientists. Their existence does not make science theistic. It only means that they have a christian faith.
I understand perfectly. You are usinng terms that do not exist.
I challenge you to do a pole asking who beleives in theistic meteorology
Richard
You are correct. He created āthe fixed laws of heaven and earthā, energy and matter. Atheists just believe stuff is.
You are correct. Now if you would only be consistent in your thinking and apply that to evolution as well, that would be amazing progress. Evolution is just biology working according to the fixed laws of heaven and earth.
If you did, we would not be having this conversation (and conversation after conversation after conversationā¦ ; - )
I donāt need to. Christians (not all, obviously) understand that meteorology works according to the natural laws that God has instituted just like biology ā¦and evolution do.
That is why ātheistic evolutionā is probably not a good term and maybe why BioLogos prefers the term āevolutionary creationismā, āECā and not āTEā.
There really is no such thing as atheistic evolution, nor is there atheistic meteorology, theistic evolution or theistic meteorology. They are all sciences practicing methodological naturalism and Godās involvement in any cannot be demonstrated scientifically. So if we can drop the irrelevant adjectives, maybe you would be less likely to conflate the methodological with the philosophical?
1 Like
You did all this over semantics? You really areā¦!
You are still claiming that God lit the blue touch paper and retired imediately. And you really do not understand why I criticise evolutionary theory. (and your defense of it)
Richard
I did all this over your conflating methodological with philosophical. I really am what?
Who else besides you does? (And thatās granting a lot, that you do!)
Why donāt you contest meteorological theory? Never mind. With meteorological you donāt conflate, or at least as badly.
Any one who understands this
Then God said, āLet Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness, to rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, and over all the earth itselfd and every creature that crawls upon it.ā
27So God created man in His own image;
in the image of God He created him;
male and female He created them.e
And that concept is intrinsic to the Bible
Richard
Okay, and?
Show me anything in evolutionary theory that denies that. And leave off the adjective(s).
Everything. There is no God in evoltionary theory, so the design of humanity is not His
Richard
Sorry, you fail ā you included the adjective in your thinking and yes, once again, conflated methodological science with philosophical naturalism.
The same error as IDists, explicitly.
I appreciate your wanting to include God in science, especially as it relates to humanity, but you really canāt, not directly.
Why arenāt you somehow trying to include Godās providential interventions into science? Even I donāt do that and pretend that science can detect them, or that there is such a thing as theistic evolution. When you say theistic evolution, you really appear to mean the theistic science1 of evolution.
Ā
1 Theistic science: there aināt no such thing. The adjective doesnāt belong there.
Is it just me or does anyone else think this conversation is going round and round in circles?
3 Likes
Maybe a helix? 
There might actually be a conclusion before a moderator declares it dead. (He says, forever hopeful. ;Ā -Ā )
Absolutely. But the ID folks, including our stubborn and confused representatives here, seem to think that if it canāt be used to point to God then it isnāt theistic. As the professor in a course I took called Physics of Light and Color said, just because you canāt see it doesnāt mean it isnāt there.
And I add to that the point that since there were atheists and agnostics concluding there is a Designer due to their studies of biology then God is plainly not excluded from evolution no matter how hard certain people want him to be ā and that is striking because to insist that God is excluded from evolution is exactly what activist atheists want people to believe!
That professor was referring to wavelengths of light that most human eyes canāt see and those that no human eye can see, but it applies just as well to evolution: insist all you want that evolution excludes God ā well, just because you can;t see Him doesnāt mean He isnāt there!
2 Likes
But people, some more than others, have difficulty distinguishing between methodologies and philosophies, so depending on the audience, more qualifiers or fewer are necessary.
1 Like
Not quite.
Hereās the thing: those Christians see God in evolution! So the only way to maintain the position in the upper quoted paragraph is to maintain that those Christians are deluded or at the least mistaken. Yet thereās a theme in scripture which speaks to that: those who fail to see God where others do are generally lacking in faith.
This makes me think of how a bishop being interviewed about Christmas responded to the skeptical question as to whether he really thought he would have seen angels if he had been there: no, he said, because I donāt see them now yet I have no reason to think that they have stopped singing! Along those lines, the former atheists and agnostics in our little informal intelligent design club would look sadly at someone claiming that God is excluded from evolution, because He was most certainly there at the beginning and there is no reason to think that He isnāt there now.
Iām going to toss in a point from a Catholic priest who stopped by when I was in a Catholic hospital once: that just as it is impossible to read the scriptures and have everyone fail to understand what the Gospel is, it is impossible to study nature ā i.e. do science ā and have everyone fail to see God there (and yes, he included evolution). So the question is why some ā especially some who claim to be Christians! ā can look at any part of science and fail to see God.
1 Like
We get it, but maybe youāre muddying the waters again by implying theistic right next to [methodological] science.
Iām picturing if youād separated out the science students in Campus Crusade for Christ and InterVarsity Christian Fellowship in my university days and asked that. I think the general response would be laughter and some would have been bold enough to call it a stupid question because of course God is behind meteorology ā thereās no need to add ātheisticā to it, or to any other science. And more than a few would have cited Keplerās point that science is just us trying to think Godās thoughts after Him.
1 Like
Nor atheistic baking, nor atheistic carpentry.
1 Like
In my experience, Cru tends toward the humanities and YECism and IVF toward the sciences, not exclusively of course.