But they’re not actually interpreting the same facts. There is no anti-evolution interpretation for the facts about random mutations like I shared in the blog post. From a special creationism perspective one must argue that God just simply made it to look like many of the differences between us and see chimpanzees are caused by random mutations and did the same for every other species alive. Many people who argue against common ancestry aren’t actually aware of the evidence for it because it isn’t part of standard anti-evolution reading.
There is of course as @Bill_II mentioned the group of evolutionary creationists that accept both the fact of common ancestry and the special revelation from Scripture.
Too often, we hear an atheist denying God"s exisence because He is not proven by the rules they set out. If they cannot understand, grow to understand, if God is beyond them, He cannot be there. Since He cannot be there, evolution must be unguided. Poor reasoning. To insist on the rule for evolution to be an unguided process is not rational. Why play by their irrational rules? We have been created with the capacity to discover God’s world and an evolutionary process is where that capacity leads.
Genesis teaches us that we are the end for which the world was created. Another slap in the face of unbelief. Embrace that and see that is more than possible, given the evidence, that God chose the process for a reason He does not have to give and is likely beyond our fallen comprehension. (Job 38 - 41) Most of all, Christ died to reconcile all things, all creation. If these creatures and plants that have gone before are part of creation, part of all things, why think they are doomed eternally? (Colossians 1)
I am Lutheran. If Jesus can be fuly God and fully man, if at the altar we receive bread and wine as well as Christ’s body and blood, hanging on to a guided/unguided paradox is not beyond faith. I just don’t think there is reason for taking such a view.
Good point. If someone ventures into and area of science that they criticize, it is fair game to ask for an alternative view backed by the data. Likewise , if EC folk put forth a line of thought that has theological implications, it is fair to expect a theological interpretation that is consistent. I feel we do a good job with that discussion, though certainly not to the satisfaction of all.
But you offer no reasoning, so I do not understand why or how you disagree with me.
Here is an excerpt from an article on how atheists think science has triumphed over religion:
For most of human history God was the best explanation for the existence and nature of the physical universe.
But during the last few centuries, scientists have developed solutions that are much more logical, more consistent, and better supported by evidence.
Atheists say that these explain the world so much better than the existence of God.They also say that far from God being a good explanation for the world, it’s God that now requires explaining.
Before science
In olden times - and still today in some traditional societies - natural phenomena that people didn’t understand, such as the weather, sunrise and sunset, and so on, were seen as the work of gods or spirits.
Bible times
The Old Testament portrays the world as something controlled by God.
Where we would see the weather as obeying meteorological principles, people in those days saw it as demonstrating God at work. And it was the same with all the other natural phenomena, they just showed God doing things.
This argument for atheism says that meteorology disproves God’s existence. How would you respond to this argument, @originmike? Since atheists use weather forecasts to argue that God does not exist, should you discard meteorology as anti-Scriptural?
Look at the title of the thread, “Let’s be clear when we talk about evolution …” When you lump everything under the term “evolution,” you are misusing the word. It’s as simple as that. Complaining that your usage fits your private definition of evolution isn’t an answer. The solution is as simple as the problem. If you want to argue against common descent/evolution, argue against it. If you want to argue against abiogenesis, argue against it. Don’t mix the two together because they’re not the same.
Don’t worry. You’re not the only one. I’ve seen theologians use “evolution” to talk about the Big Bang and formation of planets. Doh!
I beg to differ. What we hear isn’t silence, but hand-waving doesn’t make a lot of noise.
As an evolutionary creationist, I have no problem seeing the Lord’s hand in every single one of his works, all of it designed by his wisdom.
Now you resort to logic? haha. You’re projecting your understanding of evolution onto our understanding of it. Now you’re getting into questions of randomness and whether anything is truly random for God. God’s guidance in evolution is comparable to God’s guidance in your daily life. Does the Lord speak to you directly with detailed instructions? No. He works through secondary means. Evolution is no different.
My understanding of the theory of evolution is that it operates without either plan or purpose. There is no goal, no forward thinking. This, and correct me if I’m wrong, is what the majority of biologists believe. This is why I said in another post that if God is guiding evolution to achieve his goal then, by definition, it’s not evolution that’s taking place. Both ideas cant be true because they contradict each other - either evolution is guided or it is not guided. If it is guided then the biologists need a new definition.
I think you’re jumping from science to metaphysics here.
Do you believe God sends the rain? Do you accept the scientific explanation of meteorology? Do you think those two things conflict? Does rain have a purpose to water the plants and provide animals/man with water to drink as part of the scientific explanation? Is that a problem for you that its purpose isn’t mentioned by the scientific explanation of rain? Should meteorologists come up with a new definition of the water cycle to include its purpose?
Do you believe God maintains gravity? Do you accept the scientific explanation of gravity? Do you think those two things conflict? Does gravity have a purpose of holding humans onto the earth as part of its scientific explanation? Is it a problem for you that its purpose isn’t mentioned by the scientific explanation of gravity? Should physicists come up with a new definition of the theory of gravity to include its purpose?
As a Christian, I believe God created the evolutionary process for a purpose. I don’t think He needs to step in and help it at certain points (macroevolution). I think He designed the process to function well on its own. And I think He had purpose in creating humans and other life when He designed that process. Would you call that guided or unguided? How does that affect the scientific explanation, which doesn’t deal with purpose?
OK, I’ve gone through all your questions and finally got to the main point. Your belief (and I’m sure you will correct me if I’m wrong) is that evolution operates independently of God.
Meteorology does not acknowledge any plan or purpose. Meteorology is independent of plan or purpose. Why would a Christian accept meteorology, which is independent of plan or purpose?
A biologist can discover only what can be perceived science. The hand of God cannot be scientifically perceived. If they carry their conclusions concerning processes toward dismissing the posssible, they do so unscientifically. Does not mean that science is in error or even the biologists as scientists. Only means they, as individuals, apart from science, draw conclusions. There is no more to evolution as a fact than that one thing, over time, evolves through biological changes to become other things.
I have friends in Oklahoma. Coming from the Northeast to visit them, I find hundreds of Baptist chruches rejecting sacraments. To them, the Christian church has no sacraments sre they correct by majorty opinion?
If you are asking if truth is decided by majority opinion, then I would say the answer is no. Something is either true or it isn’t - irrespective of what people think.