More faith in the scientific method than God's revelation


(Greg Rogers) #1

I have been confused about this and am glad to hear confirmations that help to erase my confusion. This does not erase my concerns though. This is the bone that I have to pick with this whole issue: Evolutionary Creationists seem to place more faith in the scientific method than revelation about how life began. And revelation is how God primarily provides the means for unity in the church and less infighting. And I believe that more allegiance to the power and majesty of God comes from the camp that sways away from human logic explaining our existence by molecules to man evolution than towards the fact that God is able and actually just created it.

I personally remain undecided about the age of the earth, although question the validity of science today with age declarations in a time of quantum physics discoveries as well as Biblical revelation… yet am decided that God did indeed instantaneously create fully functioning plants and fully functioning animals according to their kinds that all have the in built ability to adjust to their environment which we see all the time in nature. The naturalistic explanations of our existence that says that say a single cell that came from somewhere that then, with the force of energy alone is able to develop over billions of years into complexity that we see today is so beyond ludicrously and insanely foolish and it seems to me that, possibly for the sake of increasing the appeal towards God, evolutionary creationists seemingly appeal lightly to those who subscribe to this model. Isn’t it dangerous to appeal to people’s perceptions of what they want God to be instead of the possibilities of what He really IS? Paul was concerned about this himself…He declares to the church to make sure that the Jesus they worship is the correct Jesus and for this, I will remain, again more tight to plain reading about Jesus as Creator and sustainer than man’s perception of what they want of Him in science. Paul says this in response to folks who were making Jesus into what seemed more sensible than what He really IS.
The justification of evolutionary creationism in and of itself is an appeal to science. I however believe without one single shred of doubt that evolutionary creationism as it is, is just as much of a system of significantly unscientific belief that in its very nature turns away from scientific principles in its explanations of how we came to be. How is this you ask? It is because it has to admit that God’s interjection as a non-deistic God into the creation of life will thus call science an inept resource for explaining life. Right? Therefore, it would be circularly logical to suggest that the homage to scientific explanation of life that causes for there to be an appeal to evolutionary creationism is the very thing that must be pushed against and thrust to the side in order for there to be sensibility towards it explaining life as was created by a non deistic God who could have chosen to interject miraculously at any one point in time. That was a deep sentence.
In other words, if life is going on and this non-deistic God interjects just once in a significant way in the process of the formulation of creation and life as we know it and all of life beyond this point goes on normally, then science automatically becomes inept in explaining how we got here through the 100’s, 1,000’s, millions, LET ALONE BILLIONS of years! Right? Science will become confused and frustrated. It is frustrated about the 200 million yr old human skull. it is frustrated by soft matter found in 300 million yr old dino fossiles. It is frustrated with the lack of “transitional species” fossils. It will also be frustrated by the fact that when God interjects, science which relies on our perceptions and human rationale, becomes pointless in its attempt towards explaining how we go to where we are.
For this, I am choosing to remain a little more clingy to a more plain reading of Genesis and less clingy to what theistic “science” says which necessarily is self-justifying and circularly illogical. I am definitely more in agreement with groups like AIG because they declare that God made the kinds of animals than I do evolutionary creationists who seem to want to side with worldly brands scientific inquiries on how we got here.
At the same time, I believe that God has given us brains to figure solutions to health problems and for the development of technology etc. That great, but let us not get arrogant with it. Just because we are given brains to figure solutions to controlling virus for example is no excuse to suggesting that we fully evolved from single celled creatures over billions of years. I believe that God is nocking down the creation evolutionist worldview that finds itself self-righteously cocky because they mistakenly cling to human perception in science that the world is so enamored with, and less in agreement with the theologian who declares that God is GOD and we are not. If you disagree, I challenge you to pray deeply over this issue, asking God to give hints into your being and wisdom to your mind over this issue and see what He does. You might be surprised.


Evolutionary Creationists should distance themselves more clearly from deism
Evolutionary Creationists should distance themselves more clearly from deism
Evolutionary Creationists should distance themselves more clearly from deism
(George Brooks) #2

@grog

When someone can explain how Australia’s native mammals are virtually all marsupials, while marsupials elsewhere have for the most part been shunted aside by the more robust placental mammals will I be able to entertain the idea that the Earth is young.

And in either case, why God would entertain special creation in Australia in such an odd manner puts the literal meaning of Genesis to a test that it cannot meet.


(GJDS) #3

Your comments are at times are a cause for good cheer and perhaps a laugh or two :laughing:- these species you keep bringing up can just as easily be seen as a challenge to the (I guess common notion) of evolution. I hope I do not need to do a literature search for you, but from memory, the species believed to inhabit Australia 20-50,000 years ago were (I think this term is sufficient) gigantic versions of many current species. The changes believed to have occurred in this “blink” of time for ToE seem astonishing.

But please do not go of on a tangent about young/old earth, as this is irrelevant.


(George Brooks) #4

My dear 1st George, I have no idea how you expect to defend your counter-assertions.

Please do so… while I repeat my discussions as necessary until someone explains how Australia’s situation can be used to defend either Young Earth or Special Creation.

1st George, You call it a tangent, but you offer zero evidence. Australia’s circumstances are a powerful evidence for Old Earth Evolutionary scenarios.

Sincerely, Second George


(James McKay) #5

Hi Greg,

This is a serious point for consideration that gets raised by YECs time and time again, and it does warrant a serious answer. Here is my response.

Personally, I’m not asking anyone to exalt science above the Word of God. I’m just asking that anyone who rejects scientific conclusions in favour of the Word of God does so responsibly, carefully and honestly.

It’s one thing to reject science in order to remain faithful to the Bible, if you believe it necessary to do so. That is faith. However, it’s a completely different matter to claim that science supports you in ways that it does not, makes assumptions and presuppositions that it does not, or otherwise works in ways that it does not. These are matters that can be fact-checked, and would open you up to charges of lying, especially if, like me, you have a science degree and are thereby equipped to fact-check them.

However, before you reject science, it’s only wise to make sure that you have understood both the science and the Bible correctly. This may mean going back to the original Hebrew and Greek, paying attention to the genre of the passage, or examining the context and cultural assumptions in which it was originally written. This isn’t compromise – it’s simply honest scholarship. I personally don’t accept an ancient earth and evolutionary creation merely because science tells me so, but because I’m satisfied that a careful exegesis of the Bible does not demand otherwise.


(Jon) #6

I’m going to respond in more detail, but for now I’m ask this. Should we place more faith in the Bible’s description of the movement of the earth relative to the sun, or in science? Basically, was Galileo right or wrong?


(Greg Rogers) #7

We need to correctly divide the meaning of Biblical text. In the case that an author references their idea regarding how the physical universe functions in order to give meaning to a more important spiritual concept which is the point of the statement, then I have absolutely no need to get disheveled over the issue that the prophet doesn’t understand the functionality of the physical universe. I will ask myself, what was the intent of the passage? If it is not for the purpose of how the universe functions, then place the focus where it is due. Additionally, when OT prophets make statements about how we came to be in our physical existence for example, I believe that there are going to be times where the point he is trying to make are far removed from his understanding how this actually occurs by God’s hand all together. In other words, when he says God creates animals according to their kinds, he is just making the truth statement while lacking understanding how this actually occurs logistically. The prophet is just a spokesperson for God. This does not mean that we have the freedom to just pick and chose our favorite option as to how God accomplishes what is seemingly plainly stated, but instead to give reverence to what is said and to take care not to make a guess and demand that others follow suit because of such and such. And to me, the more one deviates from the plainness of what is being spoken, the thinner the ice. Believe me, I have read a lot of content from what appear to be a lot of smart folks about what they think occurred billions of years ago etc and my conclusion is always that they sound smart but are still chasing the wind. Science changes on simple matters in plain sight of our labs all of the time let alone putting stock into what one believes billions of years ago??..I say, “COME ON” with loving sarcasm.

On top of this, I believe that there is more unreasonableness for the suggestion by some theistic evolutionists to believe that cells were planted by God a long long time ago for them, by the presence of energy alone in a suitable environment for life, to have the ability to form into complex organisms we see today. This is as if to say that energy is some sort of pixie dust or something. And when it is realized that this hypothesis is completely unreasonable and that it has never been truly duplicated in the lab, the theistic evolutionist then presents another angle where they suggest that maybe God intervenes along the process of complex development…problem there is that this then throws out science all together as the means of detecting how complex life is as we see it today. And in this case, the ideas from groups who state plainly that God created the “kinds” with the in built ability to adapt are not a far cry from this idea of miraculous interjections into macro evolution and in addition I sense from common sense that this is a much more sensible explanation for the miracle of the existence of complex life with colors and beauty as we know it today! Additionally, the study of the universe functioning is more easily understood if the worldview is God created “kinds” instantaneously with the ability to adapt within the natural world than the model that suggest that God intervenes along the way of evolution from simple to complex. So the pixie dust model does not make sense and is unscientific. The God intervening in macro evolution all the way to complexity make science void of meaning. But God creating the kinds with the ability to adapt in nature is 100% better and more rational grounds for scientific discovery for the practical needs of mankind today.

I liken this whole argument to what is going on in a political transition occurring right now in Washington…The Washington elites are complaining about Trump choosing business people and generals for cabinet posts because they are not politically savvy professionals like them who understand the system. So what is the system? Drinking lattes while visiting the Smithsonian and high priced hotels around the world in order to meet and negotiate deals that exploit America? In the same way, the “professional” elite professors in all those “great” educational institutions who think that sin does not exist in human kind which causes the foolish bantering about the need to move on from checks, balances and division of power as the backbone of this great nation towards socialism are the same idiots who remove God as much as possible out from the realm of scientific endeavors towards understanding how we came to be that thus mandate a billions of years evolution and stiff arming any suggestion of the very real possibility that God did indeed make species and types and kinds instantaneously.

God makes it plain in Scripture that He confounds the man wise in his own eyes. He declares that our “wisdom” is like foolishness in His economy. If our education institutions of the highest degree once built upon principles of reverence to the God of the Scriptures have decided to switch gears and place God in the back seat and attempts of earthly wisdom in the front, then I will be one of the dwindling number to encourage the church to steer clear of all like minded in this effect-even those who claim Christianity yet side closer to the philosophies of these institutions. If I remain the remnant, then so be it. I don’t have stock in Yale or in any business that yields to the whims of Harvard. I do have stock in Christ who gave it to me, and He is the Alpha and Omega… and eternal life ahead of me where one day hopefully there will be reward for those who were faithful to Him and His Word.


(George Brooks) #8

@grog

I’m not sure this sentence is valid.

I believe God is responsible for all of nature … and all things that nature does.

Does that make natural science meaningless?


(Christy Hemphill) #10

@grog

But only if you can do it in a way that clearly relates it to the intersection of faith and science. Otherwise you and Jay can talk divisive politics to your hearts’ content using the private messaging feature. Hint. Hint.


(Andrew M. Wolfe) #11

Hi Greg,

I’m grateful you came back to engage again, after some time away. Welcome back to the Forum.

I see you continue to frame evolutionary creationists as chasing after the approval of elites and fawning over them. This latest message adds your political overlay to that, which makes sense but is disappointing to see.

Please try and restrain yourself to addressing the actual scientific arguments for macroevolution, which are legion. You might start with the BioLogos Evolution Basics course, the newly posted “scientific evidence” page on Biologos, or the extraordinarily readable Falk book I recommended to you in our last go-around. Please… be willing to bring honor to the name of Christ by not besmirching the reputations of your brothers and sisters in Christ the way you’re currently doing, assuming the worst of them and the best of yourself. It’s not becoming of someone who loves the Lord as I am certain you do.

I apologize if I get a little hot around the collar about all this. We all appreciate your voice and enjoy engaging with you. For me, anyway, it’s a lot more interesting doing that than bouncing things around in the echo chamber of people who are very similar to us. It would sure be a lot easier to do so if you took the chip off your shoulder before we get too much further.


(Greg Rogers) #12

Well, I understand why there could be perceived disconnect. Let me put it this way in the form of a question: Do you believe that God (or some alien force) planted seeds called cells onto an earth perfectly suitable for life, for energy to then take it from there and sprout these seeds and form them into the complexity of life as we see it today? If yes, why do you believe this? is this a result of concrete scientific conclusion that has demonstrated that this evolutionary model is not a guess, not a hypothesis, not a theory but a law? (at least according to the traditional definition of scientific conclusion) Or could it be that the answer to this question is that it is because the mainstream educational system in America has pitted itself against the idea of God who demands morality that it has overly promoted the interpretation of scientific evidence to be skewed towards their own worldview instead of toward another? These questions respectfully encourage deep introspection.

And I believe that any worldview that pits itself against God does a huge disservice to humankind.

The reason I bring up politics is not to stress my political bend, but to enunciate the habits of human nature. A gov’t has folks working for it who are supposed to be serving the populous but become lifetime political elites that become so inward bent towards their own well being that they forget the people they are supposed to be serving. And before they know it, the inward bend of their being becomes to them a form of truth that they confuse with “service for the betterment of mankind” which is really no service at all…

Many mainstream educators have stiffed the important idea that they need God who designed us and enunciate the “fact” that we evolved from single cells into complexity by natural forces thus eliminating God. This is similar to the mainstream professional politician who becomes so inwardly focused that they even convince the populous that there really is not threat of a 20 TRILLION dollar debt while they enrich themselves on the back of stupid policy and programs.

My parents are so absolutely sure that this world will come to an end at the hands of a certain mainstream brand of religion. I believe the greater enemy is a different religion and it is called humanism…In Christianity, the sign of the beast is actually 3 numbers that are all numbers associated not with the beast, but with…drumroll please… MAN. The number is 666. Not to get scary here or to become a fear monger, but to make a point… To me, evolution in the form of cell seeds planted by something (call it God or an alien force or.whatever) and complexity caused by energy forces is nothing more than the religion of humanism trying to dispel the tenants of Christianity that says “Glory to God on the highest who created!” I am not suggesting to the Christian who still believes in molecules to man evolution that they are without Christian faith, but to question why must they go there in siding with humanist tendency when God and His Word is a little more trustworthy and offers very plain and simple explanations to life that are sensible in many degrees and definitely not intellectual suicide.


(George Brooks) #13

@Grog,

[^^ See the quote I selected above!]

Wow… the difference between the first paragraph and what I’ve separated as the second paragraph is pretty stunning!

I have no problem believing that God planted the seeds of life on the Earth. Why I believe it is because, first of all, the witness of my eyes and ears tells me the earth is not 5000 years old, but billions of years old.

The witness of my eyes and ears also tells me that the part of the Bible that discusses Creation is figurative language.

If the Earth was convincingly 5000 years old… I would probably believe what you believe. But there is No credible evidence for this.


(Greg Rogers) #14

I have read much on this topic. And I do not for one minute suggest that an evolutionary theist cannot be a believer. But what I must ask from you is this. Do you believe that God planted seeds or cells at the beginning of time onto the surface of the earth that was created to be hospitable to life for those seeds to sprout into complexity on their own as empowered by energy forces? Or do you believe that God interwove himself in miraculous ways into the process of this evolution towards the complexity we have today? My previous post demonstrates that these both either contradict scientific conclusion or make science a foolish endeavor. right? If God intervenes right up to the present and ongoing, then observation of the natural is dumb. If God did not intervene then we have to assume that energy is the pixy dust of bringing a simple cell “seed” into a complex organism.

To me they both make no sense. The only other sensible idea as to why good hearted folks lean towards these is because of an education in a mainstream line of thought that has promoted over and over and over explanation that tries to eliminate God.

Is this fair thinking on my part or do you still think I am attempting to besmirch those of a different view?


(George Brooks) #15

@grog

Attacking Education as a system of brainwashing?

Yeah… I think that’s a slight besmirching !


(Jay Johnson) #16

tenets. But, then again, I was a mainstream educator …


(Greg Rogers) #17

Nor do I necessarily believe the earth is 5000 years old. I still cling closer to God as Creator of kinds rather than borrowing from the ivy league educators who suggest that something planted seeds that sprouted into complexity by morally neutral forces of energy. This makes not one single bit of sense and it is only necessary because humanistic educators define science as being impossible to carry on with any reference to God which we as Christians know to be foolish…then Christians get intimidated by them and try to fit into this mainstream thinking. To me, since it is unscientific for something to come from nothing and since energy has a beginning and an end, the world and thus the study of it we call science cannot exist without God. The temptation to lean toward God or something such as an alien force planning seeds for moral neutral forces of energy to create complexity is to lean to mainstream humanism and away from Biblical Christianity that has withstood the forces of doubters and scrutinizers for centuries upon the idea that God created man, and the animals and the plants instantaneously. .


(Greg Rogers) #18

Oh for goodness sakes. What is education? Scientology educates. Budhist monks educate. I just had a cult group come to my door to convince me that it was necessary that I must join them in their work into order to achieve God. They are educators.

I challenge educators to think about what they are teaching. in the case of evolution vs creationism so devisive on the Christian front, which of the options educated to the masses seems rational to the brains that God gave us and at the same time leans truer to the common reading of the text we call the Bible on this topic?

1.something planted a seed called a cell into an environment with water and good temps for the seed to become a complex organism by the force of energy alone. Is this reasonable or is it seeming more just put up with because God cannot be included into scientific inquiry in secular schools? I would suggest that it is 100% blasphemous if you will to the very tenants of science in and of itself because energy has no intelligence. And for scientist to suggest that it is for science that we cannot introduce a Being who brought something from nothing is circularly illogical because something cannot come from nothing and energy cannot be created.

  1. something planted a seed called a cell into an environment with water and good temps for that same “intelligent” something to help it along in development by processes unnatural to the physical laws of the universe at this time.

  2. God made the kinds of plants, animals and he made mankind. And He placed them into an environment suitable for life that He created. And He gave them within the fabric of their created type the ability to adjust and evolve within the scope of capability they were created within for the potential for survival within nature. This is what I would call common grace.

Science is given a big “L” for “Loser” in number one.

Science is belittled in number 2.

Ironically it is “science” that is the go to by secular educators today to defend numbers one and two and God is not a God of confusion but this sure is confusing.

Instead in number 3, science is highlighted as one of God’s very delights and gifts to mankind for the opportunity to discover His handiwork and thus Himself as well as to be helpful towards coming to discover fixes to life’s temporal problems on earth. The mindset that is created here is a humility before God as outstanding and beyond our reach of understanding as well as a proper understanding of science as a gift and confined to the proper place of discovery of all that God created in the way He thought fit including with the possibility that He created plants and species of animals in an instant of time.


(Greg Rogers) #19

I should corro


(George Brooks) #20

You really need to study Australian marsupials…
It makes perfect sense. Australia is a giant laboratory, that was run for millions of years without the presence of placental mammals.

And when you think you are bored with Australia… it happened all over again with New Zealand.

You continually stating that it makes no sense - - in the face of flesh and bone animals that we can look at and test genetically - - is the only thing that makes no sense.


(Jon) #21

Ok well that didn’t answer the question.