More faith in the scientific method than God's revelation

Faith & Science Conversation
22

So nature that is viewed from the perspective of the naturalistic scientist is actually a supernatural invention by God? This has some sort of greek philosophical qualities not becoming of Christian theology. And so I understand this, the processes of one cell becoming complex where they rely 100% on “natural” phenomena and therefore able to be studied in scientific inquiry are actually the miracle of creation by God…is this what you are suggesting?

If this is what is suggested, then is there any scientific study out there that provides ample evidence that cells can become complex over time within the parameters of the natural? If not, then the only reason the theory has so many followers is because the majority want to stiff arm the idea of a moral God as Creator. I as a Christian thinker will not bow.

Here is the thing. A Christian “scientist” who desires to be appealing to the field of science as a whole across this country must consider that life as we know it on earth must have started with a couple of cells seeded upon the earth and natural phenomena takes it from there to make it evolve into complex. This idea conveniently complies with secular teaching.

Then there are many other Christians like myself that ask, “where is the proof” that this is valid in the first place and where is the evidence that this idea did not simply stem from ideas that necessarily negate all belief in God as Creator.

If I were attempting to become say a medical doctor and loved science and believed that it is not intellectual suicide and actually more logical to believe that God created beings that can adapt and this stance pushed against the mainstream educators led by ivy leagues, then I would find a great Christian school that accepted my views and then became the greatest science student with the goal of becoming the greatest doctor my field had ever seen for the glory of God instead of just crumbling to the whims of mainstream secular educators. As it is, secular thinkers are winning the thought battle and I personally believe that when the church too easily crumble to their whims, the church loses power in and followers of Christ tend to find more “exciting” ventures outside of the church which leads to the church dying in that region unless by the grace of God He creates revival. .

23

We should begin educating our children in a conspiracy theory line of thought …[quote=“grog, post:12, topic:25927”]
the mainstream educational system in America has pitted itself against the idea of God
[/quote]

Well, with friends like you …

2 Likes
24

@grog

I think you are missing the point completely. BioLogos is a fusion of the best of both worlds…

A) When the science is strong… we can see how God would use his natural laws providentially.

B) When the case for miraculous work is strong … we can see how God combines his power along with his natural systems.

There is nothing particularly Greek about this … it is a logical outgrowth of what we read in the bible.

Does God make the Red Sea wet the shores of Egypt and the Arabian peninsula? Probably not in any miraculous way. And yet when we read about Moses crossing the Red Sea … it is a miracle that makes it happen.

God is constantly at work in the Bible… mixing natural law with his divine intercessions.

Do you complain when he does so? No.

Do you say he is acting like a Greek Zeus? No.

Do you say it is impossible for God to mix natural with supernatural? No.

You really need to get used to the special nature of BioLogos and its mission. This is not a school of Atheism here … it is a splendid school of God at his most dynamic!!!

25

@Grog,

This has nothing to do with Biologos. Have you forgotten who you are discussing these issues with?

1 Like
26

I have not forgotten. But since I have tried to remain unbiased as I have approached the ideas coming from say the Creation Institute as well as towards Biologos, I have seen very very clearly that scientific conclusion that is determined from careful study and analysis can manifest itself very differently when basic assumptions are different. What bases these basic assumptions? Secular schools or the principles expounded in the Scriptures?

It is almost impossible to remain impartial even in the field of science. Once a view is in ones mind, the results will almost always be interpreted to fit that view. Am I right or wrong on this?

The marsupial study in Australia for example…this is by far considered the biggest feather in the cap of the evolution camp that believes a seed planted and complexity through naturalistic processes…but is it really? There are valid explanations from the creationist camp as well. When we take a look at the wolf dog, we see genetic possibilities that can lead to the breeding of the great dane all the way to the shitzu. Poodle to the boxer. Could the smallest of dogs find the possibility of life underground to be more and more convenient for survival lets say that then cause them to become creatures better at digging with less and less need for sight…I say “Of course” But will not suggest that this idea as depicted in the marsupial study logically concludes that God seeded the earth with cells that develop into extreme complexity by the power of unintelligent energy. No way. To suggest that God is behind the method of planting a seed of a single cell and seeing it sprout over billions of years with energy as the source is to suggest that God is incapable of creating a kind and it is to subscribe to viewpoints from secular camps that I’m sure take great pleasure to steer in their direction.

On the other hand, the idea that mixing energy and some cells seeded by God onto the earth gaining such complexity as eyesight and hearing etc through naturalistic processes that WE KNOW ABOUT TODAY within science is just too beyond -I am very sorry-silly to me. From this, I have chosen to, even while doing my best to place bias to the side with the creation model even at explaining the vast array of marsupials in Australia. This has the bonus of being more in line with the plain reading of Genesis to boot.

27

But interpretations of the evidence are empirically testable. Scientific results aren’t simply a grab bag of data which can be interpreted any way we like.

28

then what scientific data indefinitely proves that when the earth was created it had single cells of little complexity that evolved by naturalistic processes using unintelligent energy to formulate the absolutely stunning complexity of life today? Where is the evidence? I cannot even challenge one to attempt to be unbiased in this subject because as they go into a scientific experiment, because the engrained worldview is so powerful that one almost always lean toward the basic assumption in their conclusions.

And of course, in this statement, I refer to the big ideas surround the subject at hand of our creation. On a small scale where a scientist is doing an experiment and has no idea what to expect, we can assume a more unbiased conclusion.

But when it comes to the formation of the world, if one attended a secular middle school, high school, undergrad college and masters in secular college and phd at a secular college then is encouraged to try to consider a worldview that God created kinds while they consider the interpretations of science experiments, then I say good luck.

Worldview is powerful That is why Scripture should remain powerful for Christians and we should use a lot more reserve towards interpreting it away from its plain meaning. As I humble myself and do this more and more, I find real pleasure while I see God at work in unique and powerful ways.

29

How familiar are you with the paleological record of the earth? Are you aware for example of the physical evidence that life emerged on earth in successive stages of increasing complexity, starting with single celled organisms?

Scientists are far less biased than Christians on this issue. Unlike Christians, scientists make testable predictions which they know could be falsified, and often are. Scientists make proposals incorporating margins of error, acknowledgements of the limitations of their data, suggestions of alternative explanations which contradict their own explanation, and explanations of how their claims can be tested. Many Christians, in complete contrast, say “This is what I think and it’s right and if you disagree you’re evil and dumb”.

Speaking of interpretation, would you agree with this?

"But to want to affirm that the sun really is fixed in the center of the heavens and only revolves around itself (i. e., turns upon its axis ) without traveling from east to west, and that the earth is situated in the third sphere and revolves with great speed around the sun, is a very dangerous thing, not only by irritating all the philosophers and scholastic theologians, but also by injuring our holy faith and rendering the Holy Scriptures false. For Your Reverence has demonstrated many ways of explaining Holy Scripture, but you have not applied them in particular, and without a doubt you would have found it most difficult if you had attempted to explain all the passages which you yourself have cited.

Second. I say that, as you know, the Council [of Trent] prohibits expounding the Scriptures contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Josue, you would find that all agree in explaining literally (ad litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the earth, and that the earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the center of the universe.

Now consider whether in all prudence the Church could encourage giving to Scripture a sense contrary to the holy Fathers and all the Latin and Greek commentators. Nor may it be answered that this is not a matter of faith, for if it is not a matter of faith from the point of view of the subject matter, it is on the part of the ones who have spoken. It would be just as heretical to deny that Abraham had two sons and Jacob twelve, as it would be to deny the virgin birth of Christ, for both are declared by the Holy Ghost through the mouths of the prophets and apostles."

"I add that the words ’ the sun also riseth and the sun goeth down, and hasteneth to the place where he ariseth, etc.’ were those of Solomon, who not only spoke by divine inspiration but was a man wise above all others and most learned in human sciences and in the knowledge of all created things, and his wisdom was from God. Thus it is not too likely that he would affirm something which was contrary to a truth either already demonstrated, or likely to be demonstrated.

And if you tell me that Solomon spoke only according to the appearances, and that it seems to us that the sun goes around when actually it is the earth which moves, as it seems to one on a ship that the beach moves away from the ship, I shall answer that one who departs from the beach, though it looks to him as though the beach moves away, he knows that he is in error and corrects it, seeing clearly that the ship moves and not the beach. But with regard to the sun and the earth, no wise man is needed to correct the error, since he clearly experiences that the earth stands still and that his eye is not deceived when it judges that the moon and stars move."

2 Likes
30

@Grog,

Well, no, there really are ZERO valid explanations from the Creationist camp.

If all the animals on Australia are survivors of the Ark, then how is it that placental mammals, which are generally more robust than marsupials, are not also living in Australia - - or not, in fact, dominant in Australia?

And the same problem extends to New Zealand. The only explanation for this is that Marsupials rushed to Australia while it was still within swimming distance… arriving even before the swift lions, tigers and bears could get there … and then Australia [rather suddenly] moved hundreds of miles into the middle of the ocean before any placentals could arrive.

Australia is really one most difficult scenarios for Creationists to explain away.

31

Okay, this is a big pet peeve of mine that you have violated on several threads, and I’m going to ask you not to put scientist in quotes. It is insulting to the scientists who are Christians who frequent these boards.

If you were a pastor who happened to like Charles Spurgeon and I said: Christian “pastors” who like Charles Spurgeon… , it doesn’t matter what follows, I have called into question the validity of your profession. Which is hostile and rude. Please stop.

3 Likes
32

I am curious about the paleological record of the earth you mention and will do research. Can you define for me the strength of this record from your sincere scientific perspective for demonstrating that life as we know it did indeed become produced from single celled, simple organisms to thereby evolve into complex life as we know it today? Are there other scientists today who you could name who are on the record about the strength of this argument? Could you share with me those names so I can study them more in detail?

As far as church tradition over the centuries, I put more stake in plain reading of Scripture that is rightly divided than I do in church tradition. When it comes to your comments about Solomon I remain completely and totally in disagreement with your suggestion here. If wisdom is the proper application of knowledge and Solomon was not privy to a particular kind of knowledge that the wisdom is extrapolated from and promoted about, then who cares. It does not make the wisdom any less wise and in fact is more wise because it would be easier to understand for the average hearer of the wisdom as it used sound bites of understood knowledge base that they would understand.

Properly dividing the Scriptures: Ecclesiates is one of my favorite books in the Bible. Solomon wrote it. He says over and over again in this book that “Everything is meaningless under the sun.” He hints at suggestions that there is no heaven and that we all just go into the ground to the worms when we die. He reveals such a depressive attitude about life as a whole that one would want to wonder, “can this really be a prophet and a spokesman for God?” I know of secular religion profs who slam the Bible because of what we find in this book. Irony has it that then there are guys like me who makes all of these arguments like I do for the inerrancy of the Bible and a more plain reading about how we came to be on earth who believes wholeheartedly in a heaven and hell, and in purpose and joy in a life with God AND treasures these words of Solomon more than most other Scripture. How could this be? In what I say here, I tell you the 100% truth!

The Bible consists of principles that we can extrapolate from real people writing sincere statements about real life that carry real weight about God’s purposes, plans and design. In the case of Ecclesiastes, I know that Solomon experimented in a life of disobedience and obstinance to God in a number of ways such as idolizing sex and thinking a little too highly of himself in the pursuit of pleasure in stuff over God. This goes the same for many Bible heroes as “there is no one perfect, not even one” And the records that he gives when rightly divided offer a glimpse of God’s truth extrapolated sometimes from a real sinful persons demeanor that, in the case of Ecc, starts off really sour and ends with correction to the wrong thinking thus Biblical wisdom. When I read his words here and rightly divide them, they carry so much meat and weight because I can relate to that Solomon who put hope in stuff and I can relate to Solomon who concluded that the end of the matter is to fear God, obey Him and consider that He is not some distant celestial clock maker who fails to see to the very core of our being what we are about. The Bible is incredibly wise and beyond reproach.

So, when I plainly read a text that suggest that God made the “kinds” of plants and animals that seem all too suggestive that He did so in a very short timeframe and not long, and then consider how the idea of evolution from simple to complex by the power of energy forces comes to us full force from a camp that wants God dead and gone from our minds because they claim that it is unscientific to even consider Him in scientific endeavors, then you have to offer me a tidbit of credit for questioning the legitimacy of the theistic evolutionist claims as they seem to borrow the whole worldview hook, line and sinker and then simply re-label the worldview with soundbites and semantics that appease the theist. Can you at least offer me this tidbit of credit for my line of questioning in this?

Lastly to suggest this one last time:

  1. if ones worldview is that God seeded life with a single cell and the power of energy took over to mold that cell into beauty and complexity, then this is unscientific as energy has no power to mold intelligent form and there has never been scientific experiment that has agreed that this is possible. To suggest that this scenario is just a big God package as a whole or some other semantics that paste the concept of God upon the idea that energy and physical forces alone could possibly have taken a simple cell to DNA, then I have to conclude that this is bordering exploiting God’s name for a man made concept. I am very sorry but am being honest to my core.

  2. If ones worldview is that God interjected along the way in the process of evolution, then the idea that we can pier into how life functions through science is foolish because as soon as God interjected, it makes natural comprehension through science impossible.

  3. But if God created the plants and animals in their kinds instantly and placed them into a world of natural laws, then science becomes a gift when properly applied and attended to…the main gift being that we see God’s workmanship and discover our greatest gift, God Himself.

33

@Grog,

I really don’t know what you are going “on” about… Genesis tells the story of God taking mud or clay and making DNA out of it.

And here you are talking about “energy” blindly making DNA… and treating it as a ridiculous proposition - - even if God is associated with it.

I can’t tell if you are being ironic or officious. For me the bottom line is that Geology and Physics tells us that the Earth is billions of years old… with all the time in the world for God to work out his plan based on whatever level of detail he wanted to execute.

Tackling BioLogos is not like tackling Atheists my dear friend. BioLogos is not humanism. It’s not platonism. It’s not Greek Philosophy. It’s Chrisitianity with a healthy respect for God’s evidence abundantly provided for in the natural record.

How you swear to Intelligent Design… but couldn’t possibly believe God could use Science… well, it strikes me that you are setting rather arbitrary limits on the mind and power of God.

34

I don’t doubt this. However, one can read lots and lots of things but still not read things that are particularly helpful toward understanding macroevolution. I don’t doubt you’ve read lots, but I do doubt that you’ve read helpful, well-explained presentations of (what you call) macroevolution.

No, it doesn’t demonstrate that. Not to me, anyway. It just demonstrates that you don’t understand the evidence.

Another sensible idea as to why good-hearted folks lean toward these is because there is lots of evidence for it, which you think you’ve already read about, even though you haven’t, and I can’t convince you otherwise because you think you already know it all.

Nope

Yup

Later, I’ll catch up on some of your other comments, which I haven’t read yet.

1 Like
35

Amen to this.

It isn’t always easy to figure out how science and the Genesis account relate to one another, and there are a lot of questions to which we don’t know the answers. As such, there are sincere differences of opinion between us as Christians as to how we are to approach it. These do not affect our acceptance of the Gospel message, which depends on Christ, not on the age of the earth or non-evolution.

I have no objection to anyone deciding to disregard the evidence for the age of the earth and evolution. Nor do I object to non-scientists making claims about the evidence that are demonstrably wrong, since that merely indicates misunderstanding on their part. However, this YEC habit of questioning the faith and even the professional integrity of those who – for good reasons – reject their interpretation of Genesis 1-11, is toxic, divisive, hypocritical, and outright libellous. It needs to be robustly confronted.

Or, just put it this way. What would you say to someone who questioned the professional integrity of Christians who didn’t accept a pre-Tribulation Rapture?

1 Like
36

Perhaps your vision is faulty??? Seeing things that are not the way that they came to be?
Have you considered that? With the marsupials you also have the Aborigines - if they preceded or are completely separate from Adam they have no kinsman redeemer in Christ. Who’s going to tell them that they cannot be saved?

The bible teaches us to not lean unto our own understanding but to defer to the word of God.
God says 6 days for everything so why call Him a liar and insist on billions of years?
That is basically what the whole argument is all about.

37

The YEC disagree with the way you interpret the physical evidence and are taking you to task over it. Moreover and far more importantly, the faulty interpretation of the evidence then becomes the authority that overshadows and governs the way Genesis gets interpreted. In other words, another god is at work - that’s in essence what it means.

Like Greg has been trying to make you see - any evolutionary paradigm that requires an intervention by a god forces you to abandon your purely scientific approach to the evidence. It also forces you to invent another god since the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob makes it quite plain that He did His work in six normal human-understandable days, not the billions of years required for evolution. This God very pointedly did NOT use evolution. That is clear.

[Evolutionary] People love to say that people of those (Genesis) times were unintelligent or would not understand what God meant but simply ditch the very fact that God was speaking to them in the only language they COULD understand:
“It was evening and it was morning…” These terms apply not to God but to human kind alone. Therefore any other interpretation that necessarily wants to allow for billions of years is not only highly suspect but raises the same question that the serpent asked Eve in the garden - " Did God really say…(6 days in this case).?" along with the dire consequences that followed.
.

38

  1. God’s Book of Nature tells us the Earth is billions of years old. Are you calling God a liar by saying he is deliberately misleading us?

  2. I have no idea why you brought up the topic of Aborigines. They don’t have any affect on your analysis or my own.

39

No Prode. They do not disagree with how anyone interprets the physical evidence. They disagree with a straw man caricature of how scientists interpret the physical evidence that bears no relationship whatsoever to what real scientists actually do. The “were you there” argument for starters is a flat-out demonstrable lie. Scientists can – and do – verify historical assumptions through cross-checks and testable predictions, as I have pointed out over and over and over and over again. In fact, any scientist who did knowingly make unverifiable assumptions – and certainly assumptions that were so wide of the mark that they couldn’t distinguish between thousands and billions of years – would be guilty of gross professional misconduct.

Look, Prode, I’m not asking you or anyone else to put your faith in science. If you think the evidence should be disregarded in order to remain faithful to the Bible, then by all means do so. However, kindly cease and desist from making demonstrably false accusations of compromise, inventing false gods, speaking with the voice of the serpent, and professional misconduct, against fellow Christians who resolve the discrepancy between the physical evidence and a literal six day young earth creation in ways different from your own. It’s divisive, it’s hypocritical, and it’s potentially libellous.

2 Likes
40

@Prode,

Is this the pot calling the kettle black? How is it that we are abandoning science more than you are? You are the one who rejects the antiquity of the Earth. But BioLogos supporters do not need to replace God with science. We are working to show how they both work together. No additional God is necessary.

Your assertion that we are inventing a second God is rather scurrilous in my view.
Did Martin Luther invent a second God… because he disagreed with the Church?
Did John Wesley invent a second God… because he developed 2nd Act of Grace theology?

You need to pull your horns in friend.

2 Likes
41

I am very surprised that you haven’t come across this before. It’s standard science. The history of our earth reveals life emerged in increasing stages of complexity. This was recognized and accepted by many Christians as early as the nineteenth century, so it’s not exactly new. It is also clear that some of the earliest life forms were single celled organisms. Behold, the cyanobacteria. We have fossils of them dating to over 2 billion years ago. As for naming scientists on the record about the strength of this argument, I don’t think I have enough time to write all the thousands of names that would require. This has been well established for decades. You can read more here (start from page 68 to save time). You can also read this timeline, this timeline, this timeline, or this timeline.

Ok so how do you “properly divide the Scriptures” in order to conclude that the description of the sun and moon in the Bible isn’t actually an accurate description of how they move in reality, and that Cardinal Bellarmine was totally wrong despite centuries of church tradition and the “plain reading” of Scripture?

No it doesn’t. The first modern scientific synthesis of evolution was written years before Darwin, by an English clergyman, Robert Chambers, in a book called “Vestiges of the History of the Natural Creation” (1844). He believed it gave God greater glory.

To a reasonable mind the Divine attributes must appear, not diminished or reduced in some way, by supposing a creation by law, but infinitely exalted.

It is the narrowest of all views of the Deity, and characteristic of a humble class of intellects, to suppose him acting constantly in particular ways for particular occasions. It, for one thing, greatly detracts from his foresight, the most undeniable of all the attributes of Omnipotence. It lowers him towards the level of our own humble intellects.

Much more worthy of him it surely is, to suppose that all things have been commissioned by him from the first, though neither is he absent from a particle of the current of natural affairs in one sense, seeing that the whole system is continually supported by his providence.

As for your three choices:

There are serious problems with them.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean but it sounds nothing like evolution.

That’s like saying that if you believe God performs miracles, it makes natural comprehension through science impossible.

In other words this is the one you like the best for personal reasons, but nothing to do with the Bible or science.

2 Likes