ahh, so we are latching onto the phraseology of Elihu, who is contending with Job, and from that phraseology, we are then putting our own unflattering spin on the parlance?
Thanks. Now we can move on.
You are saying something different that what Paul says. Paul was not beholden to the TOE. Free from such shackles, he had no need to rationalize the Scriptures
obviously not
Ahhh⌠what a nice way of saying that Paul knew nothing about physics, biology or cosmology ⌠but we need to accept the modern interpretation by anti-science religionists of Paulâs views anyway.
Pretty ridiculousâŚ
Maybe next time you wonât be so cavalier when you try to sweep aside multiple translationsâŚ
Joe, I have to say I do NOT agree with this. Atheists do NOT see the signature⌠where the word âseeâ means âunderstandâ.
And no doubt there are Christians who would agree with the conclusion⌠but would hesitate to agree with specific instances of what you think is obvious design.
What exactly is your current point or position? Have you finally acknowledged that
it is actually possible for a Christian to believe in an INTENTIONED Evolution?!
Evolution? Ham is just as adamantly negative against Hugh Rossâs Old-Earth Creationism as he is to Biologos. To Ken, they are all âcompromisersâ who âweakenâ the integrity of the Bible. Heâs a âsplitterâ not a âjoinerâ.
Iâm not sure what you would prefer in discussions on these matters. Should Christians not talk about evolution or the age of the Earth? Should they not be taught at all?
I agree that evolution should be taught neutrally. How would you teach it in a science course? Would you reference Hamâs arguments for a young Earth? How would you feel if Hamâs arguments were scrutinized from a scientific perspective? His stuff is quite easily dispatched so consider what the easy dismissal might suggest to students about Hamâs approach of tightly linking the validity of Scripture to the age of the Earth and biological evolution. I think itâs not so much evolution or the age of the Earth that necessarily discourages people from Christianity, itâs the perception that it cannot accord with Christianity. This is the issue that Ham propagates rather than defuses.
Note that Catholic schools have been teaching about evolution and the age of the Earth for decades.The fact that theyâve managed to bring this in their curriculum suggests there is a way. Perhaps itâs that the Catholic church doesnât make those topics a doctrinal âhill to die uponâ that allows them some success.
If youâre worried about your kids in science courses, I would suggest explaining to them why evolution and an ancient universe would have no impact to your faith (I think this is one of Biologosâ missions). Explain what science can and, more specifically, cannot say about the existence of God. Donât feed them questionable science like Hamâs or you could set them up for possible future disappointment and an unnecessary existential crisis.
4 Likes
I have said this repeatedly, and it will be the last time. Any claim made about evolution that denies agency is a non-scientific claimâiâŚe, that evolution is âunguidedâ or âoutside Godâs controlâ or âproves there is no God.â It is a metaphysical claim that cannot be tested or scientifically proven. You seem to insist that âevolution and Godâs existence are incompatible.â That is because you are inappropriately attributing this metaphysical claim to a scientific theory.
It seems you âwant to be so.â And it seems that there is no convincing you otherwise.
Whatever.
4 Likes
First of all, you see4m to say that no scientific fact can prove or disprove a metaphysical claim. That is not entirely true. Christians believe that God created the universe ex nihilo. If the universe were eternal that would clearly be untrue. Science tells us now that the universe did have a Beginning as Genesis says, thus confirming the Christian claim. This does not prove the claim that God created the universe, but certainly leaves non-believers up a creek without a paddle.
Second of all scientists might say that evolution is not determinant, but here is no evidence that this is true. In fact Darwin said that it was determined by Natural Selection, and most Darwinists agree. The problem being is that science has yet to discover how this works, so many claim that it is not true as a result.
If course I have shown how Natural Selection works to make evolution clearly determinate, which no one has refuted. This is a scientific question that demands a scientific answer, not a metaphysical answer. That is what BioLogos should be about.
Third, the claim that evolution is a random process raises the question of cause and effect and do we live in a rational, comprehensible universe. The evidence clearly shows that the universe and evolution is a comprehensible non-random process consistent with a rational Creator God. and inconsistent with a non-rational random process that people like Dawkins suggest.
You will eventually need to come to terms with 3 realities:
-
dice create random numbers, but in a LAWFUL way. This is how Evolution-without-God works.
-
evolution guided by God creates whatever God wants it to create, which may or may not look lawful⌠depending on the time, and the aspect of evolution being considered.
-
God controls rains in various ways⌠some that look totally natural⌠and some that dont.
Yes, thatâs a great point.
If evolution requires a âyetâ then it is an evolution of the gaps, or an evolution with gaps and not comprehensive.
I think that the problem that Joe is trying to address is a fear that the framework theory or the functional creation theory will leave believers vulnerable to a conundrum that evolution can somehow explain the observed biosphere without a logical necessity for Godâs existence. I think that his proposed solution to this conundrum is to embrace ID as scientific proof of Godâs existence. Am I wrong? @deliberateresult
I donât think so. Chaos theory deals with weather, while ecology deals with climate and many other factors which would cancel out the possible vagary of chance events.,
Aside from that, which seems to be major, we seem to be in agreement. If that is true, then it seems to me that evolution scientifically understood is determinate. That means if anything that it points to the exist of God, rather than Godâs non-existence.
I think that it is very ironic that Creationists best argument against Darwinism is that it seems to indicate that God does not exist. Thus the fact that the opposite is true should be the best argument against Creationism, however BioLogos has yet to show any interest in it.
thatâs not exactly what I am saying, Christy. I am saying that the TOE and active Creation are mutually exclusive. I am saying that because it is true. The TOE is and always has been a purely naturalistic account of the origin and evolution of life. The TOE denies any active guidance in the process.
I am also saying that the evidence clearly points to the necessity of a Creator of life. We know that all life is founded on the most advanced data processing system we have ever encountered. We know that all life depends on the most technologically advanced feats of engineering we have ever encountered. I truly cannot think of a more ludicrous proposition than to say that the most advanced data processing and engineering known to man has come about through purely natural processes. Both are clear signatures of intelligent agency and this is a truth that will never change.
Thankfully, scientific consensus and truth are not synonyms. Scientific knowledge is a very fluid thing. There exists in the scientific literature absolutely no empirical evidence for the TOE. We further our knowledge by questioning, testing, and examining scientific claims, not by accepting them. If reality does not square with the claims, the claims need to be discarded or amended. The TOE is rooted in metaphysical baggage more than in empirical reality, and it is the metaphysics of atheism. If we were talking about something that was not so intimately tied to worldviews - a geodesic dome on Mars for instance - there would be no question that we are looking at a clear signature of intelligent agency when we observe the information and molecular machinery of life.
So could God have used evolution? Sure. But if He did use it, it was not the purely naturalistic evolution that is taught and promoted. How do I know this? Because of the clear signature of intelligence embedded in every living cell. This signature of intelligence is something all Christians can and should rally around.
Really? Scientists just âacceptedâ it, with no questioning, testing, and examining? I think that is the most ridiculous statement on this thread. 
3 Likes
Joe, my goodness⌠how can you know so much and still come up with that statement?
âabsolutely no empirical evidenceâ ? What a brash statement.
There is SOME empirical evidence even for GHOSTS!
Maybe you could argue that there is no PROOF⌠but there is PLENTY PLENTY PLENTY of evidenceâŚ
and that is what we dispute to this day âŚ
While I agree with you that we donât know exactly how He does it, I also hold dear certain Scriptures (probably because of my journey out of atheism and into the light); Scriptures such as Romans 1:20 (For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that have been made) and Psalm 19:1 (The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament shows His handiwork).
Verses like these testify that even for those who do not believe in Him, there is hope because His Creation is evidence of His existence. I am a case in point. Therefore I take 1 Peter 3:15b to heart (Always be prepared to give a defense for the hope that is in you).
So my question to you is this: do you see any evidence for God in the things He Created, to include life?
Please show me where I have proposed YEC. You canât. However, I will tell you what YEC and EC or TE have in common at their core: each starts with a proposition that is completely non-biblical and interprets all of Scripture through the lens of that non-biblical notion. In the case of the former, the proposition is a 6000 year old earth and universe, and in the case of the latter, it is the proposition that all the novel body plans of every living organism are the sole product of the four fundamental forces.
Concerning the body of physical science, both propositions are way off base. As a basis for interpreting Scriptures, neither one rises above self serving indulgence.
On occasion I encounter this sort of sentiment, and itâs a sure sign that further conversation will not be fruitful, alas.
If, given the masses of evidence for evolution out there, someone makes the claim that there is NO evidence for for it, one is not dealing with someone taking a rational approach to the topic.
1 Like