I love a good science article that is compatible with God choosing to use that kind of
science as an evolutionary tool!
Thanks , George. That one hits right in the …gonads.
2 Likes
Sent by God how? Why? As this is entirely explicable by natural processes, apart from grounding being, how is God involved? How could we know? As in claims of healing that don’t break the statistical surface. God has no choice above grounding being and incarnating.
And the cosmic rays in question aren’t from deep space.
The interpretation of “how” is really up to the Christian, don’t you think?
Prof. Behe tends to see things like this as part of God’s hegemony over the natural order. So, particles and photons reach the Earth after a long chain-reaction of events all the way back to the Big Bang.
This would be the explanation for the Dino-Killing Asteroid as well.
While other Christians, despite supporting Evolution, are inclined to think SOME events are miraculously triggered: maybe the Dino-Killing rock didn’t come in from another galaxy … maybe God created it (and sent it) somewhere within the Sun’s asteroid belt.
Christians already harbor some one-off miracles - - miracles that don’t overturn all of science:
- the virgin birth;
- the resurrection of Christ.
And maybe a few other. @Swamidass has gone on record to allow for 2 more one-off miracles (the creation of Adam from dust, and the creation of Eve from Adam’s rib) - - all the while still studying and endorsing Evolutionary science.
I’ve heard that truly scientific journals/publishes don’t publish anything on the appearance of live as well as appearance of language and there’re probably serious reasons for that
Again, why invoke divine intervention when natural processes explain all in nature? All. That’s all. As in all. Without exception. Why invoke magic when it isn’t necessary and is in fact utterly absurd? Behe’s biochemistry professorship has no relevance to his bizarre pseudoscientific religious beliefs which are repudiated by his employer.
And by your silence I see that you acknowledge that the cosmic radiation was solar.
And what has incarnation got to do with Chicxlub?
And you cannot endorse evolution and the Jewish creation myth as literal.
Yes, the how is down to epistemology, but not all epistemologies are rationally equal.
Do you mean the “appearance of life”? Because origin-of-life (OOL) research is regularly published in top scientific journals. Maybe you meant something else.
2 Likes
Yep. The origin. Sorry I’m not a native speaker. Hmm I’ve thought that it’s the case for my whole life. But I guess I’m wrong 
You are certainly quite odd. Apparently you object if any Christian assumes something miraculous has happened in the past, or might happen in the future.
You might as well be a Unitarian if you don’t think Jesus was born a deity (to fulfill the Trinitarian world view).
There’s no point in criticizing my views from a Unitarian viewpoint … since I am already a Unitarian.
I am presenting theories and paradigms that are consistent with a Trinitarian view (because virtually all Young Earth Creationists are Trinitarian).
Your odd views certainly aren’t Unitarian. And what has incarnation got to do with nature?
Radiation, UV as well as cosmic rays was certainly a source of variation in the beginning before living organisms learned to incorporate variation into their genome in a much more controlled manner. E-coli still use UV for variation by protecting damaged areas from their own DNA repair mechanisms, but this means they can be selective regarding what alterations to keep and what to fix.
Incorrect. Physics has demonstrated conclusively that causality in the physical universe is not a closed system. This happened in the tests of Bell’s inequality to determine whether there are hidden variable or not. The result show that there are no hidden variables. So either some things have no cause or we have to look for their cause outside the premises of the scientific worldview.
This is not a God that worthy of the name, and no reason to pretend to any kind of theism.
English isn’t your first language, is it?
While I am personally a Unitarian, I am able to look at things from a Trinitarian perspective.
Many, MANY Trinitarians who embrace evolution are still inclined to think God performs miraculous things - - in addition to managing the NATURAL evolutionary processes involved in creation.
You don’t seem open to that nuanced position.
Nuance is an overstatement of a God who does just what nature does as if He didn’t. Like healing.
What a God who sustains all autonomously, having instantiated the prevenient laws of nature from eternity, for infinity, who gives us hope of transcendence as Christ alone, is less worthy than what kind of God?
How is it that you extract from each of my posts the exact opposite of what I propose?
The NUANCED position I was describing was a Christian who embraces natural Evolution AND YET ALSO affirms the likelihood of one-off supernatural miracles by God as well.
So… my position is the OPPOSITE of your sentence: “… a God who does just what nature does as if he didn’t…”
A God who has no choice but to sustain all autonomously, having instantiated the prevenient laws of nature from eternity, for infinity, who has no choice but to give us hope of transcendence as Christ alone, is less worthy than a God who chooses to sustain all autonomously, having instantiated the prevenient laws of nature from eternity, for infinity, who chooses to give us hope of transcendence as Christ alone.
It is the difference between an automatic force and conscious being. We can give thanks that clouds deposit rain water on our lawn but there really isn’t much point in since these are just an operation of condensation and care nothing about our appreciation. Its not like hiring someone to water our lawn where we better show our appreciation with payment if we want them to do it again. The cloud cannot choose and will do what it does regardless, but the conscious being who waters our lawn needs to be appreciated or he will choose to do otherwise the next time.
Choice is meaningless.
What choice?
God has always created.
Always.
From eternity.
He is creator.
He does not change.
How does that make Him unworthy?
They’re the same.
What is meaningless to you is not meaningless to others.
The choice to create and the choice of what to create… and then choice how to interact with what He has created.
That is relative to some notion of time. But… even if so… this is irrelevant.
There remains a difference between inanimate things/forces which simply create as a function of automatic processes and a being which chooses to create and what create.
That is even more inanimate and worthless. I have no regard for the God you describe. Sounds like a perfect waste of time to me.
That which is incapable of responding to our actions is not worth our consideration when choosing how to act. Better to stop wasting our time and dismiss such an empty notion from our minds altogether.
Is that empty rhetoric all you’ve got?
1 Like