Please Define Evolutionary Creationism? I am finding the Biologos website articles defining it a bit vague. Im left with more questions than answers

For an all powerful, all knowing, and ever present deity the universe wouldn’t have to be any larger than our solar system if God so chose to create in a way that didn’t rely on natural processes. At least in my eyes, the question of why God created a universe that’s so big simplifies down to why did God choose to use natural processes. If God did not use natural processes, as would seem to be argued by YECs, then we are back at the question of why the universe is so big.

2 Likes

You’ve seriously never encountered that? It pops up over and over as an objection from atheists.

That just prompts the question: Why did God make such a big universe if we’re the only ones in it? After all, if life arose supernaturally, why did He only do that once?

And if we aren’t the only ones in it, why did God do that? (After all, God could make many others even in a small universe. For that matter, we could exist, with supernatural help. in a tiny universe. Or even with no dimension at all. The questions are unending.)
On the other hand, if it isn’ t the work of God, why is it so big, whether or not we;re the only ones in it?

1 Like

Please Define Evolutionary Creationism? I am finding the Biologos website articles defining it a bit vague. Im left with more questions than answers

I frankly think Adam’s difficulty is likely because he is looking for a systematic theology he can attack.

But I don’t think Biologos or Evolutionary Creationism is a theology at all let alone a systematic one.

What it is about is really quite simple. These were started by a scientist who became Christian. So the point is to simply say that one can be both. One can embrace the findings of science and also be a Christian. Many scientists who have embraced Christianity do not see a conflict. So of course Biologos and Evolutionary Creationism refute any theology or ideology which is opposed to this basic compatibility.

1 Like

And a simplistic on at that, one that can be put on a chart, I suspect.

A Christian systematic theology begins with, circles around, and ends with the Cross. Personally, I see no problem with any scientific position that doesn’t deny the Cross; Adam sees problems with scientific positions that deny anything on his laundry list of theological points, which centers on the age of the Earth and the Old Testament sanctuary. So he shuts down when it is pointed out that good solid faithful scholars of Hebrew have concluded from Genesis 1 that the Earth is extremely ancient and the universe more ancient still.

As far as I can see, Evolutionary Creationism rests on the premise that God is faithful (and honest) and has not allowed the “Book of Nature” to be corrupted any more than the Book of Scripture.

It really annoys me when Christians overestimate their knowledge of things to the make the entire universe revolve around them alone. It is frankly absurd.

We don’t know if we are the only sentient life in the universe or not. I consider it possible but not likely. And the structure of the universe strongly suggest that if other sentient life does exist then it is simply none of our business (completely out of our reach). I doubt that is an accident.

God is supernatural so an involvement of God in the creation of life makes it supernatural. But something which warps the probability distributions isn’t just supernatural – that is magical, an alteration of the laws of nature (which are probabilistic). But that makes no sense because God made those laws of nature. To make them and then break them is very strange inconsistency. Makes a great deal more sense that God would make the laws of nature do what He intends in the first place. And quantum physics looks to me very much like a back door through which God can participate in events without violating the laws of nature.

I think the idea that God would only pay attention to the development of life on one planet in the universe is rather ridiculous. I think it obvious that He would be involved wherever there is life.

Regardless probabilities which cannot be calculated are empty rhetoric and hot air. So the fine tuning argument is incapable of convincing any skeptic. It is justification by those who believe for the beliefs they have chosen and nothing more.