They say that science is atheist or agnostic, at least current science, but to me it seems like a black cloud of pantheism and preconceived ideas that are tried to be justified with subsequent hypotheses, models that interpret everything and are willing to make fine adjustments, ad hoc hypotheses , deny the evidence saying that the theory is incomplete, perhaps even false evidence and false statistics for economic or political interests, misinterpretation of data or false causal correlations based on naively looking at graphs, lack of methodical doubt based on the cult of authority or assume the inerrancy of the teacher, famous scientists and popular theories or those to which we are accustomed, garbage articles or plagiarism even meaningless that end in a more research is needed when they do not say or propose anything just tangled rhetoric, mathematics that give the appearance of âscientificâ everything to justify certain philosophies, I would not be surprised if they say that an olistic approach that combines art with cosmology makes the symmetries take you to the universal spirit or enlightenment, like that without any justification, what do you think?
None of these.
The only assumption of science with theological implications is that the evidence isnât a lie. Maybe there is no God, but if there is, He is not lying to us. That is the ONLY assumption in science which is the least bit theological.
Some scientists are pantheists. But frankly I think there are Christians who should be classified as pantheist or panentheist, with their dreamer God who can do anything they say by whatever means no matter how nonsensical. Other scientists are atheists. And many are theists â they believe in a God who is not a liar and who is not trying to trick or deceive us. And like the God they believe in, these theistic scientists are also honest. They also believe in a creator of things which are real not dreams, where the ends are not independent of the means.
The cult of authority is found in other theists who insist on their authority and the authority of their religious writings over God Himself â making Him a liar in all the data He sends to us from the earth and sky. And to prop up this imaginary authority they write garbage articles with a superficial appearance of science which are nothing but rhetoric. Because true science tests its hypotheses and doesnât start with a conclusion like lawyers, politicians, and used car salesmen trying to find anything that supports what they have decided to prove.
I think that says everything about you - a fine object for scientific analysis - and nothing whatsoever about science.
Yo- Klax! How you doinâ?
Donât get old mate. Thissen?
Nay too bad me oldâŚ
Goinâ tâ see Steve Hackett in September. Should be good.
What day? .
30th September. Friday. Sheffield City Hall.
Ooooh! The Who! Apparently 'ull were better!
Eeeee, culture(s) eh?
Aye! lad. Or thereâs always âSounds of the 60âs liveâ with Tony Blackburn. 
Oh aye. And Johnny Walkerâs Sounds of the 70âs icing on that cake. And Paul Gambacciniâs layer.
How lucky we are Neil. Civilization not stretched beyond its elastic limit. Cosy. How our own ruling class drug us eh?
Perhaps civilization is not stretched beyond it its limit at present is because there are invisible factors which remain constantly in place. Natural Law being one. A factor which is part of Godâs overall providence and common grace- as per- âFor when the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, they, not having the law, are a law unto themselves,â
When we do see civilization reaching the point of breaking, the inevitable outcome is war. This said, we are presently seeing societies (particularly âWesternâ) being stretched towards their limit in what we generally refer to as the the culture wars.
We could go as far as to say that doctrines surrounding those of âevolutionâ are also an âinter-wovenâ element within the tapestry of these so-called âculture warsâ.
Pulling the conversation more in line with the topic of this thread, I see a very strong link between the overall doctrine of evolution and that of pantheism particularly in the work of Pierre Teilhard De Chardin, who, although ostensibly âChristianâ, was really more of a theological pantheist.
He also provides a major bridge from Christianity into New Age teaching where we see recurring evolutionary themes. To be honest, I see evolution as a spiritual worldview rather than a purely scientific one, as per this New Age article:
https://www.planetaryphilosophy.com/
I would maintain that Christianity and pantheism/panentheism are irreconcilable. I donât suppose many here will agree with my position but here is. For what it is worth.
From the last linked article this much seems dead wrong about what evolution is or anticipates.
The full scope of evolution posits that there is a state of perfection that can be achieved, a telos (goal, purpose) of creation that will ultimately culminate in created matter being reabsorbed back into the âdivine wholeâ, with man becoming a âgodâ and attaining a higher plane of consciousness.
The essential idea of evolution is that life as a system self regulates and compensates so that life itself in whatever form can find a way, come what may. There is no telos or âperfectâ end state toward which it is progressing, or if there is, nothing in evolution supports it.
If I read you right, then what seems to be implied is that the phenomenon of âevolutionâ (if there is such a phenomenon) carries within itself some inherent creative power of âself regulationâ Almost as if this phenomenon is âmindfulâ. Here some notion of a âtelosâ cannot be escaped. Even if this âtelosâ i.e. end goal is only the preservation of life. The problem I would see, is that a process of a purely materialistic ânatural selectionâ as proposed by atheistic naturalists cannot possibly provide this. Thus we can make a distinction between the New Age view of evolution and a purely materialistic evolution.
However, If we are to take your view that âlife as a system self regulates and compensates so that life itself in whatever form can find a wayâ. We are inevitably attributing a purpose. If a purpose then a telos inevitably follows. Your particular âtelosâ may not be equivalent to that of New Age evolutionists but even so such a telos carries with it religious implications of a non-materialist kind.
This is inevitably a faith position.
I think you might be anthropomorphising the self regulation of life through evolution. Most of the self regulation even of what goes on in our human organism requires no mindfulness at all. Digestion, blood pressure, breathing, balance when walking and heart rate go on without our deliberate governance. I think (but am no expert) that evolution is like this.
I certainly l have faith positions some involving what I hold as sacred. But none involve a being apart from everything else whose intentions direct and make make everything possible.
I think you might be anthropomorphising the self regulation of life through evolution. Most of the self regulation even of what goes on in our human organism requires no mindfulness at all. Digestion, blood pressure, breathing, balance when walking and heart rate go on without our deliberate governance. I think (but am no expert) that evolution is like this.
âŚ
I think you may be reading me wrongly. My position would be that materialistic natural selection alone cannot account for any form of âself regulationâ in order for evolution to âfind a wayâ, in the way you have previously described. Natural selection according to materialistic assumptions is not only blind, it is also deaf dumb and mindless, and therefore cannot âself regulateâ in order to find a way. We are speaking here of a philosophical, ontological impossibility.
The things pertaining to human biology you have listed do require an immense amount of regulating and fine tuning. However, they also often require âmindsâ embodied in doctors and surgeons to put things right when these physiological attributes stop working as they should.
If I may say so, it is your good self who has introduced the notion of anthropomorphism by the use of the word the the word âselfâ in suggesting that evolution provides a system which is âself regulatingâ.
The New Age i.e. pantheistic evolutionist has the philosophy of universal consciousness (i.e. the universe its-âselfâ is conscious) he builds this into his whole worldview of evolution, which he believes could account for a form of universal âself regulationâ. (Not my view).
However, the atheistic materialist doesnât have anything comparable he can provide as a philosophical basis behind the evolutionary processes he believes in. Natural selection does not posses any creative power to arrive at complex and highly regulated life forms. Moreover there has been no scientific discovery of any kind pertaining to a natural engine which could possibly drive and account for naturalistic evolution.
âI certainly l have faith positions some involving what I hold as sacred. But none involve a being apart from everything else whose intentions direct and make make everything possible.â
Why would your faith position then rule this out?
We have objective evidence of Godâs guiding events through his providential interventions into his childrenâs lives, connecting the dots. We also know he is sovereign over mutations in DNA in their timing and placing, kidney DNA in particular. So his guidance of evolution undetectable to science is hardly a stretch.
No, there is no scientifically detectable telos, but we have truth revealed in the Bible about Godâs sovereignty and intentions and why Jesus endured the cross for us, if you belong to him. Itâs about a loving family and a Fatherâs renown.
Regarding âSovereign interventionsâ:
If we are to believe in Godâs sovereignty on any level, then His sovereignty cannot be divorced from His eternal being (i.e. that He is in Himself ontologically and eternally outside of creational temporality). Also to believe that His eternal decree, concerning temporal creation, is also determinitive of all things which come to pass.
What may seem to be sovereign âinterventionâ to us is merely the outworking of this self same decree (in time) and therefore should not be understood solely as âinterventionâ (on the purely horizontal plane) as we might humanly perceive it to be.
The question remains as to whether He has decreed to bring His own âtelosâ to fruition via the processes of âhorizontalâ i.e. a causal and effectual evolutionary processes. The traditional materialistic understanding of evolution rules out vertical causation on purely philosophical and materialistic grounds. Which raises questions concerning âTheistic evolutionâ (which depends upon philosophical naturalism to some degree) as to how God could possibly direct an undirected process.
If we are to take the Bible at face value, then the âdoctrineâ of evolution (yes- let us call it a doctrine) can only ever be (on historical Christian grounds) a âbastardâ doctrine which has been imported from faith systems external to Christianity itself, with their own inherent dangerous propositions. We must surely be agreed that scripture no where teaches evolution. We are also under no obligation to accept such a âbastardâ doctrine.
Authentic historic Christianity has never depended upon evolutionary explanations. If we are to accept the sovereign and âSupernaturalâ almighty creator that the Bible teaches, then we should never need to.
The objection to this, and ever will be, is- âbut thatâs not scientific!â
However, if we are to accept that the modus operandi of âscienceâ, per se, as âthat only which can be measuredâ, then theory of evolution itself is not scientific.