It is a point of view, not a lie.
There is no right or wrong here.
Cobblers!
I have done nothing of the sort.
You and I both know that God is not a part of scientific theory. Just because you sneak Him in the back door does not change anything.
Richard
Is that being embarrassed by their beliefs, or being embarrassed by the behaviour that sustains those beliefs?[1]
Not necessarily the behaviour of the believers, but the behaviour of the YEC leaders they are following. âŠď¸
If that is what you see then you have a jaundiced view.
I see faithful Christians who have decided to put Scripture above science and the empirical method
Paul would believe what they do. Whether he would change his mind if confronted with science is pure speculation.
Paul would also turn in his grave if he saw how the modern church accepts both women and heterosexuality. Do you think he would change his mind on that as well?
Admit it. You object to people not accepting science as you do, and that includes me.
Richard
So are your claims about what Paul would believe and how he would react.
This is true.
This is also true.
Paul was so fixated on the Gospel he considered marriage a last resort for Christianâs who couldnât control themselves sexually. To think he would have cared about the age of the earth or specifically how God made the world scientifically speaking is definitely a stretch.
Vinnie
That is a major marketing claim for creation science, and what many have been fooled into believing, but it is not true. Creation science puts the pseudoempirical claims of creation science and its imitations of science above Scripture. Truly putting Scripture first would involve carefully seeking to better understand Scripture, rather than insisting on a modernistic interpretation of a few verses imposed on the rest of the text. Putting Scripture first would also put the commandments of God over the traditions of creation science, valuing truthfulness over whether an argument seems to support what I want to hear. Unless young-earth creationism repents and works to reject bad arguments, it cannot be a biblical position. By adding uncritical acceptance of creation science to the requirements for salvation, YEC has become a dangerous legalistic false gospel. A review of Galatians shows exactly what Paul would have to say about that.
The problem is not that young-earth creationism supports a young earth nor that it goes against the prevailing scientific views. The scientific problem is that it does so dishonestly, slandering honest science and promoting garbage. The fact that the scientific data unambiguously supports an ancient earth is merely science, useful info for geology and biology but not otherwise all that important. But the fact that creation science does not care about the quality of its claims is a serious theological error, and its attacks on science are very harmful. Not only does it harm its own reputation, and cause unjustified mistrust of good science, making Christians easy prey for fraudsters, it abets atheistic false claims that science takes God out of the picture.
Quibble: most claims Iâve seen that âscience takes God out of the pictureâ come from theists, not atheists.
Added: Like the one below.
those claims are not false. It is a byproduct of the mentality and methodology of science. You are only fooling yourself to think otherwise.
It is at that point that people like you go to far. It is called overkill. The moment you claim a definitive understanding of Scripture you are going too far. There is none. Scripture is not about that sort of right and wrong.
This is where I object to YEC bashing. It is unchristian.
YECs are not being dishonest. They are trying to rationalise their beliefs with the world around them. And they have every right to distrust a train of thought that refuses to recognise God in any shape or form.
Richard
Iâve largely left this thread alone since many of the questions I had to to otherâs opinions were adequately answered by others. Though this general topic has seen to be spreading through other discussions across the forum. Personally, I do think that shows how messy of a topic this is and itâs at the heart of what Biologos is trying to do. Something that I have been pondering is just our relationship to what we perceive on how God should of created things. I think evolution is portrayed as being anti-Christian because for non-theists, its easy to debunk a literal 6 day creation and undermine their faith. For creationists, if theyâve been told through popular media and popular atheists that God and evolution are incompatible, of course theyâll cling to a YEC style creation. But for folks who ascribe to TE, what we understand as Godâs involvement in the process is partially determined by what we believe on how God would create the world.
Going pretty far back, I appreciate a different stance on this Mitchell. However, I do struggle with seeing little difference in this with the the complication of âthe blueprint modelâ. I appreciate the insight of natural law not being casually closed and how that offers a ânaturalâ explanation to permit Godâs involvement. But it seems like that is strictly a faith claim and not one that can be remotely seen evidentially. And it still leave the question of Godâs necessity in the story of evolution, because we do have to admit that Godâs involvement to most, if not all wouldnât be clearly seen. What to you, if anything, would suggests Godâs handiwork in creation and the evolutionary story that would speak clearly of him being part of the paradigm?
You take a similar but different approach to Mitchell, that still ends up at Godâs necessity in my opinion. Once again both you and Mitchell separately have demonstrated that God intervening in nature is probably not the best terminology to use. But as others have pointed out, if even if God is sustaining and upholding creation, or some other theologians suggests Godâs continually and eternally creating, how we distinguish natural from divine sources or causes? If we suggest this to non-theists, it seems we are adding a âunnecessary elementâ. It doesnât seem like we can give non-thiests any good answers on Godâs necessity from the stance of the natural world (And God of the gaps never really helped us either)
Ultimately though, I want to ask the question is whether itâs our inability to envision a God who is necessary, upholding creation, intervening in the natural world that isnât causally closed but seemingly no direct evidence of him in the system He created. Do you think thatâs what God wanted, to create a system that works well enough to almost assume that it doesnât need the ultimate source or doesnât clearly show a design outside of itself (aka are we just reading design and intent where itâs all just a product of the system to seem âdesignedâ). Should we be bothered by this seeming void that just leads us back to the problem of divine hiddeness? I donât know honestly. To me most claims that God is doing more than we can clearly say to me seems like a total matter of faith. And maybe thatâs where honesty needs to lie. That evolution does more to not contradict the claim of Divine providence and existence rather than giving us a clear direct support for Him. I wrestle however then how much of God can we âreadâ in ToE on its own terms and if that should be enough to convince anyone of itâs potential ultimate source?
What presuppositions do we bring into these discussions when we assume God had to create in a certain way or be visible enough to show His existence to the very creatures He wanted to have relationship with?
Divine invisibility is more of a problem for the empirical atheist than the faithful believer. But it underlines the difference between ToE and Theistic evolution. There are many who have tried to claim that ToE disproves God, and many theists who agree. Clearly that was never Darwinâs intention, but people will grab any advantage they can to win an argument.
Whether we like it or nor, if ToE is completely correct God is relegated to the instigator whose interest in what happens is almost curious rather than by design. He sits back and watches it all unfold, either as a smug, âI got it rightâ, or an experiment with no certain outcome.
As a Christian, my bias will be from what I take from Scripture and how I perceive God. I claim that Godâs creational methodology and results should reflect that view, and get criticised for claiming that ToE does not do that.
I guess that from then on it becomes personal view and understanding of both Scripture and ToE. it would appear that the latter is less open to debate than Scripture.
Richard
The involvement of God is always a faith claim.
But that the laws of nature are not causally closed is just a fact of quantum physics.
No epistemological necessity. Lack of causal closure in the laws of nature simply means not all events are determined by causes within the laws of nature. This does not mean there must be causes outside natural law. It just means if there are causes outside natural law then a conflict with natural law is not a logical necessity. It is usually simply assumed that there is no cause determining events beyond some probability distribution.
Suggest? That sounds like a subjective word to me. LOL Quantum physics is a source of cognitive dissonance for many physicists. It seems to contradict the premise of scientific inquiry in the science of physics. For me this suggests (quite subjective) natural law was designed to include the possibility of Godâs involvement. And no I do not think natural law plus God is a causally closed system, or that there is any objective evidence for Godâs involvement. I still very much accept the idea that there can be no cause determining some events. But I donât see a conflict with Godâs involvement either.
This is your last chance to put your fists down regarding Non-Theists.
If you canât restrain âŚ. youâll be put into IGNORE.
Matters of faith are not reliant on proof.
Convictions about the divine are humanityâs greatest wager.
Famously Richard Dawkins and David Attenborough, but there are many others.
Richard
I think itâs plenty problematic for many faithful believers, especially when many faithful believer claim the evidence is clear for the Divine Presence
While I donât like that thought as much as you do, once again Iâd see it as ToE only working because God is the foundation and cause it working the way that it does. I think thereâs plenty of ways to discuss in other places why it doesnât seem as nice or as âcleanâ we would hope it to be, but I think for me what separates ToE from TE is God being the foundation of it all and it being able to work at all. To me sometimes, TE gives me some level of understanding to the ârough edges of ToEâ and I just think thereâs so much more to learn about it and more we learn, maybe the more it becomes palatable to us ( admitting that trying to parse between ToE and TE feels like splitting hairs at different places).
I empathize with this struggle as I think many do. Theistic evolution isnât an easy jump to go to from YEC or even OEC. I do think there are solutions for the problems within ToE that we struggle with but Iâll agree that the reverence given to ToE and itâs acceptance can approach levels of dogma within its discussions.
As I indicated with the phrase âto youâ, yes I was openly not asking for an objective proof or evidence. I just wanted to hear your subjective understanding and see where you landed. I know you have many reservations to any claim of objective evidence and I appreciate your honesty in that. To me it just overall suggests that the puzzle pieces of Godâs potential involvement donât make sense until you âtake the leap of faithâ and move out of a naturalistic paradigm. Thatâs probably scary to some but I think how the evidence âlooksâ to us is dependent of whether we are open or not to other ânon-naturalâ causes. Which is also being aware of what our biases are which partially determines what conclusions we make.
Richard, you wonât accept any change in your idea of âToEâ. Do pay attention to what people say rather than insisting that they conform to your idea. If someone says that they are talking about evolution as a physical process while rejecting the idea that God is out of the picture, then they are not talking about your version of ToE. Do not insist that they have to be wrong and must actually be talking about your version of ToE.
" [quote=âpaleomalacologist, post:107, topic:57582â]
Truly putting Scripture first would involve carefully seeking to better understand Scripture,
[/quote]
It is at that point that people like you go to far. It is called overkill. The moment you claim a definitive understanding of Scripture you are going too far. There is none. Scripture is not about that sort of right and wrong."
I said that we need to seek to better understand Scripture. That is not claiming a definitive understanding. But YEC claims to have a definitive understanding; do you object to their claims? Furthermore, their âdefinitive understandingâ reflects a modernistic view, does not mesh well with most of Scripture, is not in line with historical understanding, and motivates the promotion of ridiculously bad claims, all of which raise doubts as to whether it is true to the text. You are claiming to definitively know that Scripture does not have a definitive understanding, which is problematic. Of course, Scripture has a wide range of things in it. Understanding some components can be highly definitive and others much less so. Just what did Job compare his friendsâ argument to? We donât know, but clearly it was not tasty.
While we need to be cautious about assuming that our interpretation is THE right interpretation, that does not justify a postmodern-style claim that any interpretation is just as good. Rather, we should be humble about our possible mistakes, listen to different views, and make corrections, continually seeking a better understanding. Scripture must serve as an anchor, not a launching pad. Our task is not to prooftext what we want to believe, but to test our beliefs against Scripture and correct our beliefs as best we can. Again, this is an area where YEC does not do well, commonly demonizing other views and rarely making corrections or carefully listening.
The claim that science takes God out of the picture is false. The mentality associated with attitudes to science can take God out of the picture. But the claim that science takes God out of the picture is logically untrue. Hypothetically, God could be working through science, or science could work âon its ownâ to some degree but with God interacting with it in some fashion and to varying extents, or God might not be involved. Science cannot remove God from the picture. But science is also not particularly competent to directly see God in the picture. Science merely looks at physical patterns; it is unable to do more. The existence of paint and brushes does not mean that the artist does not exist, and chemical analysis of the paint or physics of the reflected photons do not give much insight into the painter. Haldane claimed to have answered âWhat has your study of creation taught you about the Creator?â with âHe has an inordinate fondness for beetlesâ. [Whether Haldane actually said it at the time, or thought up a catchy answer later, is open to doubt.] Science can tell us that there are a lot of kinds of beetles. Whether this number is inordinate or not is a matter of opinion. If we come to science with the assumption that God is at work in all natural processes, and a belief that He is good and knows what Heâs doing, then we will see the diversity of beetles as evidence of Godâs creativity, wisdom, and power, even if we are unable to see the reason for some of them (cf. Ogden Nashâs claim that âGod in His wisdom made the fly And then forgot to tell us why.â) If I think everything revolves around me, then having a bunch of beetles seems pointless. If I am coleopterophobic, I might see the diversity of beetles as evidence that God is out to get me. The various interpretations are imposed on science. Any one of them might be a valid interpretation, but that validity would depend on other evidence; science canât assess what is outside its ken.
The Bible sees ânaturalâ processes as the work of God, just as much as âmiraculousâ events. Thus, to the extent that we see evidence of evolution as being a good description of the normal process of creating new kinds of organism, we should see it as showing His wise plan. Rather than complaining that we donât like how God did things, we should seek to learn.
As with interpretation of Scripture, interpretation of science is subject to correction and improvement. But likewise that does not justify bad claims. Fossil clams with closed valves were not necessarily buried quickly. Some fossil clams were buried quickly, but that can happen due to many causes. Claiming that fossil clams with closed valves are a proof of a global flood is simply a bad argument, and reflects a lack of due diligence on the part of those promoting it. Anyone wishing to provide biblical arguments for a young earth should reject such bad arguments.
It may be easier from a different starting point. I would think that most YECs or OECs are also theistic meteorologists, theistic embryologists, or theistic agriculturists. When Christians pray before a meal and thank God for the food they are about to eat I donât think they are trying to say the food was produced supernaturally. They probably agree that all of the steps that put the food on their table are natural. And yet, they believe God had a role in getting that food to their table. Christians will say that God created them personally, but I have yet to find any who also think babies come about supernaturally. I have always felt that Christians already hold a position nearly identical to theistic evolution in other scientific arenas.
Ouch
I have never claimed such a thing.
ut I do not have to accept tat science does know exactly what God did and how He did it. That is vanity, but not mine.
I am getting tied of being preached at. I do not preach here, and do not expect to be preached at.
Richard
And that dishonesty extends to their treatment of scripture.
By buying into the straw man of you final sentence they are in fact being dishonest.
âLet your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.â -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.