The Divinometer is YOURS – you’re demanding that science must have it.
Science neither recognizes nor does not recognize God, any more than I can affirm or deny the presence of sunspots using my bare eyes: I can’t affirm or deny what I can’t see.
The only thing I think God “must have done” is what the text says – science has no place.
Your demand that science should recognize God is the issue – you demand that it see something it cannot.
“Blindly accept”? I neither accept nor deny evolution – I only insist that you keep your categories straight and get things right that you talk about.
I’d say Richard fails to see the difference between defending what is understood and insisting that what is understood is 100% correct – something anyone who’s ever been on a debate team understands because the task is to defend not what you think is correct but the position you’re assigned. In science terms that results in explaining to people when they’ve got the theory wrong without even necessarily agreeing with the theory, as exemplified by one of my botany professors who regarded certain explanations as ludicrous yet insisted that we learn to understand those explanations anyway.
Not just our ability, but our willingness or intention to see and understand it. I attend a YEC church and I discuss with my pastor concerning this issue. He is of course on position of young earth. I believe that his position is actually in the majority of christians. Most pastors I talked with believe in YEC. However, after discussing about these matters, my pastor remain ignorant of the scientific facts that had developed in the last several decades. I guess he doesn’t consider the issue as the matter of faith. I guess that is the position of many christians today. Evolution and stuff belongs to the realm of evil. One of my dear friends lost his faith long ago when he couldn’t reconcile his faith with the progress of science. Sadly, I was no help to him since I was also in the YEC camp at the time.
Therefore, I must ask you a question whether you are open toward the many progresses of science. Because I believe that we can still be faithful christians and open to the wonderful works of our God. If you are not open, then I guess there should be no point in continuing this because then there is no point. I guess the point of discussion is for the search of truth and therefore should be open toward changes, and not just to prove my point.
I guess I like a saying from Dallas Willard when he said that when he discussed with people from different faith, he should be open toward the shortcomings of his own beliefs. If the other side proved to be true, then he must be open to change our position. (the allure of gentleness) Or as Anthony Flew said in his book as an honest atheist that he should go where the facts lead him even away from his atheism where he hold dearly most of his life. (there is a god)
The real issue as I see it is that just like YECists you have made an idol out of science and elevated it to being capable of things it just can’t do. And you do so because you disagree with basic Christian theology, namely that people are fallen and come short of the glory of God, instead putting humans on an equal plane with deity. The problem I see with your entire thrust in these threads is that you don’t actually think we need a Savior – the issues with science are secondary to that.
That should be the goal but many believers (and at least some non-believers) are still far from it. Based on my own growth as a believer, I suspect that there are (at least) two reasons why all believers are not open to alternative interpretations.
One is a strong drive to convince disagreeing people and ‘win’ them to my tribe. The intention behind this drive may be good (lead the lost to the truth) but truth itself becomes secondary or forgotten when the goal is to convince and ‘win’. The ‘discussion’ becomes a debate contest and scripture just a source of ammunition.
The second important reason is that a confident attempt to understand the truth better with someone who is not from my tribe demands that my interpretations (worldview) forms a ‘building’ that does not shake in winds. If the discussion seems to threaten the stability of my world, self-preservation instinct kicks in and closes the mind from the threatening information.
My view is that this sets up a false dichotomy. The traditional Christian perspective is that God is always involved in natural processes regardless of whether we can explain it. For example, no one says that the meteorological explanation for weather is an attack on God because the scriptures say that God sends the rains. I see nature as essentially God’s technology. The Big Bang and abiogenesis are not instances where God wound up a machine and was not involved in the process afterwards. The Big Bang and abiogenesis are simply methods God used to create the universe and life, respectively. From my perspective, there is the normal way God does things, what we call science. There are also times when God does things in unexpected ways which we call miracles. These are not violations of natural law. They are simply God using his “technology” in ways that we don’t understand because we did not create the universe. I used to struggle with the problems inherent in god-of-the-gaps theology as well, but then I realized the problem wasn’t God disappearing as much as it was bad theology on my part.
As this is a public forum, replies are not necessarily aimed just at one person, but may have an eye to others who may have similar questions. Likewise, as a discussion forum, statements posted will get discussed, including weaknesses of them. If someone sincerely wants feedback, it’s great. If they want everyone to accept whatever they say, it’s not likely to go well.
Arguing is not honest if it holds to double standards. It is not honest if it deliberately misrepresents the position that it is arguing about. It is not honest if it knowingly misrepresents the facts. It is also not arguing honestly to represent something you made up after skimming a news report as being a reliable and authoritative statement.
For example, the claim that bending of the layers in the Grand Canyon shows that they were not solid is a lie. Certainly the average fan of AiG does not know any better, but people involved in producing the argument do. A search online for videos of bending sandstone will show that solid rock can bend without breaking. Whether rock bends or breaks depends on how fast the bending happens, how much heat and pressure the rock was under, and what kind of rock it is. Conversely, there are many indications that the layers were solid. Erosion at the contacts between layers shows that the layers were solid. There are karst features, formed in solid rock. Experimenting with soft layers shows that they would squish together if they were bending while not solid. Of course the claim that having soft layers prives a global flood is not good logic, either, but the basic geological claim that the argument is based on is a clear misrepresentation.
Overall, quality control in young-earth claims is not very good. Often irrelevant details are messed up. The picture of history is not particularly accurate, though many of the false claims originated with “Enlightenment” “rationalism”, with YEC merely switching who the mythical villian and hero are rather than investigating the facts.
Asking why creation was not perfect assumes that there is one ideal state. But a static situation certainly is not what the laws of nature give us. To the extent that we can infer God’s intent from creation, it seems like a goal has been to produce dynamically changing diversity.
Classical Calvinism does believe in (compatibilist) free will, and that God passively ordains evil (i.e., He is sovereign over it, allowing it to occur and foreknowinging it, but is not the author or originator of it).
