There are some finer points to this outlook - when we say responsible, we often mean can be held responsible by someone in higher authority or power. We may also mean moral responsibility, in which case, we see someone with greater “goodness” than ourselves and ascribe a moral authority. Thus free will cannot be considered in isolation or something akin to that. Human beings however, are not in a position to judge God, as they lack both the authority and power, and moral grounding, for such an act.
God being Sovereign, has also undertaken action to deal with the evil in this world. How evil came about, or if there is anything else to it beyond free moral agents choosing to be cut of from God, is an area that has been discussed for a long time. The fact that God, as the Son of God, allowed Himself to be subjected to all and every aspect of living as a human being amongst us, shows a dimension that overcomes all human notions of responsibility, and shows free will is synonymous with living according to God’s will.
This condition must be met before we can hold reasonable discussions on pain and suffering.
I am confused GJDS. Are you saying that physics and chemistry show the “elegance and profound aspects of the creation” but biology does not? That cannot be right. I assume you mean that evolution is not the elegant and profound way that God created life. So my question then is: what is way? Unless you are saying that God had nothing whatever to do with biology, which I doubt is what you believe.
As for you request for a mathematical foundation for the evolutionary creationist point of view of God’s role in the creation of natural law, I’m working on it. Stay tuned.
I am glad and impressed to know that you are working on this area Sy. But to perhaps end this on a non-argumentative note, my view is that only a limited number of scientific insights, grounded in rigorous maths, enable us to appreciate the creative power of God via the sciences. I have made some remarks in other posts on this and I will not labour the point. My favourite areas include the constants of science, and how we may discuss a beginning of creation from nothing.
As to areas of biology that may imo achieve the same status (as obtained from physics and chemistry) I would include how life began, a full (or much better) understanding of the interplay and interrelationships of bios-systems on this planet, coupled to the great cycles (ecology), and the decoupling of human agency within the ecosystems of this plant. None of these areas have advanced to a point where we can hold a serious scientific discussion, and most certainly, not within a theological discussion.
So within this context, I am afraid that evolution (I prefer the term Darwinian, but lets avoid further dispute) does not stack up, and so I do not accept the phrase “God creates through or by evolution”, and I most certainly do not accept the implication of this post “what can we prove by evolution?” as my answer would be, “Nothing”.
Hopefully you now have a clear understanding of my view.
My comment was in response to your statement I provide in quotes - if you are as well versed as you claim, you should know that the Bible does get things quite right about God. Instead, you have an odd outlook.
"Either God is not in control of the results of evolution, or he is. "
There is, of course, a third option, and that is that evolution (that is, ‘macro-evolution’) doesn’t happen. Or are you talking about simple adaptation/mutation?
[quote=“MattC, post:49, topic:4370”]
There is, of course, a third option, and that is that evolution (that is, ‘macro-evolution’) doesn’t happen.[/quote]
Hello Matt,
What’s the difference between macro and micro in your opinion? Mechanistically, I mean.
[quote] Or are you talking about simple adaptation/mutation?
[/quote]I have no idea why you would write “/mutation.” Do you realise that the vast majority of the raw material (heritable variation) on which adaptation acts does not come from new mutations?
If you didn’t know that (most people don’t seem to), I could see why you might write “mutation/adaptation,” but the converse mystifies me.
For one thing, I don’t get my theology from an anonymous dude, especially one who makes many lists. And more lists. And even more lists. Why don’t you tell us who are so we can really see what you are about? What would we find, I wonder?
For another thing, I have a hard time believing that when Jesus miraculously healed people he was undoing the actions of God. Can’t the Holy Trinity get their act together?
btw, I’m sure the church fathers believed that God determined the outcomes of evolution. And that Suzan Mazur is the Virgin Mary reincarnated.
But for now, let’s consider an example from our own time. Let’s say that Bill Cosby slips the date rape drug into a young woman’s drink, which allows him to sexually assault her. Is God at fault here?
@GJDS I see nothing in quotes … so I have no idea what specifically you think is an odd viewpoint. @Eddie goes to great lengths to say that he agrees with some of the things I wrote.
And MY point is that most Evangelicals REJECT the plain meaning of Romans 9.
How do I know? Whenever I have used Romans 9 to point out the Calvinistic basis of Christianity, every Evangelical I have ever known has said that I am wrong about Romans 9.
I’m glad you added ‘in your opinion’ as I would have added that anyway. I use the terms simply because they appear to be used quite often on here. But I do appreciate that different people use them in different ways. I personally don’t like them because they can be confusing.
In my opinion, micro-evolution is a change in the current traits of an organism (see adaptation and mutation below) - e.g. switching them on or off, or a corruption of them; macro-evolution is a new type of trait that the organism has not had previously. Micro- causes, for instance, bacteria to adapt to new food sources or become resistant to antibiotics. Macro- causes that bacteria to change into a worm or a fish into a bird. In my opinion.
Thank you. I’m not sure what the significance of putting it one way and not the other is. The ‘slash’ in the middle simply meant ‘either/or’.
Mutations happen; adaptations happen. Mutations are non-designed corrutions, whereas adaptations are the ability to change by design. I believe that God designed organisms to adapt to their environment, but the fall allowed mutations to be produced. Generally we (by that I mean those who are informed and of a learned position) understand more-or-less how ‘micro-evolution’ works - both adaptation and mutation. I’m not sure if you are implying that adaptations do not generally arise through mutations. If that’s so, then I agree.
I don’t believe that when Jesus healed people He was undoing the actions of God. I believe he was undoing the actions of men and the results of the fall.
This is one of the reasons I have a problem with some interpretations of long ages and evolution. If death and desease were always a part of God’s creation, then why would Jesus heal people and bring them back from the dead?
Why wouldn’t God be responsible for Bill Cosby’s sexual assaults, since he gave Cosby free will and knew ahead of time what he would do with it? What is God’s excuse for giving free will to humans? How is he any less responsible for Cosby’s sexual assaults than if he had planned every rape?
