How on earth would you know what a set of designed creature would look like or be made up of?
Are you god now?
Richard
A Bat and a cat are mammals, not birds. What a surprise that two mammals wold have similar genetic codes! Likewise whales and hippos as opposed to birds>
Just because two cars have the same basic components does that mean they are from the same manufacturer or are related?
You see what you want to.
And you underestimate God.
Richard
…by looking at the process by which we design things and the methods we already have for constructing DNA chains.
In this way we can look at the covid virus and determine whether it is a product of evolution or design.
That movie prop tree you are hiding behind is getting smaller and smaller by the minute.
I obviously don’t set the bar for God any where near as low as you do. When we design things with DNA in the future that will not make us God or gods. I say “things” because any product of design will not be a living organism, but machines. DNA is just machinery that we can manipulate and build things with. What makes us living organisms rather than machines is because we are not a product of design but come from the self-organizing process of life which includes growth, learning, and adaptation.
But I am not talking about comparing the whole DNA genome of bats, cats, and birds. I am talking about comparing only the portion of their DNA which produces their wings and limbs.
The point is that structure has absolutely nothing to do with it. That is a demonstrable fact.
I think I only overestimate you and this very tiny god you believe in. Being able to do what you care to dictate in agreement with your worldview does not make your god bigger.
The Deist Watchmaker is not greater than the Shepherd of the Bible. The engineer is not greater than the parent. AI is now demonstrating the vast power of the evolutionary algorithm and you want to declare that your god is greater for sticking to tinker toys.
Cogitoerogosuspiro…Long moniker!!
NO debate–you want answers.
Your question seems to center around the black-and-white idea that the universe evolved so the Bible is not true.
The reality is that people in the era during which the early books of the Bible were composed [long ago, another discussion altogether] were not concerned with evolution.
Their science of beginnings taught other things — that is, gods that fought with each other, fornicated lots, thought humans would be excellent slaves, ate their children [the gods’ children] if the kids were a threat to Dad’s position of Top Dog in the Universe—and BOY are those humans noisy! Drown them, please --I need my nap undisturbed!! etc
More likely that the creation accounts are refuting THAT form of thinking,…not ours necessarily…
As for the biblical text and historicity in general…you are making broad statements about a subject that is old and long-discussed. See below for a couple citations – not exhaustive by any means.
“…25% of the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) are biblical manuscripts” and the text of these books “are suprisingly consistent over centuries of re-copying but yet also surprisingly diverse…Many of our Bibles don’t seem to be changed in any major way” --seminary speaker at biblical archaelogy conference spring 2022
“One can well say that the Old Testament reports with unrivalled excellence and thoroughness on the period following the eighth century BC and throws light in varying degrees of reliability on certain levels of the preceding three or four centuries…the Old Testament gives us a unique opportunity to observe Mesopotamia from the outside. In this respect, the Bible contains remarks that are far more revealing and exact than, for example, the travleogue of Herodotus on Babylonia. …the Old Testament itself served as a vehicle for transmission to the West of a number of literary concepts and cultural traits of Mesopotamian extraction” — see more in Oppenheim’s book Ancient Mesopotamia: Portrait of a Dead Civilization (pub 1964) — p.72-73
The existence of Jesus of Nazareth (New Testament) is denied by only a very few hardcore people…The death in October 18 of what we call 31 AD of a man named Sejanus is believed by some to have set off a chain of events that led to a man named Pontius Pilate (known historical figure) being more vulnerable politically so therefore inclined to accommodate local religious obsession with a teacher from Nazareth named Jesus. Long story, you likely know it. After Sejanus was executed, his young children also were murdered --although they raped the little girl first because killing a virgin was not permitted—and in recent years, evidence of a very large earthquake (magnitude 6.3) in the Dead Sea area (not far from Jerusalem) has been discussed and, of course, some see it as referenced to the earthquake that is said to have occurred during the crucifixion and mentioned, subsequently, in the Gospel of Matthew…See the 2012 International Geology Review article, reprinted or cited in recent years in other publications.
OK---- just dealing here with your “If it is true that we have evolved, if it is true the Bible cannot be relied upon for questions of history, how does it follow that…?” etc – you can re-read your own quote.
More could be said. But enough for now and I am sure others have various thoughts. Thanks for the inquiry
How can you compare human endeavour to God?
That is a complete contradiction to Genesis 1. The whole point is that God created, rather than self creation. .I am not interested in the method, only the fact that He did it.
I have no idea where you get your obsession to link design with control but it is way off.
Where do you get this from? I have never once called God a watchmaker or even analogised it. You have some sort of fixation that I cannot fathom or answer.
Design is not synonymous with control, neither is it some sort of evil.
You have maligned God and my faith and I severely object on both counts…
ToE is anti God, it claims that nature made itself without any help from God. You may as well just throw out Genesis 1 from the Bible.
Human! AI is human made. The algorithms for human construction. You cannot equate God with humanity or human endeavour.
God is the creator, that is basic Christianity. It would appear that you disagree.
Richard
Because the God I believe in is real not a fantasy or merely a tool of rhetoric. Magic is not greater but the mentality of an infant who knows nothing and can do nothing. Making God all about magic is to turn God into an infant. If you make magic the substitute for God having to think about how to create life, then magic becomes the substitute for everything. Such magic would even figure out what God wants (as parents do for their infant) and God wouldn’t have to think at all about anything. I am reminded of the science fiction story where a new evolved man simply saw the future and didn’t need the capacity for rational thought at all – he simply did whatever got him what his body needed.
I don’t believe you. If the method doesn’t matter then you would have no reason to object to evolution, which is like using AI and evolutionary algorithms for design as we are now doing these days.
Because that is what design does. When you micromanage all the details yourself and decide how something does everything then you are exerting absolute control and everything it does is determined by you. Design is not evil but it most certainly is control.
With AI and evolutionary algorithms we can let the machine figure things out for itself. The creation of life merely goes a step further and better than that, so the living organism does not just figure out how to achieve some goal you set for it, but chooses and figures out its own goals.
The God I believe in chose love and freedom over power and control. It is only because I see such a God in Christianity that I can believe in any of it.
Whereas your fixation as a professional in religion is quite transparent.
You have maligned God and my faith with your comments: “are you god now,” and “you underestimate God.”
Creationism is anti God (a real living and active God) and anti Bible (as it is actually written). It claims we cannot believe the data God sends us from the earth and sky, either because demons are more powerful, or God is a liar. It selectively ignores anything in the Bible that doesn’t agree with what they want to believe with the liberty to make up and add things to the Bible which are not in the text. They have rewritten and replaced Genesis with a text of their own.
My boys were creators when they were only two years old. God is the creator of creators. Your “basic Christianity” mired in ignorance is only suitable for ancient times and the middle ages. But I think Christianity works for the modern world because we don’t have to accept such additions to and revisions of the Bible.
BTW The film didn’t go as I was lead to think by the descriptions.
I suppose one of the things of traditional Christianity which I have discarded is this common notion that it is all going according to God’s plan – an explanation which the guy in the film (and millions of others) have not found very helpful. Thus they found the idea that random things happen to be far more helpful. Well there is no reason why Christians cannot believe in the latter. I do.
Consider how we make the worlds of our interactive computer games. Does everything happen according to some plan even though those worlds were designed and created by someone. No. And why not? Boring!!!
Do I think it is all random? No. But neither do I think every disaster and accident is a judgement of God and every death is all according to some plan. …except to say that God made the world work according to fixed rules because those rules are necessary for the process of life. Life is based on learning and how can you learn if the rules change willy nilly?
I believe i theistic evolution not ToE.
That is an exageration. and over simplification. Design does not have to mean control. You can incorporate randomness into the design, or incorporate self awareness and self control into design. it just depends on what you design and what parameters you include.
So does the God I believe in, but you have a blinkered view of design which is inaccurate.
The machine that draws lottery balls was designed but that does not mean that the result is fixed or controlled by the designer. it was designed to be random.
There you go again. Your view of religion is based on the same misconceptions about control.
I have not critcised God in any shape or form but you have limited him
As for your faith? it is yours, I do not have to agree with the minutia of it.
Absolute cobblers!
God’s creative powers is central to Christianity. It does not mean that god is pullig strings to control nature.
Where on earth do you get that from? YEC perhaps? Not me!
You seem to want to delete Genesis 1 altogether. What , if anyting does it mean to you?
And have I ever said different? Maybe if they painted the ground red it would suddenly be so!
I do not think you know what basic Christianity is. You appear to have been burned somewhere. You certainly have no idea about what I believe and have superimposed your jaundiced views onto it.
I think you misunderstood the idea of plan, making it control. The plan was to give humanity full freedom and offer forgiveness when they muck it up.
Have I ever said there is no such thing as luck or chance?
That is the Jewish viewpoint not the Christian one (unless you are Calvinist)
Neither do I!
Who is the watchmaker now?
Who fixed the rules? And is that not a design decision? Those rues dictate as much if not more than your view of how life was formed.
Richard
That’s funny. I am a theistic evolutionist also. The forum likes “evolutionary creationist,” but me not so much. And the motivation for it seems a little political and compromising to me. Though I doubt this tells the whole story, because for me that is a theological position and apparently you want to make that into a pseudo scientific theory.
Not really an exaggeration at all. It does mean control. You are just talking about half measures. To be sure, when we talk about “genetic engineering,” we usually mean just tinkering with evolved organisms and making some modifications. But to the degree design is involved then to that degree also there is control. So it becomes a question of how much does God choose love and freedom over power and control. I think God goes all the way in the choice for love and freedom.
No, it is just an honest assessment of religion in history. We are after all talking about human beings who will use anything to get what they want.
No more so than your “evolution is anti-God” nonsense.
magical creative powers? …central to magical and uninformed Christianity suitable for the ancients and medieval times, yes. But we can do better than that. We can ask the scientific question about how did it really happen and leave ignorance and magical thinking behind us.
My answer to that is above right in this thread.
But with the last two I don’t restrict myself on the question of how as you do when you say “evolution is anti-God.”
The latter part of your post is strange… responding to something not addressed to you as if it were. uhmmm… Not everything is about you.
The misunderstanding is when people offer this up as an explanation of personal tragedy. Or is this one of YOUR platitudes? Do you tell people who have lost a love one that their personal tragedy is all according to the plan of God? Because I don’t think that is a good idea at all.
I didn’t think so.
As an aside to @cogitoergosuspiro , Richard and I are not always so opposed as this thread might make it seem. In fact if you look above, He was in agreement until I activated his anti-evolution defenses.
Much of the universe does operate quite mechanically (much of the laws of nature are all mathematical). And before the discovery of quantum mechanics and chaotic dynamics this led to thinking of the universe as a giant clockwork inspiring Deism. But this is explained quite well by these two proposition.
God.
Yes.
My objection to “design” is with regards to living organisms only and the kind of confusion that has you spouting nonsense like “Evolution is anti-God.” The role of parent and shepherd does not preclude designing a sheep pen, baby room, or toddler-safe house.
This was a very helpful article, thank-you @ivar. And this had been a helpful thread. Regardless of my final decision regarding Christianity, I think I could fully agree that one could make a solid case that Genesis chapters 1-11 were not intended to be literal history, and that it is absurd to project our modern Western thought upon it.
Ha, I see. No one agrees about everything.
@mitchellmckain Your view of evolution as a means by which God could allow more free will would have never occurred to me. It still seems unjust to use such a bloody means to achieve this goal, however.
Sure.
But to say this is in opposition to the Bible is just hilarious.
The bloody means used in the Bible are rather legion aren’t they?
To me the two seem to go quite hand in hand and in complete agreement, suggesting these bloody means are more necessary than naïve thinking suggests. It doesn’t mean I agree with all this stuff about the need for Jesus as a blood sacrifice. I don’t think God requires some black death magic and human sacrifice in order to forgive. BUT it does seem to be the case that most people don’t change until they see innocents suffer or even die because of what they are doing. It is like that movie, “Day the Earth Stood Still,” people only changes on the brink of destruction (with blood and death all around them). We can certainly hope that is something about us that will change.
My childhood full of peace marches made war out to be the greatest of all evils. But I now doubt that is correct. I think a world united in evil is worse. In that respect, war represents the freedom to fight for what you think is right.
First I would like to say that while there are historical errors in biblical accounts, it’s not true that the scriptures are completely unreliable.
Second, the straightforward answer to your Q is that Xns are people who have read the scriptures - esp the New Testament - and found it to be self-evident that the gospel message is the truth about God from God. That experience is an (indirect) experience of God, and since it comes via the NT it certifies the gospel message as well.
That is very terse, and needs a lot of detail to fill it out. But it’s what I thought you were asking for.
Roy Clouser
Im a little miffed at the idea that Christian theology is considered subjective participation.
You think that Christians are making assumptions when reading the bible but that science does not? Thats ridiculous because the opposite is true. It is science that is almost entirely based on assumptions, the bible is very specific on its statements and there is very little interpretation required outside of a normal use of language!
Lets just look at one example, the 10 commandments. They are assumptions?
No… life requires subjective participation, therefore science which is based on objective observation is not about life and quite insufficient for the needs of living your life.
Theology is certainly subjective. We can have no reasonable expectation that someone else would accept its claims. Why would a Buddhist or Native American, for example, accept the claims of your theology?
No. But what does that have to do with anything? Subjective does not mean assumptions. Science definitely makes assumptions. It assumes there are no demons out there arranging the evidence to deceive them.
Science is objective because anyone can follow those written procedures and get the same result, so we certainly do have a reasonable expectation that others will accept its claims and whether they are Buddhist or Native American makes no difference whatsoever.
Ill stop.you right there. For Christians, much of the bible is not natural.
Please tell me how then one explains biblical miracles?
Elijah smiting the river jordan with his cloak and the waters parting so he and Elisha could walk through on dry ground, then his stepping tinto a chariot and ascending in to heaven
Daniels friends surviving a firery furnice without so much as the smell of smoke on them. Furnaces that killed the soldiers who threw them in (a large number of people witnessed this event)
Christs casting of demons into a heard of pigs who then rushed down into water and drowned themselves (a large number of people witnessed this even
Christs resurrection and ascention into the clouds (Christs apostles witnessed this event and these are mostly the authors of the New Testament)
The bible is full of miracles that cant be explained scientifically…why single out creation or the flood?
Hmm, why should I believe that it is self-evident that the gospel message is the truth about God from God when by all appearances it was written by a large collection of fairly ordinary humans over an extremely long time? Fundamentalists usually “answer” the question by insisting that the Bible is always inerrant, contradiction-free, etc. But that is laughably untrue.
Indeed. So in your opinion, suffering is necessary?
I do recognize that we haven’t any way to know what God is capable of doing, as he is directly unobservable. It may indeed be the case that he has no other way of accomplishing his ends.
Excuse me, but why do you think should I believe them?
You have the eyewitness testimony of dozens of bible writers pread across thousands of years. How can you even make that claim given its easily proven that these writings are histroical…we even have a considerable amount of archeological evidence for their existence.
Pontious pilot
Hezekiahs tunnels
Sennarcherib and king Jehu
Nebuchadnezzar
Ancient papyri, dead sea scrolls etc
Unrelated translations that remain consistent across hundreds of miles and hundreds of years (ie Textus receptus, masorectic text, septuigent etc)
The New Testament is easier than old, because of historians such as josephus, Eusebius, Jerome etc. However its direct referencing of Old testament writings says a lot about the intimate knowledge of Old testament sources and places the new Testament writers and later historians had access to.
My suspician is that you dont believe in historical science…or that archeological studies are scientific?
An intelligent being creates the very mechanisms that allow the universe to exist as we know it, and you make the claim that same creator isnt capable of realising an existence using an entirely different mechanism that we cannot explain?
Can you explain spirits/ghosts/demons/angels scientifically please?
Wouldnt you agree those things are outside of known science and that God is not restricted by science given that all Christians believe he bloody created it in the first place? Or is your answer to demons/angels that we just dont know yet because we havent figured that part out?
Lots of heretical answers here ay?? But everyone defines heresy differently.Anyway jokes aside you cant really prove christianity or any other religion . Simple as that.Whats different in Christianity is that God or his Son (however you wanna define it)came as a human so to understand better our nature . So the whole story is a story of compasion.
There are some contradictions and some difficult concepts(ie the trinity )but thats the thing, You cant understand the infinite with your finite mind 
I am slightly confused what the relationship is between the information and interrogations you provided and my quote. Nevertheless, I shall provide an answer to it:
What some ancient authors who unsurprisingly were familiar with their own local geography and government have to say about God has absolutely no connection as far as I can possibly see with what God is like. That is my main issue.
Agreed.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.