I’m not sure what you mean by “deepen his divine nature that we see.” In any case, it is not science itself that is doing that, it is we who are already believers appreciating his creation more the more that science shows us.
Do you teach in a Christian academic environment or secular? It would make a difference what would say that was not directly science related, not that I would shy away from my faith in a secular environment.
I would certainly say that God is the creator and basis for reality in either setting, but that science itself says nothing directly confirming or denying it. Questions from believing students I would expect to be considerably different than from unbelieving ones.
Hi @Dale, your post really does two things to move the conversation forward. First, and perhaps most importantly, you have been much more precise than I was about what can be determined scientifically, and what cannot. I really appreciate that the term “testable scientific fact” as quite a bit more specific, and better defined terminology, than the way I described it.
Is it, or is it not a fact, that there is no yea or nay about God that can be discerned by scientific enquiry? That is what I am trying to state. I thought that was something you agree with…
So I will restate my fundamental base point: It is a fact that God has chosen not to reveal Himself via testable scientific facts. On further reflection, I agree that the fact that noone has yet identified any testable scientific fact that proves, or disproves, the existence of God does not make it a scientific fact that no such testable scientific fact exists!
The rest of your response seems to be a good example of something I have seen in these discussions more than once. I do agree with your comments about there being some “objective facts” that tend to support the concept that God exists, even though those particular facts do not provide testable scientific proof of God’s existence. But the long discussion about “objective facts” which are consistent with God’s existence doesn’t apply to what I am trying to say, just seems to add to confusion rather than clarify, since you go back to my post, and discuss it as if my post is way off base, because what I said, and what I intended, was inconsistent with your definition of terms (which I now accept as a better basis for discussion!). If I had simply replied to those extended comments, continuing to use my definition of terms in my reply, we could have continued to talk past one another for many exchanges!
I think your later reply to @Vinnie including the distinction between a Christian and a secular academic environment, and pointing out that the study of the universe God created does help us as believers to appreciate his creation more, is a good way to state what I believe; however, the scientific study of the universe has not found a direct, testable scientific answer (either yea or nay) to the question of whether God exists.
And back to the question of the nature of the teaching environment: Isn’t it a potentially serious problem in the USA for the teacher if a teacher in a government supported (usually state or local government) school tries to teach religious concepts in the public school or university classroom?
So are you agreeing that the science that forms the basis for Evolutionary Theory is good science? Or, at least, that you cannot find any reason to say that the science is not good science? If it is good science, why the big hassle?
When talking about science, it is important to talk about science, not about things that cannot be investigated by scientific methods, as good science correctly states.
If you are arguing that science is wrong, then you must argue that point from a scientific viewpoint. If you are claiming that it is not possible to separate scientific investigations and conclusions from religion, then you are way out of line. That is not how science is done. Good science understands the limitations of the methodology. If you state a complaint about a specific scientific result, claim, or conclusion, just because that result seems to you to be inconsistent with your religious beliefs, and offer no evidence that the science is incorrect, then it makes you look absurd, foolish, antediluvian, and like a religious zealot who can’t understand the real world (please note that I am not saying anything about who you are, or what you really believe; I am just saying what the way you are writing in this exchange makes you look like - something I am sure you are not. So why don’t you try not to look like something you are not?).
Is this what you are really trying to get at, that anyone who doesn’t stand out in all respects as a Christian, and push that image out before even starting to discuss other topics, is not really a Christian? Richard, there are a few people in this world who have jobs other than paid minister. And not every one of those can spend working time pushing his or her own particular brand of religion, rather than doing what he or she is getting paid to do.
See the exchange that @Vinnie and @Dale have a few messages down. In the USA, teaching religious concepts in a public school can lead to serious consequences. If teaching about evolution, especially in that environment, it is critical to teach the scientific methodology, that is what the subject matter is about. And scientific methodology also includes a much more carefully evaluated assessment of the limitations of the methodology than any theological study I have ever seen. So it should be important to a teacher even in a religious school to teach the science of evolution accurately, to be very clear about what the observations and analysis says, and what scientific exploration does not say. The teacher in a religious school can also take the discussion to the next level: How do results of scientific investigations relate to our religious beliefs?
Failed to convince you that there is a place for science, even the science of evolution? Failed to convince you that Christians who work in the field of biology can believe something different from what you believe and still be Christians? Failed to convince you that some of the folks on this forum are asking the right questions, asking exactly what is observed, and what is inferred or deduced from those observations, and what (if any) conclusions of the analysis are really open to question?
Do you really believe that only the religious methodology of believing things that are unseen and unproven is the correct methodology to use for everything? If so, please don’t drive a car, or use the internet! There is a very useful, and very practical, place for scientific methodology to be used to improve lives of everyone on this planet. That seems to me sufficient justification for even Christians to learn the methodology, including all the strengths and weaknesses and limitations of the methodology, to apply the methodology and the results of the methodology in their work (again, if paid by an employer, doing what they are paid to do, and not bringing specific religious beliefs into the workplace inappropriately), and then also learn how to integrate what we can learn from scientific investigations with the religious concepts that we believe, also noting as you have stated that Christianity is about faith in things unseen, and unproven.
There is a place for religion, but studying Christianity alone will never provide the material things we humans need to survive, much less the other wonderful inventions that we use to enhance our lives. That is, there is also a place for scientific methodology in our world. And, as it has been pointed out by many in this thread/discussion, even the scientific study, using scientific methodology, identifies many aspects of this wonderful universe that we Christians believe God created, aspects that help us appreciate our God even more .
That is still a question, not a statement, and still ambiguous?
I agree there is no scientific query that can tell us anything about God because science is strictly methodological materialism, natural, and can tell us nothing about God, the supernatural or the metaphysical (if that’s what you want me to agree with, I do ; - ).
I’ve been out of academia for a couple of decades, but yes, I’m sure one has to be careful in the publicly supported classroom. It is my impression though, especially if carefully and graciously done, that extracurricular discussion can be invited outside the classroom without legitimate repercussions. (Illegitimate repercussions could and should be resisted on First Amendment grounds, and by litigation if necessary.) It also may depend significantly on the culture of the school (I’m sure others can address this better than I).
High School. I have the joy of teaching 5 different preps
at the same time this year. 9th grade integrated Physical and Earth Science. Senior Forensics. Drone Technology and Operator Prep, Regular Physics, College Physics (not university for scientists and engineers but they still get 4 credits of regular physics through 83% of the nations schools if they pass). Going to be busy.
I teach only mainstream science. I never share my personal views unless I am asked a question. It’s not professional to indoctrinate youth who are far less knowledgeable and far less capable of debating virtually any issue with me. This is not because I am amazing but because they are high school students and I have a masters and have been debating for decades.
I might relay an incident along the following lines: “I was on the way to church the other day and saw…”… I do that purposefully because then I get the “Wait you go to church, you teach science question.” This lets me explain to students how science works and how you can be religious and embrace science at the same time. On my cabinets is four pieces of regular copy paper, one per window, with the words, as big as the paper allows, “HERE BUT NOT YET. I’ve only had one person ask me about them but they are there for me not anyone else. If I’m having a bad day or the energy is low or student(s)/parents/admin is annoying me, I look at the sign.
Science can’t confirm or deny. It’s beyond the purview of methodological naturalism. God created an ordered world and it is thus discoverable. In spite of this I think the evidence for the design of the cosmos is quite strong. Science has discovered a remarkable degree of what is described as fine-tuning. It requires interpretation but I think it clearly points to a creator. I’m not talking about the human eye, I’m talking about the underlying constants and laws allowing carbon-based life to form in our universe, not only that but the one that allows higher elements to form…. It’s mind boggling how fine-tuned these constants have to be.
But here atheists and Christian’s burned too many times by gaps get to appeal to their own gap in order to deny them or invent an infinite number of universes just to avoid the problem of fine tuning Yes, many scientists deem it a problem and would like a work around. Shows you how neutral science is. Why can’t science discover a universe that is designed for life? Why does science go in ahead of time knowing the answer that the universe was not designed for life? Are we to tell science what the world is like before actually conducting methods and testing it? Seems backwards.
Apparently, thinking we have purpose and meaning is too much for these scientists. They need to go back to us being a cosmic accident.
That’s what I meant, not that I would necessarily say anything about God like I did there as an academic in the publicly funded classroom setting, but neither would I necessarily preclude it.
Actually you addressed that in your comment before:
Nice! It takes some creativity do that sort of thing! But that’s what I meant about the questions you would expect from believing students in a Christian setting – you would not get that “Wait, you go to church… ?” Nor would you have any issue putting out the occasional comment that God’s ordering of the cosmos underlies the science, isn’t this cool. Questions from Christian students in the secular classroom (or after class) would be different yet again.
We are not talking absolutes. Good or bad are poor descriptions, subjective at best, and certain to be provocative if asserted. Science is not always even about being right or wrong.
I have no problem with the methodology. I do have dispute with some of the conclusions or assertions. Especially when those assertions are that the conclusions must be correct. And, if you are disagreeing you must not understand what you are talking about. The whole approach is aloof.
And the onus then is on me to prove I am right or that they must be wrong. Or even that it is a case of the whole thing is right or wrong
So perhaps you can get off your high horse and start again IOW ask me a question I can answer.
How about this for a question that you should be able to answer: Could you please tell me exactly which conclusions or assertions you have a dispute with? Be very specific, identifying only those aspects of any conclusion or assertion that you dispute. And please include every conclusion or assertion that you dispute at this time, so I can know your entire position, rather than having to guess what you mean by reading what you write, often using terms in a manner different from how anyone arguing with you uses those terms.
PS Saying that a particular scientific work is good science is not absolute, it just says that the particular work correctly followed the methodology. And if you can answer my question above, maybe many of us in this group can help you point out the misinterpretations, or improper methodology, or errors in the data collection, that almost certainly are present if the conclusions or assertions are truly false. What I am trying to get at is that even you and those with whom you are arguing so forcefully in this forum are much closer to agreement than any of you are with those scientists who have chosen to espouse atheism! And if we act like the Christians we claim to be, we can discuss even these contentious subjects without judging our brothers and sisters.
No problem.
I dispute the ability of evolution to change a single cell into me, no matter how long it has using the known evolutionary method of change.
I do not dispute that evolution can change the size of a beak, or adjust colouration or even diversify a species. What I do dispute is that evolution can develop any sort of multicellular animal from scratch, and then change it enough to make the diversity of life on earth.
IOW I dispute the whole heredity concept.
DNA does not prove heredity. It might suggest it, but unless you have a process to actually achieve the changes the whole thing is academic.
If you want an example of a change I dispute take the change from a gill slit to a hinged jaw bone. It is a two-dimensional comparison that belies the number of changes to make it happen. You have to
Detach the gill slit (why)
Ossify the gill (why?
Move it to the skull (well we now know why)
Attach it with hinges (what are hinges?)
Attach cartilage and muscles and nerves to drive it.
And that is only the simplistic sequence. All these attachments have to get integrated into the full nervous and circulatory systems
And evolution can do this in one go?
If not, show me a plausible progression that fits with Natural Selection.
What exactly do you mean when you say, “I dispute the whole heredity concept”? Do you mean (first possible meaning) that you have proof that the concept is totally invalid? Or do you mean (second possible meaning) that you insist that there must be something else going on (e.g., something to the effect that God is causing the changes to happen in just the right way to lead to a new species, and that new species is then able to reproduce itself)? Or do you mean (third possible meaning) that the data do not show whether the changes happened “spontaneously” or happened due to external controlling intervention (caused by God)?
I am quite sure that most of the participants in this forum would agree with the third possible meaning. I also request that, if you hold to either the first or the second possible meaning, and insist that either the first or second must be true, that you explain clearly your reasons for insisting. And please note: The fact that DNA suggests heredity, but does not prove heredity, is perfectly consistent with the third possible meaning, but either the first or second possible meaning demands that the proponent of either of these meanings, if insisting that the third is not correct, must show why the suggestion of heredity is false.
Proponents of the third meaning have already agreed that some explanation other than pure chance changes is a potentially valid explanation. And the statement of the third possible meaning has intentionally left out the assignment of probability of truthfulness of any specific choices for explaining the whole issue of heredity. If you are arguing that it is highly unlikely that the changes necessary occured by chance, then I believe you are agreeing with the third possible explanation, with a very strong bias towards believing that the changes did not occur by chance.
Now you have a choice to make. If you are claiming that it is highly unlikely that God created a universe that could produce human life, by pseudo-random evolutionary changes, without His further intervention (a variant of the third possible meaning), I believe we are all much closer to the same page than the discussion has sounded. If you are claiming that there is no possibility at all that God created a universe that could produce human life by pseudo-random evolutionary changes, without His further intervention, then it is incumbent on you to prove (and not merely state that this is what you believe) that this is not possible.
Not proof, just dispute.(proof would entail something that is not available)
Theologically yes. In reality maybe.
That has always been my suggestion but there is no evidence either way. The only reason for it is that I dispute the capability of the current process to achieve what it must.(see above)
That is a given. But, if they are controlled by God then the rest of the theory collapses. The whole dynamic changes if the control is at the genetic level rather than the survival level.
I hope I have done that to your understanding
But see my caveat above.
Natural Selection is negated if the changes are orchestrated and deliberate. It could actually work against them unless survival is included in the understanding of the changes being made.
I agree with C. S. Lewis that whatever God is, that is closer to being masculine than anything else.
Though there’s a solution to the gender issue that a fellow grad student proposed year ago: just use “El” for God, so you would write “El has shown Els-self to me”.
Personally,I don’t object to using the feminine pronoun for God. However, if Jesus is God, then the Mother of God is God, too, and Mary was just the God-bearer.
And there you have it, “So, every time we turn away from the true Sabbath, we turn our backs upon the law of God, and our faces toward the false gods.” Every Sunday-worshiping Christian is an idolater.
Feel better?
Premise #1: All YECs are dogmatic.
Premise #2: All Sunday-worshiping YECs worship the Sun and are idolaters.
Conclusion: Sabbath-worshiping YECS are going to be with the Lord. Everybody else is going to be annihilated.
Those quotes just reconfirm my conclusion long ago that Ellen White was not too bright.
Ancient churches tended to put the altars at the east end because Jesus is the Sun of Righteousness, so Christians wanted to face the direction the sun rises. Jesus is also called the Daystar, which rises in the east.
So I take it that you do not claim to adhere to the first possible meaning.
And your acknowledgement that there is no evidence either way states that you do not adhere to the second possible meaning.
And you do agree with the third possible meaning, but claim that there are mutually exclusive interpretations of the scientific data (here I am trying to be specific, to be very clear about what we agree on, and identify any specific disagreements); and that you strongly feel that some of the interpretations “do not make sense” especially when some ideas are combined. I think you are saying that “God controls the details of the changes in DNA” means that “Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest” doesn’t mean anything. This assumption, however, is based on a particular interpretation of what any person means when he or she says, “God controls the details of the changes” without any specification of how the control is executed.
I do believe that a discussion of the meaning of “God controls” - all the possible ways of interpreting that apparently simple comment, and the ramifications of the significant, and subtle, differences of what is intended by that comment under the various interpretations, could be quite illuminating.
I don’t see this as being a problem at all, just because God is involved with controlling the changes (in some manner, whether by direct intervention to cause the specific change, or by setting in motion a long term process that leads directly to the desired change, and then letting that process run). Why would God choose to introduce a change that would not have survival benefits for the changed species?
If you are agruing that “Natural Selection” and “survival” are not the causes of the change, if God is directly intervening, that is at least partially true. But what if God is causing the changes with a small tweak on the DNA, and then using the processes of “Natural Selection” and “survival” to further develop the new species?
Now back to the topic question. This exchange and clarification of Richard’s position leads me to better understand one aspect of the YEC dogma. Richard does insist on putting religion first, and interpreting scientific observations using his understanding of the bible as the primary source of truth. The problem with this approach, (for YECers as well) is that all human understanding of God, or religion, (mine included!!!) is distorted by our inherent human limitations, both in quantity (finiteness) and quality (accuracy of our interpretation) of our ability to understand our infinite, mysterious God! I, as a Christian and a scientist, take the viewpoint that what God has placed into His creation is a definite indicator of what is important to God, that those direct observations of His universe are real. I also believe, and I think quite a few of us on this forum agree, that what God revealed to other people at other times, even if we do have an accurate and complete underestanding of exactly what the original author intended to say to his original audience, requires a careful additional interpretation to determine what that particular revelation means to us today, in a very different cultural, religious, political, sociological, philosophical, medical, and scientific context.
Just a bit of generalization: Doesn’t the EGW claim show how easy it is to prove someone else is absolutely wrong in their thinking if you just allocate to that other person the reasons he or she made the statement or performed an action, selecting reasons that serve your purpose? This is much easier to do if you don’t even bother to check what reasons the other person claims to be using.
Is the control direct? as in he moves every molecule
or
indirect = He made the system…
Each has its own ramifications in terms of how the system might or might not work.
As you probably have gathered I am on the fence about how much I think God controls. I am against the totally indirect for more personal theology than anything else, but I fight shy of the total control as well. As usual, I end up in the middle ground that may or may not exist.
Richard regards “controls” as meaning “heavy-handed”. He seems unable to grasp the idea that God controls everything according to the rules He selected – what we call “natural law”.
For example, as you quoted:
This conceives of control as contrary to natural results, i.e. contrary to scientific ‘law’.
I would agree with that except for the fact that he feels free to declare that the Bible is wrong, which he does frequently.
This brings to mind a day in grad school when after a week of hard work our class had wrestled our way through diagramming yet another of Paul’s super-long sentences in the Greek, the results filling four blackboards and spilling onto the wall: Our professor stood looking at our results while wiping chalk dust from his fingers, then turned to us and asked the question, having nailed down the flow of Paul’s thought how do we get from there to us?
That didn’t come right out and note that interpreting scripture requires two kinds of translation: translating from the words in one language to those in our language, and translating from the ancient worldview to our worldview (something actually carefully avoided by the institution itself where many faculty blithely ignored the reality that our worldview is alien to those of most of the scriptural writers).
I can’t claim to have read extensively in White’s material, but what I have read indicates a set of blinders in operation, one that starts with a certain position and filters out everything contrary to it while grasping at anything that might support it. In other words, she exhibits a strong confirmation bias.
She also operates on the fallacious assumption that just because some action fits a pattern she sees then what she sees is the defining factor of that action, even if the people doing it haven’t the slightest idea of the connection – or even if there is no connection. It’s like the claim that Christmas is a pagan celebration because there are some tenuous links to the traditional date, without ever asking what the actual reasons were for choosing that date.
