BroJoeK to Shadowfax
“Sorry, but that’s all nonsense.”
Actually, it’s not. I’ve heard honest evolutionists loudly proclaim that there is no objective meaning or purpose in life, there is no hope, and no transcendent absolute truth or morality. Such people, while I consider them wrong in their thinking, are at least being honest and logical about the end result of their evolutionary beliefs.
“Those ideas are outside the realm of science, so you can’t learn them from science.
You can only learn them in church, or perhaps a theology course in school.”
So, it appears that you are not standing with science. You are expressing your religious doctrine, which appears to be an amalgam of creationism (albeit not creationism in the Christian sense) and evolution. So, if I have a choice between traditional historic Christianity and your merged theology, why would I choose the latter?
“I don’t know what “fence” you imagine straddling.”
The fence I refer to is that which separates the beautiful truth of God’s Word and the damned lies of the pit of Hell. You can’t straddle the two. Christ made that clear. Either you are for Him or against Him.
“Theistic evolution is exactly the response of most Christian churches to evolution theory — meaning: if as science theorizes, life evolved, then obviously God directed its evolution, so what’s your problem with that?”
My problem with that is that it is contrary to the Biblical account. I would never sit under a pastor who proclaims theistic evolution in contrary to the clear teaching of scripture for the simple reason that if he or she had no problem gutting and disposing of one book of the Bible, why would I expect that he or she would treat the rest of the Bible respectfully as God’s truth?
“Indeed, this whole effort to find physical evidence for DNA’s “intelligent design” is ludicrous from the beginning.
Can anyone name even a single sub-atomic particle in the entire Universe which was not ‘intelligently designed’ by God?
No, of course not.
Everything is part of God’s grand design, and behaves according to His laws and purposes, including evolution.”
What you just expressed puts you totally outside the realm of today’s scientific thinking. The theory of evolution precludes an intelligent designer. It states that all life arose completely by random accident through natural processes. Again, the choice you are offering me is between my religion and yours.
Look, let me bottom line the issue for you - God created the universe and everything in it. When He did that, He was the only one around to witness that act of creation. He gave us His testimony of how it went down in the book of Genesis. He did in 6 days, and the Creation was perfect and without sin. (And, may I hasten to point out, without death. Death was clearly not a process that existed before the Fall. Scripture is clear on that point. “The wages of sin is death.” Ring a bell? Your argument that death had to exist because of rampant reproduction of animals is a huge assumption on your part. An assumption you’ve jumped to not because of the Bible or anything that it says but because of your attempt to reconcile your own ideas of origins with the Biblical account.) After those 6 days, He rested. He was done creating. Finished. Then, Adam sinned, Creation fell, and death entered the scene. That’s not my testimony. That’s God’s testimony. I believe Him. Your problem is that you don’t. I don’t know why that you think that a God who is powerful enough to do it all couldn’t manage it in 6 days or why God would lie about how He did it and exclude billions of years in history that atheistic man says is there but He doesn’t. However, that’s not an issue between you and me. That’s between you and God. Speaking for myself, He said it and I believe Him. It’s really that simple. You can disagree, but frankly, the world’s been disputing God’s Word for a long time now. There truly is nothing new under the sun. The lies may change, but it doesn’t alter the fact that they are lies.
This is my last word on the subject because... frankly, if you’re not going to take God’s word for how it went down, you won’t believe me. Why should you? But if you ever have any doubt and you want to really dig into the scripture and discuss this, contact me privately. I’m not interested in converting you. As long as you can’t accept God’s testimony, I’ve got nothing to offer you. In the meantime, I suggest you review the materials of a Christian ministry called Answers in Genesis. They maintain that the evidence available for the origins of the universe are completely consistent with the Genesis account. They have a lot of material on the flaws inherent in your theistic evolution.
God bless you!!!!!!
Sure, and those are religious / philosophical opinions having nothing to do with science.
Science, by definition of the word "science", belongs in the realm of "methodological naturalism", which means it only deals with natural explanations for natural events.
Those assumptions of "methodological naturalism" have proved to be powerful tools in explaining the Universe as we see it.
They don't necessarily deny the "Hand of God" or "God's will" in natural events, they simply can't use those as scientific explanations.
So instead, scientists talk about "natural laws" and "random occurrances."
None of this prevents genuinely religious people from seeing God's purposes in everything that happens.
Well, that's it for tonight, out of time, will pick up where left off sometime later...
;-)
But "standing with science" in this case simply means accepting the scientific assumption that natural events have natural causes.
Of course, no one is required to accept those assumptions, so long as, while rejecting the basis for science, you don't pretend your work product is "science".
Plus, what you call my "religious doctrine" is nothing more than "theistic evolutionism", which is taught or recognized by the vast majority of Christian denominations.
So that is exactly "Christian creationism" in the sense of God creating the Universe, all its natural laws, behaviors and evolutions, with God's Hand and God's purposes behind everything we see, even if they appear "random" or "accidental" to science.
That's not just my personal opinion, it's what Christians have always believed.
But I think I do know your problem, because it's totally common and understandable.
Like many others, including some scientists, you've confused or conflated scientific "methodological naturalism" with something more sinister, what I call "MOP naturalism" = Metaphysical / Ontological / Philosophical Naturalism.
The difference is that where scientific methodological naturalism simply excludes the Hand of God from any working scientific assumptions, MOP naturalism excludes God from every aspect of existence.
So MOP naturalism is just nihilism gussied up to look half presentable.
Shadowfax: "The fence I refer to is that which separates the beautiful truth of God’s Word and the damned lies of the pit of Hell.
You can’t straddle the two.
Christ made that clear.
Either you are for Him or against Him."
Certainly, as it relates to a discussion on the science of evolution, that is just inappropriate nonsense.
The science of evolution and the salvation of Christ have nothing directly to do with each other.
Nowhere does the Bible say that one prevents the other, or that belief in one blocks the other's workings.
Shadowfax: "My problem with that is that it is contrary to the Biblical account."
Somewhere I read that the Bible includes not just Ten Commandments but, now I forget, is it 613?
And that somewhere in the world there are a handful of people who try to obey all 613.
So, does everyone else's inability to obey even the first Ten, much less all 613 make them "disrespectful"?
No, that inability is covered by Christ's offer of salvation.
Well, then, might not any other alleged "disrespect" also be covered by Christ's salvation?
Shadowfax: "What you just expressed puts you totally outside the realm of today’s scientific thinking.
The theory of evolution precludes an intelligent designer.
It states that all life arose completely by random accident through natural processes.
Again, the choice you are offering me is between my religion and yours."
Of course, any discussion of religion is "totally outside the realm of" any scientific thinking.
By self-imposed definition of the word "science", science and religion don't mix.
But that does not prevent any normal human or scientist from drawing their own conclusions about God's role in creating and guiding the Universe.
Now, out of time again, will come back to this later... ;-)
I'll say it again: that is all your religion, none of it is scientific.
And as religious beliefs, you are certainly entitled to honestly accept whatever you wish, so long as you don't pretend your faith is somehow "scientific".
Of course, I and most Christian denominations disagree with your interpretations of scripture -- we believing they do indeed allow room for scientific understandings, especially when you consider that in no way possible were ancient biblical authors going to address, for one example, Einstein's theory of relativity.
To put it simply, God spoke to & through those ancient Bible authors in language they could comprehend.
Today I'm certain He speaks to us in our own languages, if anyone cares to listen... ;-)
Shadowfax: "Your argument that death had to exist because of rampant reproduction of animals is a huge assumption on your part.
An assumption you’ve jumped to not because of the Bible or anything that it says but because of your attempt to reconcile your own ideas of origins with the Biblical account.) "
In fact, it is physically impossible to reconcile available evidence (i.e., fossils, DNA, geological strata, radiometric dating, our understandings of aging and physical needs to eat to survive) with unscientific assertions such as "no death before Adam".
One is left to conclude that either:
Actually, it's the Apostle Paul's New Testament testimony, or more precisely, your interpretation of Paul, and you are entitled to it.
I interpret the words somewhat differently, more metaphorically, but more to the point: none of that has anything to do with science.
And, as long as you don't call your interpretations "science", then you are free to honestly believe whatever you wish on these subjects.
Shadowfax: "I don’t know why that you think that a God who is powerful enough to do it all couldn’t manage it in 6 days or why God would lie about how He did it and exclude billions of years in history that atheistic man says is there but He doesn’t."
The answers are simple and obvious: God speaks to each of us in languages we understand best -- so He spoke to ancient Biblical writers using understandings and symbols of their time, not ours.
Our task then is to understand & translate God's messages into more modern forms.
Of course it's difficult, but are we not up to the task?
I think that will do it for this particular post.
A separate post from you follows...