Finding common ground between God and evolution ("Theory is greater than facts)

Seattle Times ^ | Jan 25, 2005 | Froma Harrop

[ohioWfan]

Science says a dead person cannot come back to life, meaning no resurrection. Using the logic of many Christian evolutionists on this thread, this could not have happened, and is therefore not true.

A point that needs to be reiterated, Johnny. Reconciling an unreliable Bible (merely the words of man) with ones 'Christian' faith is impossible.

One may have some form of faith and say that, but it is most certainly not Christian.

[JohnnyM]

I agree. But there are many on this thread who claim they are Christian and say that evolution and the Bible are compatible. WildTurkey is not a Christian, so I am not speaking of him, but of the others who are lurking or have posted on this thread.

They say the creation story is wrong because science has proven otherwise. Going with that same logic, they must deny the resurrection of Jesus, becuase science says this is impossible. Their stance is logically inconsistent and flawed.

JM

[JohnnyM]

I agree. But there are many on this thread who claim they are Christian and say that evolution and the Bible are compatible. WildTurkey is not a Christian, so I am not speaking of him, but of the others who are lurking or have posted on this thread.

They say the creation story is wrong because science has proven otherwise. Going with that same logic, they must deny the resurrection of Jesus, becuase science says this is impossible. Their stance is logically inconsistent and flawed.

JM

[bigLusr]

Perhaps if the stickers said, "Evolution is a scientific theory; as such it is our best guess on what happenned. Alternatives to evolution are not even good guesses."

I like it... I like it a lot... only I'd say "Evolution is a scientific theory; as such it is our best guess on what happened. Current alternatives to evolution are not even good guesses."

[Junior]

Science says a dead person cannot come back to life, meaning no resurrection.

People come back to life all the time, sometimes after having been dead for the better part of an hour. Science has observed this numerous times and has formulated theories to explain the phenomenon.

[Ichneumon]

"In science, theory is a higher level of understanding than facts" which is from the words of the article writer and not the scientist. Now, can you explain to me how a theory can be a higher understanding "than" facts. From what I understand of science a theory is a higher understanding "of" facts and evidence not "than" them.

Because theories are, indeed, a higher level of understanding.

Facts are disconnected observations. All you can say about them (at the fact level) is, "I understand that objects fall downward", "I understand that a prism separates light into different colors", etc.

At a higher level of understanding, however, theories tie facts together into "how and why" types of understanding.

What the author is saying is not that theories are "greater" than facts (i.e. more reliable, more "true", or whatever in the hell gobucks was trying to say in his crappy title for the thread), he's saying that they're a step up in our heirarchy of understanding about the world. They're a "meta-understanding", in the senses #1b and #4a of the meaning of the prefix "meta-":

meta- or met-
pref.

1. 1. Later in time: metestrus.
   2. At a later stage of development: metanephros.
2. Situated behind: metacarpus.
3. 1. Change; transformation: metachromatism.
   2. Alternation: metagenesis.
4. 1. Beyond; transcending; more comprehensive: metalinguistics.
   2. At a higher state of development: metazoan.
5. Having undergone metamorphosis: metasomatic.
6. 1. Derivative or related chemical substance: metaprotein.
   2. Of or relating to one of three possible isomers of a benzene ring with two attached chemical groups, in which the carbon atoms with attached groups are separated by one unsubstituted carbon atom: meta-dibromobenzene.

Once a theory has emmassed enough facts and evidence that in themselves are tuatologous, it then becomes a tautology. Like the theory of our solar system is now a tautology.

Sigh... No, it becomes a well-established theory. A "tautology" is something else entirely. I don't know what word you're searching for, but it's not "tautology". As long as I'm doing dictionary citations...:

tau·tol·o·gy    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (tô-tl-j)
n. pl. tau·tol·o·gies

1. 1. Needless repetition of the same sense in different words; redundancy.
   2. An instance of such repetition.
2. Logic. An empty or vacuous statement composed of simpler statements in a fashion that makes it logically true whether the simpler statements are factually true or false; for example, the statement Either it will rain tomorrow or it will not rain tomorrow.

---

[Late Latin tautologia, from Greek tautologi, from tautologos, redundant  : tauto-, tauto- + logos, saying; see -logy.]

---

[JohnnyM]

"People come back to life all the time, sometimes after having been dead for the better part of an hour"

They came back to life after 3 days? Please.

Lazarus was resurrected as well and his body was already stinking when this occurred.

JM

[bigLusr]

Lazarus was resurrected as well and his body was already stinking when this occurred

How would YOU smell after being buried underground for four days? ;)

[ohioWfan]

They say the creation story is wrong because science has proven otherwise. Going with that same logic, they must deny the resurrection of Jesus, becuase science says this is impossible. Their stance is logically inconsistent and flawed.

Precisely. They are using one set of standards for creation, and another for the rest of Scripture.

That is why the problem I have is with 'theistic evolution.' It is, on its face, inconsistent. If one denies the existence of God, then any explanation is plausible and the reasoning of men becomes their god, but if one tries to claim faith.......especially Christianity, the problems get much stickier.

That is not to say that I don't know intelligent, well-educated Christians who truly believe in evolution, but they have to contort quite a bit to get there.

[Junior]

So basically you have a single example of an event, and there is no way to test whether that event occurred or not. Doesn't sound like a job for science. Nor is there any way to know that the event actually occurred, rather than just being dreamed up by the writer.

[anguish]

anguish, I dont know.

That's a fair answer.

I dont know where you stand in regards to Jesus, but if you are a Christian, than science and the Bible will butt heads in many areas.

I call myself an agnostic seeker. Personally I don't see the Bible and science 'butting heads', but instead describing if not different things, then the same things in different aspects.

[ohioWfan]

Don't forget the "BURIED IN A TOMB" part either.

Big difference between the Resurrection of Christ and the coming back to life after a few minutes or even hours because of the advances in modern medicine.

[anguish]

Viable in the sense that it could sustain itself?

Basically, yes. If there never was supposed to be death, the earth would be overcrowded in no-time. How long it would take - days, months or years - would be determined by what species inhabited Eden.

[Junior]

Okay...

There's still no way to know whether the event actually happened or whether the author simply made it up.

[ohioWfan]

I think we've been through this some time before, Junior, but there were at least 500 eyewitnesses to the resurrection, and far more historic verification than the existence of Julius Caesar.

It wasn't 'dreamed up by a writer.' It really happened.

[ohioWfan]

I know you're going to find this answer simplistic, anguish, but we are talking about the Creation of an Omnipotent and OmniSCIENT God.

I'm sure there was a plan should there be 'overcrowding' on the earth, but God in His pre-knowledge knew what Adam's choice would be.......that there would be sin and subsequent death.

At any rate, one cannot take guesses as to what might have happened if there were too many fruitflies, and dismiss the entire creation story because of it.

[ohioWfan]

There IS a way to know it actually happened. But you have to trust in the One who is now alive.

Just one more note........it is not a singular 'author' who told of the resurrection. There were many eyewitnesses to the risen Christ, more than one of whom wrote down what he saw.

[Junior]

No. There were no witnesses to the resurrection. The women found an angel at the tomb, according to Scripture. And, as for "far more historic verification than the existence of Julius Caesar," put your money where your mouth (or keyboard) is. Julius Caesar is chronicled in his own words, by contemporary writers, by fellow rulers, and by his enemies. Jesus Christ never wrote down a single word (that's survived), three of the four Gospels are based upon one-another, and the fourth was written by the friend of a guy who had a stake in making sure Christianity spread. There is an obscure reference in Josephus, but that was written well after the events supposedly occurred, and at least one Roman historian commented on the movement, but not Jesus himself -- and that was decades after the events, too.

I know you have a personal stake in this, and I actually sympathize with your point of view. However, making false claims to advance your position does your postion a disservice.

[PatrickHenry]

Nicely done discussion of Hitler. Gotta save that for linking it in my own refutation. As we all know, some bozo brings that garbage up in almost every thread.

[anguish]

I know you're going to find this answer simplistic

Well, yes. But that's my nature :)

So if God knew Adam was going to sin, that means he created something that he knew was unable to perform 'adequately', then 'punished' his creation for functioning as designed. *head exploding* Either way, my brain isn't wired to compute these theological questions :)