Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
Dr. Wise has expressed allegiance to scripture, and is confident that scienece will confirm Christian doctrine.
Originally Posted by Bushido216
And yet, you claim that we believe in Evolution despite all the evidence against it, and that that is wrong.
The crux of the issue is 'What is your final source of authority?'
For Dr Wise, the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. If the Bible makes a claim that is disputed by science, the bible wins -- no contest -- you do not 2nd guess God. You may not understand how the claims of the Bible can be resolved with scientific theories, but scientific theories come and go. Answers that dont seem obvious in one era become obvious with new discoveries.
Atheists will insist that this is bias and it is. What they will not tell you is that they are every bit as biased. By definition, no atheist can accept a theory that involves God. An atheist is not searching for the best possible theory. They are searcing for the best possible theory that does not involve God.
For the 'theistic evolutionist', if there is a conflict between scientific theory and the Bible, Science wins. They are not concerned with the best intrepretation of scripture -- they are concerned with the best interpretation that fits scientific theory. Its not that they disrespect scripture -- its that they are absolutely convinced by the 'scientific evidence'
No one seems bothered by the possibility that origins may be beyond the grasp of man's intellectual inquiry. Sometimes evolutionists concede that evolution may not be true, but its the best theory we have. Suppose someone tells you they have the best theory for the color of '4' -- They have 346 reasons for why '4 is blue' How do you respond? You could respond with 83 reasons why '4 is not blue' or you could come up with 72 reasons why '4 is red' OR you could say this is an absurd exercise -- no one can give definite proof for the color of '4'.
Science has provided many answers and benefits. I fully support mankinds investigation into the handiwork of God. We should also remember that science will never know the mind of God, but God can make his mind known to man. We sense God through nature, but we know God through his Word.
If we allow that God can do things (like create a young earth that appears old), then science becomes fundamentally useless. You can call it whatever bias you like, but once we start assuming that immaterial beings are doing unobservable things in unfathomable ways, our ability to presume any naturalistic cause and effect is lost. And that includes the confidence one might have in reading Scripture.
Consider evolution - sure, it's possible to speculate that God created Archaeopteryx fully-formed. Then what? We have no experience with divinely created things, no mechanism to uncover, no motivation to seek, no way to understand anything beyond, "God did it at some time, by some means, for some reason." And that's being charitable. We can't even rule out the possiblity that God simply planted fossils of organisms that never even lived.
Your notion that mankind can investigate the "handiwork of God" is a big fat question-begging presumption. It's that simple.
1) Humans have free will concerning their actions, and thus are able to
disobey God, and thus sin.
2) The Bible is divinely inspired, but is written by humans.
3) The bible is inerrant
Facts:
3) Humans have a tendency to make errors.
4) Free will is the ability to make choices.
5) God gave people the ability to ignore/misrepresent him.
Conclusion:
6) Either a) God gives us free will which allows for the possibility of human
error in the Bible.
b) God doesn't give us free will, which is against the idea of sin
c) God gives us partial free will, this brings me to ask, Wouldn't the
people God inspired be removed of the will to choose him, and
thus wouldn't their deeds and faith be minimized?
Therefore either the Bible isn't inerrant, God doesn't give man free will, or God plays favorites and all but guarantees some access to heaven. (The easiest way out is to accept the third one, but I think this makes God unjust...)
Freedom can not be absolute. e.g. You may freely choose your actions, but you can not freely choose your consequences. No one can freely choose to be a butterfly.
The ability to fail does not imply the necessity to fail.
God is omniscient -- He is able to conceive of a method to communicate meaningfully.
God is omnipotent -- He is able to implement this method
God is benevolent -- He did implement this method.
Deuteronomy 18.18 I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers; I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him.
2 Samuel 23.2 The Spirit of the LORD spoke through me; his word was on my tongue.
Galatians 1.11 I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.
2 Timothy 3.16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.
2 Peter 1.20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
adj 1: serving no useful purpose; having no excuse for being
If a Creator is 'superfluous', what does this indicate about his existence?
The direct actions of a Creator are superfluous to explain the transmission of infectious microorganisms from person to person during epidemics, since there are well-known mechanisms that can be explained entirely on the basis of naturally occurring events. Does the germ theory of disease therefore imply atheism, and is it therefore a false theory?
__________________ "Sadly, biblical literalism brings not only the bible but Christianity itself into disrepute." - The Rt. Revd. Richard Harries, Anglican Bishop of Oxford.
You may not understand how the claims of the Bible can be resolved with scientific theories, but scientific theories come and go. Answers that dont seem obvious in one era become obvious with new discoveries.
The irony is that this exact line of reasoning applies to creationism. Creationism (in various forms) existed long before evolution or the idea of an old Earth. Yet, creationism has come and gone as science, because the physical evidence in the Earth falsified it.
The same thing already happened with geocentrism and flat-Earthism. These ideas were shown to be wrong and they have long since been discarded.
Problem is, if you tie Christianity in with creationism, then you risk Christianity being discarded along with creationism. I've seen more than a few creationists say they would give up Christianity if they had to reject creationist ideas. It's rather frightening the bind their beliefs have got them in.
__________________ Creationism has not made a single contribution to agriculture, medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area of biology. Creationism has yielded no classifications, no biogeographies, no underlying mechanisms, no unifying concepts with which to study organisms or life. - Botanical Society of America's Statement on Evolution
Would you say that the concept of 'nature = without Creator' is more consistent with theism or atheism?
but no-one can make the statement nature = without creator without being unscientific. the truth of the matter is that science cannot tell you. Even if we came up with an all excompassing explanation for every single physical phenomenon, including the big bang et al, there could still be a creator underneath all that sustaining it.
Please explain.
Well there are many things that we actually see... morphological changes as a direct result of varying phenotypes. we know the alterations in the genotypes which cause the changes in these phenotypes. We also see viruses integrating their code into the genetic code of other organisms using reverse transcriptase. we see lumps of genetic material copying themselves around the genetic code (transposons, a kind of internal virus) This is the equivalent of the detective practising spattering blood to see the effects. Then we look at the organisms for all of these things, and knowing how they work already we see what they tell us about the organisms.
If the Bible contains a Creation account directly from the Creator, do you suppose that it would become relevant in a discussion about origins?
which creation account are we talking about here, I want to know if we are discussing Genesis 1 or 2.
(sorry I am cutting parts of the conversation out, I have got rather fed up of shredded conversations recently)
__________________ MSci MSc ARCS DIC PhD..... yes, I am bragging.
Location: I don't really live so much as consume resources
Posts: 87
Blessings: 34,841
Reps: 12 (power: 0)
Originally Posted by bevets
Freedom can not be absolute. e.g. You may freely choose your actions, but you can not freely choose your consequences. No one can freely choose to be a butterfly.
So then you suggest that we do not have the free will over what we write, this still fails the free will method. In order for a person to have free will they have to be able to choose. Any of the prophets could just as easily chosen simply to disregard God then. That or you are admitting that God played favorites.
[QUOTE = bevets]
The ability to fail does not imply the necessity to fail.
[/quote]True, but the ability to fail puts doubt in the inerrancy of a source, which was what I was proving. It doesn't have to fail, but it might have and thus we must look over it entirely and prove it verse by verse. In fact errors in translations have occurred, I am reminded of the "Thou shalt..." in the ten commandments.
Originally Posted by bevets
God is omniscient -- He is able to conceive of a method to communicate meaningfully.
God is omnipotent -- He is able to implement this method
God is benevolent -- He did implement this method.
Deuteronomy 18.18 I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers; I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him.
2 Samuel 23.2 The Spirit of the LORD spoke through me; his word was on my tongue.
Galatians 1.11 I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.
2 Timothy 3.16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.
2 Peter 1.20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
Then you freely admit that God takes away our free will and thus we can not sin because we can not choose to disobey God. Also you are admitting that God, which will judge us in the end plays favorites and chooses prophets, I don't know about you but I don't exactly agree with my deity both judging me and playing favorites and disregarding me in that game, don't you have problems with that? Even if the people were good all their lives God is taking away their ability to disbelieve.
The crux of the issue is 'What is your final source of authority?'
For Dr Wise, the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. If the Bible makes a claim that is disputed by science, the bible wins -- no contest -- you do not 2nd guess God.
Correction. Dr. Wise has as his authority himself. That is, his interpretation of the Bible. When there is a claim in his interpretation disputed by science, then Dr. Wise wins and you don't second-guess Dr. Wise.
Christianity has long felt differntly and disagrees with Dr. Wise:
"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437
Dr. Wise's interpretation of the Bible can't be at fault. IOW, Dr. Wise can't be at fault. Sorry, Christians are supposed to worship God, not themselves.
You may not understand how the claims of the Bible can be resolved with scientific theories, but scientific theories come and go. Answers that dont seem obvious in one era become obvious with new discoveries.
However, theories that are falsified don't change. They remain falsified. Special creation and creationism are two scientific theories that have been falsified. That will never change. However God created, it was not by YEC.
For the 'theistic evolutionist', if there is a conflict between scientific theory and the Bible, Science wins. They are not concerned with the best intrepretation of scripture -- they are concerned with the best interpretation that fits scientific theory. Its not that they disrespect scripture -- its that they are absolutely convinced by the 'scientific evidence'
Not quite. The theistic evolutionist realizes that God really did create. That means that Creation has all the evidence of how God created. Creation is therefore a second book of God. Written directly by God without having to go thru humans and their limitations. So, if what we find by studying Creation (science) shows that a particular interpretation of scripture is wrong, then that interpretation is wrong. God can't contradict God. But God can contradict our interpretation of scripture.
No one seems bothered by the possibility that origins may be beyond the grasp of man's intellectual inquiry.
Oh, yes, we are all bothered by it. However, until we demonstrate that origins are beyond the limits of our intellectual inquiry, we keep looking. It turns out that the scientific theory of YEC is not beyond our grasp. We were able to show it to be wrong.
We should also remember that science will never know the mind of God, but God can make his mind known to man.
Whynot? Why can't science give us glimpses of the mind of God?
We sense God through nature, but we know God through his Word.
The problem is that creationists want to know that God exists thru nature. You just told us that creationism is a futile exercise. Thank you.
__________________ "If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437
"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." Rev. James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, 1890
Deuteronomy 18.18 I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers; I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him.
2 Samuel 23.2 The Spirit of the LORD spoke through me; his word was on my tongue.
Galatians 1.11 I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.
2 Timothy 3.16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.
2 Peter 1.20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
Are these scriptures supposed to justify a literal interpretation of scripture? All they really say is that the phrophets and the writers communicate God's word as it has been revealed to them by God. If God chose to communicate using metaphorical imagery to phrophets and writers, then these scriptures say nothing to invalidate this position.
Jesus Himself shows us that God is not above the use of metaphor. By adhering to a literal interpretation of scriptures its *possible* that some Christians have been interpreting the text incorrectly by mistaking metaphorical imagery communicated by God for historical events. Isn't this at least possible?
Linear Mode
