Saving Darwin

Mallon · #41 24th November 2008, 12:31 PM

Originally Posted by Van

God caused the big bang supernaturally.

When?

God caused life to spring forth from the earth supernaturally.

Do you believe He created a first life form and all other life evolved from it? Or do you believe in "created kinds"?

I believe the earth is older than 10,000 years, perhaps even 2 billion years old.

That sounds pretty lukewarm to me. Better pick a date and stick to it!

I classify myself as an OEC, and that physical death existed before the fall of Adam.

Interesting. You appear to have an amalgam of beliefs that do not fit comfortably in any camp I've heard of. You appear, on the surface, to accept evolution, yet you also reject the old age of the earth posited by most other OECs (who agree 4.6 billion years). I'd be curious to know how you square your biological and geological sciences together, since they would appear to be in conflict.
So now I guess we have Middle-Aged Earth Creationism.

Van · #42 24th November 2008, 01:03 PM

Mallon, you do not get it. Face it. You used an undefined term. I defined its meaning using a published source. You said that is not what it means, but provided a defintion which does not mesh with the published source. QED Arguments from special knowledge are without merit.

Next why do you keep redefining deistic processes as godless. That is simply yet another false assertion in an avalache of false assertions. Lets stick to terms defined in the dictionary shall we?

Van · #43 24th November 2008, 01:19 PM

Better pick a date and stick with it. Ok, the most probable date is 1.2 billion years.

When did God cause the big bang. I do not know but accepting a date around 14 billion years ago seems a sound hypothesis.

No, I do not believe all life evolved from a single life form. I believe God caused various life forms to spring from the earth.

No, we have OEC. And my views do contain unresolved conflicts with the Bible, i.e. the first Adam being created about 6000 years ago yet cave paintings suggest men able to handle abstract thought existed well before 6000 years ago. I do not accept John Stott's solution.

This is what I find strange. Folks accept the earth is 4.6 billion years old, even though evidence indicates it is less than 2 billion years old. They simply dismiss counter-evidence and ridicule those who say the king has no garments.

Lets take coal, with a C14 date of 60,000 years. They dismiss it and say the date comes from radiogenic processes. But there is not enough Nitrogen present to create the C14. Or moon regression where they say all the land was massed together when evidence for supercontinent formation and break-up abounds in the literature.

Mallon · #44 24th November 2008, 01:35 PM

Whatever you say, Van...

shernren · #45 24th November 2008, 02:28 PM

Originally Posted by Van

Mallon, you do not get it. Face it.

Actually, it's about time someone called your bluff. What are your educational qualifications and how long have you been working theologically in the area of origins? Because face it, you're the one who comes across as not knowing what you're talking about, and by Warfield's criterion in my signature you clearly lack philosophical acumen.

Originally Posted by Van

You used an undefined term. I defined its meaning using a published source. You said that is not what it means, but provided a defintion which does not mesh with the published source. QED Arguments from special knowledge are without merit.

Firstly, it is disingenuous for you to cite a meaning without telling us where you got it from. A quick google reveals the source to be Denis Lamoureux, for example in this article: http://ncseweb.org/rncse/24/3-4/review-faith-form-time

Concordism (or better, scientific concordism), which is foundational to creationist principles of biblical interpretation, is the belief that there exists an accord between science and Scripture. ... Wise continues in this hermeneutical tradition as clearly reflected in the subtitle of his book: "What the Bible Teaches and Science Confirms."

(emphasis added) In other words (and this is the same published source, not some "special knowledge without merit") scientific concordism teaches that science accords with Scripture in such a way that some of the things that the Bible teaches are things meant to be confirmed by, or in some cases even to overturn, a popular understanding of science.

That is miles away from what TEs believe and that's also what Lamoureux personally does not believe as he says later on:

Today, scientific concordism is rejected by Old Testament scholars within the evangelical academy. It is a grassroots hermeneutic. I suspect that if I had not studied Genesis 1–11, I would still be clinging tenaciously to a view of origins similar to Kurt Wise's. Thankfully, I studied the words of God before examining His works. Being unhampered by scientific concordism, I am now able to see and enjoy the overwhelming scientific evidence for biological evolution, which for me is the Creator's method for creating life.

(emphasis added) To ascribe to Lamoureux a view which he specifically and unequivocally denies holding is a mistake at best and slander at worst.

Originally Posted by Van

Next why do you keep redefining deistic processes as godless. That is simply yet another false assertion in an avalache of false assertions. Lets stick to terms defined in the dictionary shall we?

Any deistic conception certainly does not involve the God of the Bible.

shernren · #46 24th November 2008, 03:25 PM

And it's funny that you mentioned deism:

Originally Posted by Van

God, the Creator of the Universe, the first cause, created the Universe. He, or She, or It existed before the Universe was created. I believe that force is eternal, without beginning. You can say it had a beginning, but without support. What is scientific fact is that before time, a force existed and that force caused the big bang to bang. So lets return to life could not come about by natural forces as we understand natural forces today. This is widely accepted. Not that Yahweh created life, but that some organizing force unknown to science most probably created life, because the design is too complex for it to happen in some warm swamp hit by lightning.

Granted, your comments are somewhat justifiable within the context (that an atheist was asking about proof for God), but they are still extremely disturbing because they seem to follow right down the trajectory that historically has led to deism again and again.

It starts when well-meaning apologists like you notice that, even if they can make design arguments stick on nature, they can't actually prove all that much about God from design. Sure we might get to say that God is powerful. We might even (depending on our knowledge of design criteria) say He is intelligent. Not much else. We certainly can't figure out that His name is Yahweh, that He ever had anything to do with any peoples on Earth, that He was incarnated, let alone that He would die for sin or even what sin is.

The next step takes anywhere from half a generation to a generation to occur, but people gradually notice two things about science and about the Bible:

- The Bible is messy and detailed: it's got all these stories and ideas and authors, some of whom don't fit together neatly, all of which require severe, painstaking, and inspired analysis. By contrast science is clean and sparse: everything gets expressed as just the repetition of a few simple formulae, at least in principle.
- The Bible is moral: the God of the Bible says very clearly (and inconveniently) what He likes and doesn't like. By constrast science is amoral: after all, there's no natural law against stealing, cheating or murdering (indeed one has to take physical law into account to be a successful criminal).

So what then? They decide that gee, the Bible doesn't really have what it takes to reveal God. Science is the next step up and the god science reveals looks an awful lot prettier than Yahweh. Hence you get the deism of post-Paley design arguments. In fact, if God is perfect and made the world scientifically perfect then He never has to intervene in it! See where your rhetoric gets us? If we think of God as a watchmaker and miracles as His occasional tinkering with creation, then God must either be aloof or incompetent.

And that's why concordism is so dangerous: "what the Bible teaches and science confirms" all too quickly becomes "what science confirms the Bible never got around to teaching".

Van · #47 24th November 2008, 04:28 PM

Actually, it's about time someone called your bluff. What are your educational qualifications and how long have you been working theologically in the area of origins? Because face it, you're the one who comes across as not knowing what you're talking about, and by Warfield's criterion in my signature you clearly lack philosophical acumen.

Note the lake of examples. Folks vague disparagement are the stock and trade of empty arguments, attacking the opponents qualifications rather than the position presented.

Please use the dictionary defintion of deism, where God is the passive sustainer and acts through naturalistic processes.

Next, Shernren, please stop recycling the refuted arguments of Mallon? We are not comparing YEC views of "scientific concordism" but OEC views of "scientific cordordism." You again seem to have missed the issue.

The special knowledge referred to the phone calls. Duh

I made no statement as to what the author of the defition I posted believes. I used the defintion as written. Now you say that is not what he meant. Fine. But what you claim he meant does not equate with OEC as claimed by Mallon. Got it yet?

There is no need to "prove" (your word) God exists, but only to "prove" nature suggests God exists. We can turn to special revelation to learn more about his invisible attributes.

You seem to confuse science with history. I am all for present day science. Write a paper that shows the moon-earth system has been in existence for less than 2 billion years and I am all over it.

But to write a brief designed to support an argument using the answer and working backwards to find tidal resistence is not science.

Next you postulate that some unknown person, the figment of your imagination, decides that the Bible is inadequate to reveal God. LOL

Does the bible say God made the universe perfect so that He never needs to intervene? Nope.

OEC is not dangerous, and Mallon equates scientific concordism with OEC. See the problem yet, Shernren?

Van · #48 24th November 2008, 04:41 PM

Folks, lets address the assertion that I am running a bluff. What bluff? Have I claimed to be a scientist? Nope, but I did claim I stayed at a holiday inn. Have I claimed to have run the model of the moon-earth relationship? Nope, I claimed to have read some of the published articles available on the internet. So what is Shernren referring to? He is insinuating that I think I know more about orgins than he does. But since I make no claim about my cognative ability, other than I can read and reason, it seems an assertion calculated to disparage me. But judge for yourself folks.

Van · #49 24th November 2008, 04:49 PM

Hi Shernren, I want to thank you again for helping clarify the dicussion.

And that's why concordism is so dangerous: "what the Bible teaches and science confirms" all too quickly becomes "what science confirms the Bible never got around to teaching".

Here is what I take away from your assertion. "What the Bible teaches and science confirms" is scientific concordism and "what science confirms the Bible never got around to teaching" is accommodationism. Do I have it right?

Assyrian · #50 24th November 2008, 05:09 PM

Originally Posted by Van

Please use the dictionary defintion of deism, where God is the passive sustainer and acts through naturalistic processes.

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/deism

Compact Oxford English Dictionary

deism

/deeiz’m, day-/

• noun belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe.Compare with THEISM.

— DERIVATIVES deist noun deistic adjective