Origins TheologyForum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums.
Out of curiosity, do you believe natural phenomena occur to the exclusion of God, oncelost?
__________________ "There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well." -- creation scientist Dr. Todd Wood
Because that is science: Purely naturalistic. I think the people who demand that God led evolution in ways contrary to nature or created ex nihilo to be the ones putting God in a box. They limit him to their own misunderstandings and personal interpretations without ever admitting they might be wrong.
Out of curiosity, do you believe natural phenomena occur to the exclusion of God, oncelost?
Of course not. God created our natural world. It is a fallen, very imperfect natural world. That's why my friend died of cancer. Our four-dimentional perception of reality and 3 pound brain is incapable of fully understanding a God of far more dimentions and who is eternal. We are very finite. He is infinite. God exists apart from his our natural world and ultimate reality is so much more than it.
If he wanted to use evolution to create all we see today, he could have. If he wanted to create it such that Genesis and all the geneologies in the Gospels are accurate history, he could have. If he wanted to do it another way altogether, he could have. I try to think of it in terms of which way is most consistent with the evidence and squares best with scripture.
BTW, this may be best for another post, but how do TEs interepret Genesis and the geneologies in the Gospels?
I take great satisfaction in knowing that we Christians are all on the same side when His kingdom comes. I feel that evolution was a great stumbling block in my faith several years ago. I would hate for it to be a stumbling block for others, especially including (selfishly enough) my kids.
Yes, but I've noticed that Creationists don't do a very good job of proving their statements.
I have actually admitted to being wrong. Once I said that "atoms" weren't mentioned in the Bible and Catzrfluffly immediately pulled up several verses. I was wrong.
On the other hand, Creationists tend to simply violate parsimony trying to come up with wild hypothesis for why they can't be wrong, and invoke arguments to authority by using the Bible in a scientific discussion.
Yes, but I've noticed that Creationists don't do a very good job of proving their statements.
I have actually admitted to being wrong. Once I said that "atoms" weren't mentioned in the Bible and Catzrfluffly immediately pulled up several verses. I was wrong.
On the other hand, Creationists tend to simply violate parsimony trying to come up with wild hypothesis for why they can't be wrong, and invoke arguments to authority by using the Bible in a scientific discussion.
Great! Many neocreationists behave as though the natural world unfolds apart from God, and that He is only active in supernatural events. This is partly why they describe evolution as "random" and "godless", even though the Bible tells us that God is in charge of both random and natural phenomena. So you're right: theistic evolution is a stupid term, as is theistic gravity or theistic electromagnetism. But there are so many neocreationists and atheists out there who presume that evolution is godless, that the term becomes a necessary polemic against the false dichotomy that God either created supernaturally or He didn't create at all.
BTW, this may be best for another post, but how do TEs interepret Genesis and the geneologies in the Gospels?
Numerology, not historical. The genealogies don't even agree. The Jews were obviously more interested in numerology than history. I think we need to accept that.
I feel that evolution was a great stumbling block in my faith several years ago.
I'm very sorry to hear that. It was a challenge for me also. I've come to realize that the problem isn't with evolution itself, but with the unwarranted assumptions (e.g., concordism) we bring to the Bible.
__________________ "There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well." -- creation scientist Dr. Todd Wood
If he wanted to use evolution to create all we see today, he could have. If he wanted to create it such that Genesis and all the geneologies in the Gospels are accurate history, he could have. If he wanted to do it another way altogether, he could have. I try to think of it in terms of which way is most consistent with the evidence and squares best with scripture.
Hallelujah for another sane human being amidst the madness!
What evidence would make a good TE scrap the common ancestry notion?
It would be tough for just one piece of evidence to sway me. It would be like asking me what it would take to get me to scrap our heliocentric view of our solar system. There's so much evidence for evolution one piece of evidence can't trump all the rest. There would have to evidence that contradicts it such as bunnies in the cambrian, AND a better explanation for the evidence we see.
__________________ "The Bible does not lend any moral support to natural selection...Ergo, natural selection is not a process that human beings should support." - SkyWriting
It would be tough for just one piece of evidence to sway me. It would be like asking me what it would take to get me to scrap our heliocentric view of our solar system. There's so much evidence for evolution one piece of evidence can't trump all the rest. There would have to evidence that contradicts it such as bunnies in the cambrian, AND a better explanation for the evidence we see.
Linear Mode
