Well, lots of discussion.
I thought the Big Bang was man's theory.
Depends on whether you are speaking of the event or the proposed explanation of the event. Even if the theory is not correct, there is still an event which it is about. How is that event not a miracle?
I agree with Cal, the argument is a lame dead horse. The salient issue is the supernatural, not natural processes. If you deny that there are divine interventions which are God's supernatural involvement in evolution, then you are not a real TE. That would be a deist, which is just shy of being an atheist or agnostic in my book.
Right. I agree completely. And I am certainly not a deist. Nor do I deny God's possible supernatural involvement in evolution or anything else.
But there is another issue as well that I am trying to get at. I hold that creationists have erred in presenting evolution or any other aspect of science as a denial of the supernatural or of miracles. I hold that creationists have erred in presenting affirmation of the natural as a denial of the supernatural.
In committing this error they have supported the false philosophy of naturalism which is briefly the view that
only natural forces operate in the universe.
I am not asking anyone to support that philosophy. But I am asking people to stop making an equation between "natural" and "only natural".
When have Christians ever held that the natural is any less a part of what God does than the miracle? Yet, in creationist circles "natural" has become almost a dirty word, and anything presented as a natural process is assumed "to take God out of the equation". This is not sound Christian teaching. This does lead to god-of-the-gaps thinking. People taken in by this teaching lose the capacity to see God presented in the natural world, in the ordinary day-to-day events of a flower blooming, a caterpillar hatching, a sunset, a stream carving a pathway down a mountain. And instead of standing in awe at God's non-miraculous work, they vilify those who help us understand the processes involved because in their book a "naturalistic" explanation is equivalent to preaching atheism.
I think it is very important to overcome this knee-jerk negative reaction to "natural" and restore the traditional Christian confidence that natural events, natural causes, natural processes are just as powerful a testimony of God as miracles are.
Sure, we should object when someone tries to say there are no miracles, no supernatural forces ever. But we should also object to presenting nature as such as hostile to belief in God and creation. For what did God create if not the natural world? What creation did Paul present as leaving the unbeliever without excuse if not the natural world and all its internal natural causes and processes? How can this world be a testimony to God's divinity and eternal power if everything labelled "natural" is looked at askance as automatically excluding God?
Science, in its exploration of the natural world should be seen as our ally, not our enemy. Nature is absolutely marvellous and amazing and the more one learns about it, the more there is to be amazed about. How can this not be a powerful testimony to the God who created the world science studies?
But if we focus all our attention on miracles, we become dependent on miracles to buttress our faith in creation, in God. If we see science as essentially godless and hostile to belief because it presents the natural causes of many things once thought to depend on a supernatural action, forgetting that God is also the author, upholder, ever-present provider and sustainer of all the creation through natural means, we lose an essential and important part of our faith.
Yes, we need to affirm miracles, but not at the expense of losing the connection of God and the natural events, causes and processes of creation.
One thing this neglect has led to is the casual acceptance in Christian as well as atheistic circles that "a natural process is one that happens without the involvement of God". So, in too many Christian minds, every natural process is seen as excluding God. Science, as our principle means of learning about nature, is seen as excluding God. (And then we wonder why so many scientists start leaning away from belief in God.--what else can one expect when nature per se is viewed as devoid of a testimony of God--when "natural" becomes a synonym for "no god here"?)
This is totally contrary to a healthy Christian belief about nature and how God is seen by means of nature as scripture constantly reminds us. Let's object when people use the word "natural" in the assumption that this excludes God. Let's start teaching our kids and reminding ourselves that "natural" and "God" go hand-in-hand and no natural explanation is inherently atheistic, but rather a testimony to the power and wisdom of the Creator who does all things in nature well. And miracles, too!
The only way to make any points with Cal is to put more emphasis on the actual supernatural processes involved, like parting the Red Sea, which had a huge impact on the gene pool in that area. Having a "Chosen Race" means that God takes a direct interests in human evolution. A true TE believes that God is in control of evolution, through both natural AND supernatural processes.
Again, I agree, but Cal comes across as one of those people who simply does not see the natural as a witness to God. If it is not supernatural, in his view, God may as well be absent. (That is probably a bit unfair, but I will leave it for Cal to respond to.)
That's the god of the gaps method. There are plenty of natural explanation for the Resurrection and other miracles. That's not how I determine is something came about miraculously.
Really? The only "natural" explanation for the Resurrection I ever heard of was that it was faked--the original version of that being the Jewish leaders story that the disciples stole the body. Some have also argued that Jesus never died on the cross, but was alive when placed in the tomb where he revived. Whichever, both of these "natural" explanations simply assert that there was no resurrection--so they are not natural explanations OF the Resurrection.
And no, what Assyrian describes is not the god of the gaps method. Because Assyrian is not describing a method that shoves God out of the description and confines God to the miraculous. It is only when one takes the view that natural explanations "leave God out" that we have God confined to the gaps, and need desperately to hold on to those gaps to justify our faith. (or conversely gleefully make the gaps as small as possible to justify our atheism.)
Traditionally, Christianity did not see natural explanations as a means of leaving God out, because it was understood that natural explanations are as much a witness to God as miracles are. So there are no gaps. God is in both the supernatural and the natural.
Assyrian, the TE's of today, are yesterdays geocentrists. You see, back then, geocentrism was mainstream science. And so those wanting to be on the side of intellectualism and reason, opted for interpretations that fit with the science of their day. The thinking is virtually identical. Had you been around at that time, you would have been harassing Galileo along with the other aristotelian philosophers.
Your interpretations are not based on the text of Genesis. Not even close, as you all but ignore the text. For you it's about modern theories.
Ah, but the geocentrist interpretations were based on the text of scripture--which is why they quoted scripture in their defense. Geocentrism had the support of the best science (philosophy) of the time and accorded fairly well with scripture interpreted in the same way you insist Genesis 1 is to be interpreted. Can you name one person who quoted scripture in support of Galileo?
Such as?? How could that possibly be considered a "natural" event? If the resurrection of Christ is not a miracle then what is a miracle?
Right on! So-called "explanations" of the Resurrection are actually denials the Resurrection ever happened.
