Divine rain vs. meteorological precipitation

[Mallon]

I recently read an excellent book entitled "Paradigms on Pilgrimage" (it's a critical look at the creationist perspective, written by both a palaeontologist and a pastor). One of the chapters in the book raises the issue of 'divine rain vs. meteorological precipitation.' The authors essentially question why there is no creationist movement working against modern meteorology, as it has come to explain the phenomenon of rain without an appeal to God (e.g. related to adiabatic, orographic, pressure effects, etc.). According to the Bible, however, rain is clearly brought forth only by God's doing (e.g. Gen 2:5; Lev 26:4; Deut 28:12; 1 Sam 12:18; Matt 5:45; etc.). I'm interested in knowing from the Creationists here if and why they have come to accept the scientific interpretation of rain, but not the scientific interpretation as to the diversity of life on earth. Why the double-standard?

 

[Remus]

According to the Bible, however, rain is clearly brought forth only by God's doing (e.g. Gen 2:5; Lev 26:4; Deut 28:12; 1 Sam 12:18; Matt 5:45; etc.).

None of these references "clearly" show that rain is "only" sent by God.

 

[Mallon]

None of these references "clearly" show that rain is "only" sent by God.

The passages suggest that rain is brought forth or held back by God's divine intervention, and as such, strongly imply that rain is by no means a "natural" process. Yet today we understand that rain is entirely natural, and can even be predicted to some extent. Do you disagree with this?
My point is that most Christians have come to accept this naturalistic interpretation of rain, with the understanding that, while it may occur via natural processes, we are not forced to reject God's involvement somehow. So again I ask: why are so many Creationists adamant that the natural process of evolution cannot occur under God's supervision and by His will? What's the big difference?

 

[Remus]

The passages suggest that rain is brought forth or held back by God's divine intervention, and as such, strongly imply that rain is by no means a "natural" process.

I disagree. These passages only suggest that it can be "brought forth or held back by God's divine intervention". I believe this is true. This does not discount a "natural" process at all.

Yet today we understand that rain is entirely natural, and can even be predicted to some extent. Do you disagree with this?

I don't know if I would go so far as to say that it's "entirely natural". There is still the possibility of God's intervention. In fact, Biblical evidence requires it. Perhaps this could explain some of the difficultly in prediction.

My point is that most Christians have come to accept this naturalistic interpretation of rain, with the understanding that, while it may occur via natural processes, we are not forced to reject God's involvement somehow. So again I ask: why are so many Creationists adamant that the natural process of evolution cannot occur under God's supervision and by His will?

If you want to believe that God did it, that's fine by me. I just believe that appealing to God to supervise evolution isn't very scientific.

What's the big difference?

Actually the analogy is false. The Bible treats origins and rain in an entirely different fashion.

 

[Mallon]

I disagree. These passages only suggest that it can be "brought forth or held back by God's divine intervention". I believe this is true. This does not discount a "natural" process at all.

From your POV, could it also be argued that God can bring forth life ex nihilo but that He is capable of appealing to the "natural" process of evolution as well?

Perhaps this could explain some of the difficultly in prediction.

Perhaps. So might the choatic nature of weather.

I just believe that appealing to God to supervise evolution isn't very scientific.

Nor do I. Which is why I am adamant that Creationism is a faith-based stance not supported by science.

Actually the analogy is false. The Bible treats origins and rain in an entirely different fashion.

In what way? Both rain and life are said to have come about by God's command.

 

[Remus]

From your POV, could it also be argued that God can bring forth life ex nihilo but that He is capable of appealing to the "natural" process of evolution as well?

Sure. Anything is within His power.

Perhaps. So might the choatic nature of weather.

*shrugs* call it whatever you like.

Nor do I. Which is why I am adamant that Creationism is a faith-based stance not supported by science.

This doesn't follow. Even if we were to conclude that something isn't supported by science, this doesn't mean that something is "faith-based". Either way, you'll have to clarify your position. Are you trying to argue that God was involved or not?

In what way? Both rain and life are said to have come about by God's command.

I thought we covered this. Nothing in the Bible precludes the natural process of rain.

 

[Mallon]

This doesn't follow. Even if we were to conclude that something isn't supported by science, this doesn't mean that something is "faith-based".

Why not? If your view isn't supported by evidence, you're taking it on faith, are you not?

Are you trying to argue that God was involved or not?

As a theistic evolutionist, I believe the theory of evolution, and understand God to be active in every aspect of nature -- even evolution. I do not hold that this is a 'scientific' view, however.

I thought we covered this.

Then we're going in circles and I open up the floor to others to reply to the OP. Phrased another way, if it helps: Why are Creationists not fighting to have "Intelligent Meteorology" taught in schools?

 

[Pats]

I recently read an excellent book entitled "Paradigms on Pilgrimage" (it's a critical look at the creationist perspective, written by both a palaeontologist and a pastor). One of the chapters in the book raises the issue of 'divine rain vs. meteorological precipitation.' The authors essentially question why there is no creationist movement working against modern meteorology, as it has come to explain the phenomenon of rain without an appeal to God (e.g. related to adiabatic, orographic, pressure effects, etc.). According to the Bible, however, rain is clearly brought forth only by God's doing (e.g. Gen 2:5; Lev 26:4; Deut 28:12; 1 Sam 12:18; Matt 5:45; etc.). I'm interested in knowing from the Creationists here if and why they have come to accept the scientific interpretation of rain, but not the scientific interpretation as to the diversity of life on earth. Why the double-standard?

As Remus has already pointed out, these verses do not necessitate divine intervention in the weather, they only say that He can intervine on our weather at His Will.

Another very important point here, to me, is to ask this:

How can we seperate the hand of God from a natural process?

If I die of a heart attack, I'll die of a natural process. Likewise, God uses heart attacks to bring people into the next life.

God is the Creator of the natural, and therefore the natural is His tool and at His disposal. I don't believe that all terrible storms are divine acts of judgement neither do I believe God always sends rain when we pray for it. I'm just saying, I don't see how any natural process and God can be seperated when God is the designer of the natural process in the first place.

It's like the theory of gravity. It cannot proven how it works, we simply know that it does. Why is that? Maybe God is holding everything together?

 

[Remus]

Why not? If your view isn't supported by evidence, you're taking it on faith, are you not?

But my view is supported by evidence. For your statement to be true, one would have to conclude that "scientific evidence" is the only type of evidence possible.

As a theistic evolutionist, I believe the theory of evolution, and understand God to be active in every aspect of nature -- even evolution. I do not hold that this is a 'scientific' view, however.

So, does this mean you believe that evolution is a directed process? And what evidence do you have that "God is active in every aspect of nature"?

Then we're going in circles

I'm not sure where the breakdown in communication is. Let's recap.


You stated:

According to the Bible, however, rain is clearly brought forth only by God's doing

You based your question on this. I then pointed out that this statement was wrong which means that your analogy was false.

You then replied with essentially the same error:

The passages suggest that rain is brought forth or held back by God's divine intervention, and as such, strongly imply that rain is by no means a "natural" process.

I then responded with:

These passages only suggest that it can be "brought forth or held back by God's divine intervention".

Twice I pointed out where your error was, yet you continue to ask the same question.

 

[Marshall Janzen]

As Remus has already pointed out, these verses do not necessitate divine intervention in the weather, they only say that He can intervine on our weather at His Will.

So when you read these verses...

"But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust." (Matthew 5:44-45, ESV)

...you just see that as just referring to God's agency in unnatural movements of the sun or unnatural weather patterns? To me, that passage seems to be saying that whenever the sun rises and rain falls, it is because of God.

Maybe the confusion is over the phrase "divine intervention". Do you think God needs to intervene in order to act? If so, who or what is responsible for sustaining nature and what naturally happens?

 

[Mallon]

But my view is supported by evidence. For your statement to be true, one would have to conclude that "scientific evidence" is the only type of evidence possible.

That's what I am implying. If you hold God's presence in your life to be evidence of His exisitence, that's great. But I'm referring specifically to tangible, objective evidence in this case.

So, does this mean you believe that evolution is a directed process?

If it is, we cannot detect it. It is entirely ateleological to us.

And what evidence do you have that "God is active in every aspect of nature"?

None. As I said, I take it on faith.

Twice I pointed out where your error was, yet you continue to ask the same question.

Maybe I'm clinically insane.
Actually, I keep rephrasing my question because I'm trying to sharpen it. My question stems from the following assumptions:
1) Most Creationists argue against the teaching of evolution in public schools (or argue FOR the teaching of Intelligent Design or whatnot) because it is unbiblical and makes no appeal to God
2) Modern meteorology describes rain as coming about via natural processes and makes no mention of God
So with these points in mind, why do Creationists not also argue for the teaching of a sort of 'Intelligent Meteorology' in schools? Maybe I am wrong in my line of thought, but I want to thoroughly defuse it before I give up on it.

 

[Remus]

That's what I am implying. If you hold God's presence in your life to be evidence of His exisitence, that's great. But I'm referring specifically to tangible, objective evidence in this case.

Actually I was referring to the Bible. It can not be discounted as evidence.

If it is, we cannot detect it. It is entirely ateleological to us.

None. As I said, I take it on faith.

Surely you have some reason to believe what you do.

Maybe I'm clinically insane.

You and I are here, I think that's strong evidence that we both are insane

Actually, I keep rephrasing my question because I'm trying to sharpen it. My question stems from the following assumptions:
1) Most Creationists argue against the teaching of evolution in public schools (or argue FOR the teaching of Intelligent Design or whatnot) because it is unbiblical and makes no appeal to God
2) Modern meteorology describes rain as coming about via natural processes and makes no mention of God
So with these points in mind, why do Creationists not also argue for the teaching of a sort of 'Intelligent Meteorology' in schools? Maybe I am wrong in my line of thought, but I want to thoroughly defuse it before I give up on it.

I disagree with your first assumption, but I'm not the typical Creationist. I should probably drop out and let others speak up if this is their position.

 

[shernren]

I think I lean more towards Remus' side with this one ... the Bible never said that God *supernaturally*, and *only* supernaturally gives rain.

There are many different categories of creationist thought, even within YECism, and this rain example will do mainly for the God-of-the-gaps crowd. The people who believe that "gee, if evolution did it, God didn't!" I just had a reply from nolidad on one of my posts that went "was Adam the product of standard evolution or was he formed by God?" The "or" there is the standard symptom of God-of-the-gaps syndrome - if God did it evolution wouldn't have and vice versa. For those the rain metaphor holds. "What do you believe - that clouds give rain, or that God gives rain? If the first, then you disagree with the Bible; if the second, you disagree with common sense. Isn't it both?"

However, there are people who having gotten past that fallacy still aren't convinced that evolution really is as useful as some folks have proclaimed it to be. So they see no difficulty in the rain example.

Good thoughts though, I like how you've condensed the whole business into an OP that is very clear and easy to understand.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I think I lean more towards Remus' side with this one ... the Bible never said that God *supernaturally*, and *only* supernaturally gives rain.

There are many different categories of creationist thought, even within YECism, and this rain example will do mainly for the God-of-the-gaps crowd. The people who believe that "gee, if evolution did it, God didn't!" I just had a reply from nolidad on one of my posts that went "was Adam the product of standard evolution or was he formed by God?" The "or" there is the standard symptom of God-of-the-gaps syndrome - if God did it evolution wouldn't have and vice versa. For those the rain metaphor holds. "What do you believe - that clouds give rain, or that God gives rain? If the first, then you disagree with the Bible; if the second, you disagree with common sense. Isn't it both?"

However, there are people who having gotten past that fallacy still aren't convinced that evolution really is as useful as some folks have proclaimed it to be. So they see no difficulty in the rain example.

Good thoughts though, I like how you've condensed the whole business into an OP that is very clear and easy to understand.

So are you saying that because one agrees that God uses both natural weather patterns and direct intervention in the weather that it follows that God used evolution to..... create.... man? I can't make that connection.

 

[Pats]

So when you read these verses...

"But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust." (Matthew 5:44-45, ESV)

...you just see that as just referring to God's agency in unnatural movements of the sun or unnatural weather patterns? To me, that passage seems to be saying that whenever the sun rises and rain falls, it is because of God.

Maybe the confusion is over the phrase "divine intervention". Do you think God needs to intervene in order to act? If so, who or what is responsible for sustaining nature and what naturally happens?

Actually, when I re-read the post I saw that I contradicted myself. Thanks for pointing that out.

Toward the end of my post, the conclusion I had drawn was:

I don't see how any natural process and God can be seperated when God is the designer of the natural process in the first place.

I don't see any natural process in our world and hand of God as two seperate things.

That is not to say that God always uses disease or hurricanes to rain down judgement. I believe He can do this, but I also believe that we live in a world corrupted by sin. Disasters will strike merely due to this fact alone.

I am not saying that I believe God used common descent to create man. But, hypathetically speaking, if common descent had taken place God would've orchastrated it.

 

[Marshall Janzen]

Pats, thanks for the clarification. I agree.

 

[shernren]

So are you saying that because one agrees that God uses both natural weather patterns and direct intervention in the weather that it follows that God used evolution to..... create.... man? I can't make that connection.

What I am saying is that similarly, just because evolution is a scientific explanation of man's origins, doesn't mean that evolution excludes God from the picture, any more than meteorology excludes God from the picture of weather.

 

[Mallon]

What I am saying is that similarly, just because evolution is a scientific explanation of man's origins, doesn't mean that evolution excludes God from the picture, any more than meteorology excludes God from the picture of weather.

I agree completely, shernren. So just to clarify, the question posed the beginning of this thread is aimed specifically at those who think otherwise.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

What I am saying is that similarly, just because evolution is a scientific explanation of man's origins, doesn't mean that evolution excludes God from the picture, any more than meteorology excludes God from the picture of weather.

"..evolution is a scientific explanation of man's origins,..."

Thank you thank you thank you. I've been anxious to hear someone finally express the whole evolution enchilada. Other TE's claim that they believe that God used evolution only to tinker with species. Thanks for being completely honest!

 

[Mallon]

Thank you thank you thank you. I've been anxious to hear someone finally express the whole evolution enchilada. Other TE's claim that they believe that God used evolution only to tinker with species. Thanks for being completely honest!

I didn't realize there were any TE's actually attempting to validate such a view with science. I'll be the first to admit that by belief that God works through evolution isn't supported by any science. I base that belief on faith. So does nearly every other TE, I'm sure.