Friendly Question(s) to TEs

[random_guy]

Hey I'm not the evolutionist, I'm just trying to find a way for you guys to bring God into creation.

"That's a nice idea. I have no idea how science works, but if you say God is in charge of lightning, that's sure to bring more members in!" That's basically what you're saying. You have no idea what evolution is, nor how it works, but you think that we should say, "Goddidit" to any part that can't be explained.

How can you biblically justify berating a fellow believer?

I don't think I need a verse to justify correcting someone that is spreading lies.

I've never said correcting false science was wrong, this place is full of people who wish for me to say things they would like for me to have said.

Really? You keep talking about how we TEists seem to enjoy berating Creationists, when what we try to do is correct bad/false science. Is it berating when we point out that they are spreading lies?

Great, a quote to imply I said something that you again wanted me to say, but unfortunately didn't.

I didn't say you said that, I said that's what Creationists believe and say, but yet, I don't see you making a thread about it.

Am I off-base to accuse of heresy, blasphemy, and them being non-Christians? I probably could have cooled it a little, but am I justified in my accusations anyway?

This quote makes me wonder if the enemy is speaking and not the Christian:

Hey, how about us TEists being mislead by Satan and his evil scientist followers?

I believe that if one cannot accept Genesis, then everything can be made to doubt. If you don't believe Genesis, where do you end? I don't want to Judge them, but Jesus as mentioned in prior posts talks about Creation, and Noah as fact. Should we not believe the word of our savior? Our God!!?? I'm not sure where it's at, I believe in Job, but as the created, we aren't supposed to question the Creator. Everything has a reason, even if we don't understand. Death never entered the world until sin came, so that refutes evolution right there. Sure we have all sorts of "evidence" for evolution, but should we believe it, no.... Satan, and all of his evil in the world want you to doubt God.

Sure seems like you have no problems with Christians berating other Christians for accepting science, but you sure have problems when we correct other Christians for spreading false science.

 

[theFijian]

You guys give me far more credit than I deserve. I haven't a clue what TEs truly base their beliefs on, I was just looking for a way to get you guys focused on the non-believer when you're in the C&E forum instead of the believer.

You know exactly what we base our position on as it's been explained to you countless times. What you were trying to get us to do was to accept your 'God of the gaps theology', as being some kind of evangelistic tool. 'God of the gaps' is a very poor apologetic method!

And as a christian I base my beliefs on God's divine revelation and guidance from the Holy Spirit; not evolution. I see methodological naturalism as the only was to make scietific progress - not 'God of the gaps' theology like you want us too.

 

[shernren]

As you say, it is difficult to distinguish, how can we categorically state that He didn't 'tweak the neurotransmitters' of plant and animal life. If one has to believe in evolution why not say God did the tweaking? Otherwise providence appears to be an escape for TEs to lump all unknowns into.

But notice, what we TEs have been saying all along (and will keep saying) is that God is behind providence, too. We can't say that enough, seeing how you are still saying things like this:

Well the way I see it if God did it He'd want people to know that He is responsible and not allow it to be hidden in something that can't be directly attributed to Him like evolution.

The way I see it, neither would a miracle prove anything about God, anyway. If God did a miracle, Muslims would attribute it to Allah, Hindus would attribute it to Krishna, Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, and Moonies would attribute it to their respective weirded version of God ... and scientists may very well keep looking for a natural explanation till kingdom come. Besides, almost everything seems like a miracle to a sufficiently primitive society (remember Job and how God hurls lightning?), with the corollary that probably almost nothing will seem like a miracle to a sufficiently advanced society.

So if eventually providence is going to swallow up miracles and science is going to swallow up supernatural attribution, why waste any time pretending otherwise? What's the point of trying to claim that the origins of life were miraculous in a society where nothing else already is, anyway? There is no undoing science or unlearning what man has learnt. Far better to see how God can work through science.

 

[Mallon]

Well the way I see it if God did it He'd want people to know that He is responsible and not allow it to be hidden in something that can't be directly attributed to Him like evolution.

Ah. But even this isn't biblical.

Proverbs 25:2 says:

It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings.

 

[vossler]

"That's a nice idea. I have no idea how science works, but if you say God is in charge of lightning, that's sure to bring more members in!" That's basically what you're saying. You have no idea what evolution is, nor how it works, but you think that we should say, "Goddidit" to any part that can't be explained.

Here's the bottom line, TEs believe in the evolutionary process, most agnostics and atheists do too. Using that as our foundation what good does it do for a TE to continually dismiss a YEC arguments when the YEC is trying to glorify God. All the TE is doing is agreeing with a non-believer that another believer is ignorant and basically a fool. No where in this process does the TE distinguish himself from the atheist and/or agnostic. Somehow, somewhere God and His awesome splendor should be recognized.

I don't think I need a verse to justify correcting someone that is spreading lies.

I was just trying to give you an opportunity, if you choose not to that's up to you.

Really? You keep talking about how we TEists seem to enjoy berating Creationists, when what we try to do is correct bad/false science. Is it berating when we point out that they are spreading lies?

You've obviously not been paying attention to my points.

I didn't say you said that, I said that's what Creationists believe and say, but yet, I don't see you making a thread about it.

No, but you tried to imply it.

Hey, how about us TEists being mislead by Satan and his evil scientist followers?

If you look at the quotes you provided, they are not statements or flat out accusations but questions asking fellow believers if he was on the right track, thinking properly. Hardly slamming TEs in the midst of unbelievers and chuckling.

 

[vossler]

And now this is the false humility card? You know exactly what we base our position on as it's been explained to you countless times. What you were trying to get us to do was to accept your 'God of the gaps theology', as being some kind of evangelistic tool. 'God of the gaps' is a very poor apologetic method!

No I really don't know, at one time I thought I might know but I've tried to understand it and can't even come close to getting my arms around it. It's far too big for simple me to grasp. Nothing false about this, that is the truth whether you choose to believe it or not.

 

[vossler]

But notice, what we TEs have been saying all along (and will keep saying) is that God is behind providence, too.

Not if we can't see Him in it or He isn't identified.

The way I see it, neither would a miracle prove anything about God, anyway. If God did a miracle, Muslims would attribute it to Allah, Hindus would attribute it to Krishna, Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, and Moonies would attribute it to their respective weirded version of God ... and scientists may very well keep looking for a natural explanation till kingdom come. Besides, almost everything seems like a miracle to a sufficiently primitive society (remember Job and how God hurls lightning?), with the corollary that probably almost nothing will seem like a miracle to a sufficiently advanced society.

I'm not asking for a miracle to prove God's existence. Then again maybe I am, just not having TEs and YECs arguing among non-believers would be a miracle.

So if eventually providence is going to swallow up miracles and science is going to swallow up supernatural attribution, why waste any time pretending otherwise? What's the point of trying to claim that the origins of life were miraculous in a society where nothing else already is, anyway? There is no undoing science or unlearning what man has learnt. Far better to see how God can work through science.

You're getting to the core issue here. If everything can be attributed to science, we have no need for God, science is our god. We look to science for all our answers and science provides. Providence would be nothing more than nature (science) doing what comes naturally. This sure sounds like atheistic/agnostic evolution.

 

[Willtor]

No I really don't know, at one time I thought I might know but I've tried to understand it and can't even come close to getting my arms around it. It's far too big for simple me to grasp. Nothing false about this, that is the truth whether you choose to believe it or not.

I'll try to put "god-of-the-gaps" another way. People know a lot of various things about the universe. There are probably a great many more things they don't know. Now, this doesn't mean that they can't know these things. They're searching. At some point, however, they see something on the horizon of understanding and they try to talk about it. But if I ask them about it, they'll say, "We don't know." This doesn't mean that it's God. It means that it's something that is currently at the edge of what is known.

The forumulators of the Nicene Creed understood this. They referred to God's creation as "all things seen and unseen." The ancient idea was that there was what was known, and that there was something beyond what was known, and that there was God beyond that.

This works into our discussion because TEs tend to think the same way. We haven't explored the fullness of nature, and we may never do so. If we think we've reached the edge and located God, we are theologically assured that we are mistaken. Any supposed god that we have located is no god at all. It is a god-of-the-gaps(-in-our-understanding).

 

[vossler]

This works into our discussion because TEs tend to think the same way. We haven't explored the fullness of nature, and we may never do so. If we think we've reached the edge and located God, we are theologically assured that we are mistaken. Any supposed god that we have located is no god at all. It is a god-of-the-gaps(-in-our-understanding).

I'm sorry I didn't make myself clear when replying to theFijian; my reply was directed towards understanding what a TE believes. I have no real clue what TEs truly believe because I can't get my arms around it. I know aspects of TE beliefs but I certainly can't put it together. From where I sit TEs don't even know what they believe, but like I said this is me and I'm pretty simple minded and am probably not intellectually capable of understanding.

 

[theFijian]

No I really don't know, at one time I thought I might know but I've tried to understand it and can't even come close to getting my arms around it. It's far too big for simple me to grasp. Nothing false about this, that is the truth whether you choose to believe it or not.

Since you admit to not understanding methodological naturalism and have stopped trying, why do continue to criticise TEs because we do not ascribe to your 'God of the gaps' apologetic?

From where I sit TEs don't even know what they believe, but like I said this is me and I'm pretty simple minded and am probably not intellectually capable of understanding.

Just because you so humbly admit to be simple minded doesn't mean that your lack of comprehension is in any way a reflection of the veracity of the views of the people you cannot (will not) agree with and the confidence with which they hold those views. Your posts really are close to baiting as makes no difference.

[edited]

 

[Willtor]

I'm sorry I didn't make myself clear when replying to theFijian; my reply was directed towards understanding what a TE believes. I have no real clue what TEs truly believe because I can't get my arms around it. I know aspects of TE beliefs but I certainly can't put it together. From where I sit TEs don't even know what they believe, but like I said this is me and I'm pretty simple minded and am probably not intellectually capable of understanding.

I don't think that's the case. If it's confusing, it's probably because we don't all think the same things. But I'm guessing that what I just wrote is part of a common denominator. My guess is that you're going to find that most of us tend to base the views that we hold on the following lines of reasoning:

- Theological understanding of the relationship between God and Nature.
- (as a semi-related point) The role of general revelation in moderating our understanding of special revelation.
- Hermeneutics involving literary-form identification and contextualization.

Which of these a particular individual sees as "the big one" probably varies. But I think you can probably categorize any and all TE* arguments as one of these. The first two apply to evolution, itself. The third applies regardless of whether evolution is an accurate way of understanding the origin of the species.

* - TE being a Christian evolutionist, in the context of these forums.

 

[vossler]

Since you admit to not understanding methodological naturalism and have stopped trying, why do continue to criticise TEs because we do not ascribe to your 'God of the gaps' apologetic?

My 'criticisms' are not related to God of the gaps apologetics.

Just because you so humbly admit to be simple minded doesn't mean that your lack of comprehension is in any way a reflection of the veracity of the views of the people you cannot (will not) agree with and the confidence with which they hold those views.

How can one agree with something that one doesn't understand?

 

[vossler]

I don't think that's the case. If it's confusing, it's probably because we don't all think the same things. But I'm guessing that what I just wrote is part of a common denominator. My guess is that you're going to find that most of us tend to base the views that we hold on the following lines of reasoning:

- Theological understanding of the relationship between God and Nature.
- (as a semi-related point) The role of general revelation in moderating our understanding of special revelation.
- Hermeneutics involving literary-form identification and contextualization.

Which of these a particular individual sees as "the big one" probably varies. But I think you can probably categorize any and all TE* arguments as one of these. The first two apply to evolution, itself. The third applies regardless of whether evolution is an accurate way of understanding the origin of the species.

* - TE being a Christian evolutionist, in the context of these forums.

First of all I want to thank you for not being antagonistic with me. I appreciate your easy going demeanor and attitude.

Much of what you say here is correct. YECs are far more consistent with their beliefs, thereby that makes it far easier to understand their worldview. When you have three areas where such diversity exists within a group it isn't any wonder that a wide range of views exists. Then when you have YECs viewing the same areas fairly uniformally but from an entirely different perspective, well let's just say it creates difficulties.

 

[vossler]

Ah. But even this isn't biblical.

Proverbs 25:2 says:

It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings.

But the point was that when found it couldn't be attributed to God. From everything I've heard evolution cannot be attributed to God, so if one was to search out the matter and couldn't find God in it then where does God get the glory?

Dueteronomy 4:29 states: But from there you will seek the LORD your God and you will find him, if you search after him with all your heart and with all your soul.

If I seek God in evolution I won't find him there. Notice it said we were to seek Him with all our heart and soul, not our mind, yet evolution doesn't come from the heart or soul but from the mind.

 

[Crazy Liz]

Thread closed for staff review.

 

[stumpjumper]

MOD HAT ON

Thread has been cleaned up and is now being reopened. Please post within forum rules and do not flame, bait, or disrespect other members. Also, do not accuse other members of violating forum rules within the thread. Please use the report function.

MOD HAT OFF

 

[steen]

Here's the bottom line, TEs believe in the evolutionary process, most agnostics and atheists do too.

"believe" is actually incorrect terminology. We accept scientific evidence generated through the Scientific Method.

Using that as our foundation what good does it do for a TE to continually dismiss a YEC arguments when the YEC is trying to glorify God.

Because YEC does so through bearing false witness about science. When the discussion is about the science, then making false claims about science should certainly be expected to be challenged.

The solution would be for YEC to not make claims about science unless they have actual. scientific evidence.

All the TE is doing is agreeing with a non-believer that another believer is ignorant and basically a fool.

About science? Yes, when the YEC posts claims that shows just that. Therein lies the problem. You expect us to condone what we know is outright false.

No where in this process does the TE distinguish himself from the atheist and/or agnostic.

because, when the YEC makes false claims, the issue is not the motive, not whether it is done for or against God, but rather that the claim is false.

Somehow, somewhere God and His awesome splendor should be recognized.

And it is, every time we are talking about God. When we are talking about a YEC false claim about science, then we are no longer talking about God, we are talking about false witnessing.

But then, when we show the atheist that Christians can post about science without making false claims, and contrary to the standoffish behavior that atheists see as so disgusting, we are actually witnessing to atheists that honesty and Christian Faith goes together, contrary to what the atheists see as Christians always lying.

If you look at the quotes you provided, they are not statements or flat out accusations but questions asking fellow believers if he was on the right track, thinking properly. Hardly slamming TEs in the midst of unbelievers and chuckling.

Yes it is, actually. When we question the YEC about their false claims, suddenly it is not questioning, but rather accusations? Sauce for the goose....

 

[steen]

...You're getting to the core issue here. If everything can be attributed to science, we have no need for God, science is our god.

Not true. Science is merely a tool. The Faith in God is based on just that, faith. It is not a "need" for evidence, but a need for God that leaves God. Science in no way diminishes this or "disproves" God. It merely disproves YEC. My faith is not based on Scientific Evidence. I don't need a tangible God that I can "prove." That would be no different than the Israelites needing a Golden Calf to symbolize God. They also could not hold God in their faith and needed a physical example of God to see what they worshiped.

We look to science for all our answers and science provides.

In the physical world where such answers need to be proven, yes. "God did it" doesn't do much for scientific work, new antibiotics or exploration of diseases.

Providence would be nothing more than nature (science) doing what comes naturally. This sure sounds like atheistic/agnostic evolution.

No, your presentation sounds like YEC can't hold faith in God without being able to provide a proof of God. I have a problem with that assertion, as that indeed is a God-of-the-Gaps idea. As science/evidence fills out those gaps, God is diminished, causing a need to fight facts, fight the truth. It means that YEC faith is based on science not being able to fill the gaps, thus leading YEC to HAVE to deny science to not detract from God. I find that position untenable.

 

[steen]

My 'criticisms' are not related to God of the gaps apologetics.

Your arguments sure are.

How can one agree with something that one doesn't understand?

If you don't understand it, how can you criticize it?

 

[LewisWildermuth]

But the point was that when found it couldn't be attributed to God. From everything I've heard evolution cannot be attributed to God, so if one was to search out the matter and couldn't find God in it then where does God get the glory?

Dueteronomy 4:29 states: But from there you will seek the LORD your God and you will find him, if you search after him with all your heart and with all your soul.

If I seek God in evolution I won't find him there. Notice it said we were to seek Him with all our heart and soul, not our mind, yet evolution doesn't come from the heart or soul but from the mind.

I am sorry that you cannot seem to see God when you look at science and its results. I am in awe of Gods works and the wonders of His creation every time I study a topic in science.

It saddens me that you cannot seem to see God without a man-made neon sign saying “God was here.”

But it is not TE’s fault that you cannot see God without help. So please quit blaming us.