Video Dialogue on Creation and Evolution

[pgp_protector]

So, please give me a solid example on how did God work on evolution. Which evolution process, or special situation, is touched by the finger of God? What would happen to that particular evolution process if God did not do the magic touch?

Same way he works with the weather. or do you reject what Jesus stated in Matthew 5:45?

that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.

 

[juvenissun]

TEs don't generally believe God intervenes, juvie. Most TEs here believe that God sustains. He sustains evolution the same way He sustains gravity, the climate, or human development. Honestly, if you have a problem with theistic evolution, you should similarly have a problem with theistic gravity, theistic climatology, or theistic human development. Your problem apparently isn't with evolution uniquely, it's with science in general. You have no robust theology of nature.

Gravity, climate, weather would go nowhere no matter how do they change. But evolution is different. It says chimp changed to human. This is beyond just sustaining.

 

[gluadys]

As for the human birth, I have argued this in another thread. The reproduction of life is biology. If you like, you may say it is a process of evolution. But human spirit is not reproduced by any biological process. By the spirit, not by his or her body, a human individual is identified. In this critical sense, human is not evolved from anything or from anyone, which include the parents.

That is basically the same position as outlined by the Catholic church. And it fully allows for evolution. Just like reproduction, evolution is a biological process. It accounts for the development of biological form but it doesn't say anything about the origin of the human spirit. So if that is what is essential to you, you can certainly say that our spirit did not originate through evolution, just as it does not originate through bodily reproduction of the individual. But our biological nature did evolve.

(Some people would consider this too dualist, but that's a different issue.)

Originally Posted by gluadys

Hominid.

I don't think so. Some told me once the name of an ape species.

Don't worry about it. In its own time, the common ancestor would be one of several similar species. Even if we found fossils of all of them, it would be anyone's guess as to which one of them we came from. Someone may have suggested a fossil, like the one found in Chad, that are very close to the chimp/human division, but there is no way of knowing that any particular fossil species is the common ancestor. Might be his cousin instead.

 

[Mallon]

Gravity, climate, weather would go nowhere no matter how do they change.

That made no grammatical sense. Please check your posts, juvie.

But evolution is different. It says chimp changed to human. This is beyond just sustaining.

Please stop lying, juvie. You were told that evolution does not say that chimps turned into humans, and you continue to promote such a false idea. You want to accuse evolutionary creationists of being unChristian, but it appears the only one here being dishonest is you.
You also failed to explain how evolution is any different from other natural processes, as you say.

 

[Assyrian]

I am not condemning anyone. I expressed my opinion that to believe in evolution is, in fact, a sin.

Glad you realise this view is just your own opinion, but it was still condemning your fellow believers of sin. It was only the Pharisees' opinion that the disciples were breaking the Sabbath when they picked the ears of wheat, yet when they criticised the disciples by expressing their opinion, Jesus described it as condemning the innocent.

Supporting evolution by scientific evidences may not be a sinful act. But discredits God's creation by evolution is a sin.

If evolution discredits God creation does obstetrics discredit the miracle of childbirth?

Ask yourself: when a TE person explain/argue evolution to/with people, where is the role of God in his/her argument? That is the most obvious expression of sin.

I mention God all the time when I discuss evolution, but if the conversation is about the biological process or genetic and fossil evidence, why shouldn't the conversation be about biology genetics and fossils? Is there a certain percentage of references to God we need of the conversation is a sin? A tithe of our post perhaps? This is even more bizarre, you are creating new laws to bind the church and simply to have an excuse to condemn TE. When a Christian obstetrician discusses a woman's pregnancy is it sin to have a conversation when God does not have a role in the discussion? What about a Christian weather presenter, should he fall down on his knees and weep hot tears if he didn't mention God in the weather forecast? This is ridiculous Juv. And it is really unhealthy to cast yourself in the role of Pharisee looking for excuses to condemn youre fellow believers because you don't like evolution.

As for the human birth, I have argued this in another thread. The reproduction of life is biology. If you like, you may say it is a process of evolution. But human spirit is not reproduced by any biological process. By the spirit, not by his or her body, a human individual is identified. In this critical sense, human is not evolved from anything or from anyone, which include the parents.

So really evolution is no more an issue than human reproductive biology? So why do creationist argue so vehemently against one and not the other? But neither evolution nor obstetrics say anything about the human spirit, they neither include the spirit nor exclude it, so the spirit is no more an issue for evolution or obstetrics than God creating each new life.

Incidentally, you seem in your other posts to insist TEs show exactly how God is involved in evolution where he interacts with his 'magic touch'. Well can you explain when in gestation God places the spirit in the embryo, how he puts the spirit in the child and where it enters, and how the non material spirit interacts with the molecules and cells of the body. It seems to me your Spirit Embryology "is a very very immature idea and there is no established content of this idea. This is THE major flaw of (S.E.) to me." Of course TE has only been around a century and a half, the church has had two thousand years to try to figure out ensoulment and the spirit.

 

[juvenissun]

Glad you realise this view is just your own opinion, but it was still condemning your fellow believers of sin. It was only the Pharisees' opinion that the disciples were breaking the Sabbath when they picked the ears of wheat, yet when they criticised the disciples by expressing their opinion, Jesus described it as condemning the innocent.

This is an issue.

So what do you think is the proper way for me to express my opinion? Or you are saying that I should not express my opinion?

How could I voice my opposition without condemning people? To believe in evolution either is or is not sin. How would you express either opinion differently? I don't want to talk like a politician, who can say yes, but means no.

As many people said, one of the biggest problems for churches today is that they are afraid of proclaiming the inconvenient truth. Because there are too many people like YOU!

 

[juvenissun]

I mention God all the time when I discuss evolution, but if the conversation is about the biological process or genetic and fossil evidence, why shouldn't the conversation be about biology genetics and fossils? Is there a certain percentage of references to God we need of the conversation is a sin? A tithe of our post perhaps? This is even more bizarre, you are creating new laws to bind the church and simply to have an excuse to condemn TE. When a Christian obstetrician discusses a woman's pregnancy is it sin to have a conversation when God does not have a role in the discussion? What about a Christian weather presenter, should he fall down on his knees and weep hot tears if he didn't mention God in the weather forecast? This is ridiculous Juv. And it is really unhealthy to cast yourself in the role of Pharisee looking for excuses to condemn youre fellow believers because you don't like evolution.

Good question and every TE should listen.

In the discussion of evolution, every TE should bring God into the argument. The role of God in a particular event/process of evolution should be explained. That is the hallmark of TE. Otherwise, it becomes an atheistic argument.

 

[juvenissun]

Incidentally, you seem in your other posts to insist TEs show exactly how God is involved in evolution where he interacts with his 'magic touch'. Well can you explain when in gestation God places the spirit in the embryo, how he puts the spirit in the child and where it enters, and how the non material spirit interacts with the molecules and cells of the body. It seems to me your Spirit Embryology "is a very very immature idea and there is no established content of this idea. This is THE major flaw of (S.E.) to me." Of course TE has only been around a century and a half, the church has had two thousand years to try to figure out ensoulment and the spirit.

May be you are thinking that to a poor creationist, the answer would be no more than "the breath of God". In fact, this is a very interesting question, and the answer certainly goes way beyond the question itself. For example, one issue in the content of this question is simply: how do we listen to God. In fact, other contents of this question include a lot of studies. Most of them are not obviously religion related, and are not counted as rigorous science either. Examples include the near-death experience, or the free-will debate, etc.

See the worms in the can?

 

[Mallon]

I'm just to ask you straight out, juvie: Do you believe God is capable of acting through natural processes, or do you believe that He is limited to acting through miracles only? Your demand that evolutionary creationists identify where in the evolutionary process God stepped in makes it sound like you believe God is not a constant in nature, that He intervenes only occasionally to help things along. That's basically a form of deism. Are you a deist, juvie? Maybe you should look carefully at your own beliefs before you try condemning us for ours.

 

[crawfish]

OK, this is what I learned from you people:

There are suggested evolution processes. This understanding is the same for both TE and atheism. The difference is that TE further suggests the evolution processes also include God's intervention in addition to the biological/genetic mechanism.

But that is it. TE explains no more than that.

Based on this simple idea given by TE, I can ask hundreds of questions on the mechanism of God's intervention. This is the reason I said that this idea is simply a very primitive idea with no content. TE should be written as T/E because there is no connection between T and E. And this is the impression I got from all the videos.

The inevitable conclusion I can bring from your comments here is that if we cannot track the mechanism of God's direct intervention in something, then God is not responsible for it. Even if you give a downgraded role for God in the natural against the supernatural, you are still shrinking God's role in the ongoing creation. If you give credence to the contention that "randomness" excludes the input of God, then you've removed God from all sorts of processes such as weather.

Conversely, if you accept the fact that "randomness" is only due to our limited ability to perceive all of the inputs, and God is not limited in this way, then evolution is something that hardly can exclude God. And, assuming that only man can exert free will against God's designs, wouldn't the need for God to tweak and guide a natural process like evolution mean that He wasn't capable of getting it right the first time?

Sorry, J, but your arguments against TE have unacceptable consequences that limit the power of God. TE doesn't provide specific mechanisms for God's intervention because it does not have to; both natural and supernatural are both equally part of God's plan and equal evidence of God's power. You can't have it both ways - either God is sovereign or He is not.

 

[pgp_protector]

Repeating.

So, please give me a solid example on how did God work on evolution. Which evolution process, or special situation, is touched by the finger of God? What would happen to that particular evolution process if God did not do the magic touch?

Same way he works with the weather. or do you reject what Jesus stated in Matthew 5:45?

that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.

 

[Assyrian]

This is an issue.

So what do you think is the proper way for me to express my opinion? Or you are saying that I should not express my opinion?

How could I voice my opposition without condemning people? To believe in evolution either is or is not sin. How would you express either opinion differently? I don't want to talk like a politician, who can say yes, but means no.

As many people said, one of the biggest problems for churches today is that they are afraid of proclaiming the inconvenient truth. Because there are too many people like YOU!

What do you think Jesus would have said to the Pharisees if they asked him the same question? You have bought into the lies of creationist ministries that uses pharisaical condemnation as a weapon to proclaim their doctrine and keep creationists in the bondage of fear. Having swallowed their lies, should you express the venom yourself? I think before you go spreading the slander accusing your fellow believers of sin you should go back to the word of God and see if the accusation is true. And if you make the mistake of spreading the lies, and it is pointed out to you that it is without scriptural basis, shouldn't you have the grace to admit you got it wrong, rather than trying to defend your slander as expressing your opinion?

Good question and every TE should listen.

In the discussion of evolution, every TE should bring God into the argument. The role of God in a particular event/process of evolution should be explained. That is the hallmark of TE. Otherwise, it becomes an atheistic argument.

Actually there were a couple of questions in that. You haven't answered any of them.

May be you are thinking that to a poor creationist, the answer would be no more than "the breath of God". In fact, this is a very interesting question, and the answer certainly goes way beyond the question itself. For example, one issue in the content of this question is simply: how do we listen to God. In fact, other contents of this question include a lot of studies. Most of them are not obviously religion related, and are not counted as rigorous science either. Examples include the near-death experience, or the free-will debate, etc.

See the worms in the can?

No, I'm not making any assumption about Creationists taking the breath of God literally. But I was gleefully aware of can of worms I handed you. The question is one the church has wrestled with through the ages but never been able to come to any solid conclusions. I don't have a problem with that myself. There are many things where scripture does not give us answers, and I doubt you will be able to come to a more solid conclusion with near death experiences. We will probably need to go a bit further than that to get answers. I did think the can of worms was very handy for showing that you were demanding from TEs what you could never achieve yourself with your emphasis on the creation of the human spirit.

 

[Cabal]

But TE needs to include at least some T in E, which TE has never bothered to do. Not only that, TE always insists E by completely excluding the T.

Wrong.

TE merely maintains that special creation isn't empirically detectable.

Which is a reasonable point of view anyway.

 

[Cabal]

This is an issue.

So what do you think is the proper way for me to express my opinion? Or you are saying that I should not express my opinion?

How could I voice my opposition without condemning people? To believe in evolution either is or is not sin. How would you express either opinion differently? I don't want to talk like a politician, who can say yes, but means no.

As many people said, one of the biggest problems for churches today is that they are afraid of proclaiming the inconvenient truth. Because there are too many people like YOU!

And you clearly need to get out more if you think that actively condemning people will bring them into the fold.

Good question and every TE should listen.

In the discussion of evolution, every TE should bring God into the argument. The role of God in a particular event/process of evolution should be explained. That is the hallmark of TE. Otherwise, it becomes an atheistic argument.

No, it doesn't.

Something isn't atheistic by definition because it doesn't explicitly refer to God. False dichotomy fail.

And the whole point of TE is that it DOESN'T insist that special creation is detectable in any meaningful way, so your claims about the "hallmarks" of a position you have repeatedly mischaracterised from the beginning of this debate are somewhat irrelevant.

 

[juvenissun]

I'm just to ask you straight out, juvie: Do you believe God is capable of acting through natural processes, or do you believe that He is limited to acting through miracles only? Your demand that evolutionary creationists identify where in the evolutionary process God stepped in makes it sound like you believe God is not a constant in nature, that He intervenes only occasionally to help things along. That's basically a form of deism. Are you a deist, juvie? Maybe you should look carefully at your own beliefs before you try condemning us for ours.

According to the evolution model, the evolution process is happening everywhere on earth in every second. I do not believe God is directing or even sustaining such a process.

 

[juvenissun]

The inevitable conclusion I can bring from your comments here is that if we cannot track the mechanism of God's direct intervention in something, then God is not responsible for it. Even if you give a downgraded role for God in the natural against the supernatural, you are still shrinking God's role in the ongoing creation. If you give credence to the contention that "randomness" excludes the input of God, then you've removed God from all sorts of processes such as weather.

Conversely, if you accept the fact that "randomness" is only due to our limited ability to perceive all of the inputs, and God is not limited in this way, then evolution is something that hardly can exclude God. And, assuming that only man can exert free will against God's designs, wouldn't the need for God to tweak and guide a natural process like evolution mean that He wasn't capable of getting it right the first time?

Sorry, J, but your arguments against TE have unacceptable consequences that limit the power of God. TE doesn't provide specific mechanisms for God's intervention because it does not have to; both natural and supernatural are both equally part of God's plan and equal evidence of God's power. You can't have it both ways - either God is sovereign or He is not.

God can do everything.
But I don't believe He will control the evolution process for billions of years.

 

[juvenissun]

What do you think Jesus would have said to the Pharisees if they asked him the same question? You have bought into the lies of creationist ministries that uses pharisaical condemnation as a weapon to proclaim their doctrine and keep creationists in the bondage of fear. Having swallowed their lies, should you express the venom yourself? I think before you go spreading the slander accusing your fellow believers of sin you should go back to the word of God and see if the accusation is true. And if you make the mistake of spreading the lies, and it is pointed out to you that it is without scriptural basis, shouldn't you have the grace to admit you got it wrong, rather than trying to defend your slander as expressing your opinion?

Actually there were a couple of questions in that. You haven't answered any of them.

No, I'm not making any assumption about Creationists taking the breath of God literally. But I was gleefully aware of can of worms I handed you. The question is one the church has wrestled with through the ages but never been able to come to any solid conclusions. I don't have a problem with that myself. There are many things where scripture does not give us answers, and I doubt you will be able to come to a more solid conclusion with near death experiences. We will probably need to go a bit further than that to get answers. I did think the can of worms was very handy for showing that you were demanding from TEs what you could never achieve yourself with your emphasis on the creation of the human spirit.

You stalled on this argument. I don't read anything that worths a further argument.

 

[Mallon]

According to the evolution model, the evolution process is happening everywhere on earth in every second. I do not believe God is directing or even sustaining such a process.

Do you deny the existence of natural selection, then? Or do you simply deny that God acts in on-going natural processes?

 

[juvenissun]

Wrong.

TE merely maintains that special creation isn't empirically detectable.

Which is a reasonable point of view anyway.

Agree. But special creation is not the same as performing magic. How many such special creation happened in the history of evolution? Is it infinite?

 

[juvenissun]

Do you deny the existence of natural selection, then? Or do you simply deny that God acts in on-going natural processes?

I do not know what is the definition or the content of "natural selection".

I deny that God will act in the on-going natural process continuously for millions of years. Of course, I may reconsider if you don't think that the earth is so old.