Esther and Evolution

[juvenissun]

Do you ever pray "give us this day our daily bread"?

This will not work.

Suppose we have draught and starved. That is a type of environmental change. This change may add pressure to all life forms and you call that a process of evolution. So, let's hide God behind the change and simply call it the environmental factor in evolution. (I know that might be your idea of what TE is. But, as I said, it will not work).

The problem is that environmental change, along with other evolution "forces" does not make different life forms. For example, environmental pressure will never be enough to make chimp evolve to human, God does not change the environment hard enough to make it happen. See post by Grey.

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

Aha, I know now. Does TE attribute all the hard questions of evolution to God's intervention? For example, while it becomes hard to support the mechanism of human evolution (from chimp), the solution is that God says: LET IT HAPPEN ! So the critical difficulties were solved by God and the natural process can continue. Thus, the evolution is mostly natural process plus God's critical intervention (by supernatural action). Is this the major idea of TE?

No that is Old Earth Creationism.

Actually, OEC has varying degrees of acceptance of the theory of evolution (similar to YEC, only allowing for a longer length of time), but disagrees with universal common descent. Juvenissun's description is actually closer to what some Theistic Evolutionists believe.

 

[Assyrian]

Actually, OEC has varying degrees of acceptance of the theory of evolution (similar to YEC, only allowing for a longer length of time), but disagrees with universal common descent. Juvenissun's description is actually closer to what some Theistic Evolutionists believe.

OEC covers a wide rang of positions Gap theory to Progressive Creation, within Progressive Creation you can have progressive fiat creation, God performing separate acts of creation through geological history, there is also progressive mediated creation progressive creation by modification, where God intervenes and creates new forms by modifying the genetic code of existing species. Much of what we know as ID would come under this heading.

Check out ASA3's Theology of Creationism - Evolutionary, Progressive, and Young-Earth

 

[Assyrian]

This will not work.

Suppose we have draught and starved. That is a type of environmental change. This change may add pressure to all life forms and you call that a process of evolution. So, let's hide God behind the change and simply call it the environmental factor in evolution. (I know that might be your idea of what TE is. But, as I said, it will not work).

You seem to be denying two thousand years of Christian understanding of God working through providence as well as supernatural miracles. It is still a long way from farmers having good weather, to the bread ending up on your table. Doesn't God work in all things for the good for those who love him who are called according to his purpose? Jesus said his father send rain on the just and unjust (droughts not withstanding). Is he working with the laws of meteorology or miraculously suspending them each time it rains?

The problem is that environmental change, along with other evolution "forces" does not make different life forms. For example, environmental pressure will never be enough to make chimp evolve to human, God does not change the environment hard enough to make it happen. See post by Grey.

Unfortunately Greg has no concept of how evolution works, you would be much better off trying to learn about evolution from mallon.

 

[juvenissun]

OEC covers a wide rang of positions Gap theory to Progressive Creation, within Progressive Creation you can have progressive fiat creation, God performing separate acts of creation through geological history, there is also progressive mediated creation progressive creation by modification, where God intervenes and creates new forms by modifying the genetic code of existing species. Much of what we know as ID would come under this heading.

Check out ASA3's Theology of Creationism - Evolutionary, Progressive, and Young-Earth

This is good. Thank you.

 

[juvenissun]

You seem to be denying two thousand years of Christian understanding of God working through providence as well as supernatural miracles. It is still a long way from farmers having good weather, to the bread ending up on your table. Doesn't God work in all things for the good for those who love him who are called according to his purpose? Jesus said his father send rain on the just and unjust (droughts not withstanding). Is he working with the laws of meteorology or miraculously suspending them each time it rains?

Unfortunately Greg has no concept of how evolution works, you would be much better off trying to learn about evolution from mallon.

You gave me hints. But no matter how I tried, I still do not get it according to you. So, are you going to give me more hint or give me something better than a hint?

How does God work in TE?

If Jehovah God is not in the background of Esther story, would it make any difference?

If God is not in the background of evolution, will the evolution be any different?

 

[Greg1234]

This will not work.

Suppose we have draught and starved. That is a type of environmental change. This change may add pressure to all life forms and you call that a process of evolution. So, let's hide God behind the change and simply call it the environmental factor in evolution. (I know that might be your idea of what TE is. But, as I said, it will not work).

The problem is that environmental change, along with other evolution "forces" does not make different life forms. For example, environmental pressure will never be enough to make chimp evolve to human, God does not change the environment hard enough to make it happen. See post by Grey.

Environmental factors are also taken into consideration. When you approach the level of adaptability in bacteria you realize that they are designed to survive some of the most adverse conditions possible on earth, far surpassing a human. They do not need legs or arms or any appendage endowed upon them by Darwinists. And when you read the emerging documentation on the methodology of adaptation among other things, you realize that bacteria is actually leaving the physiology of hardiness sublime.

The fish turning into deers scenario counteracts the deers turning into whales declaration as fish coming on land have no food on land. With all their food coming from the ocean, efficiency and adaptation would be determined by the oceanic environment, not terrestrial. Darwin saw a bear catching fish in water and surmised that a bear will eventually turn into a whale. It was envisioned that the bear catching its prey in water would in fact yield a whale. But when it comes to ocean dwelling organisms which are already fish, the more they catch food in the ocean the more land dwelling they become.

 

[Assyrian]

You gave me hints. But no matter how I tried, I still do not get it according to you. So, are you going to give me more hint or give me something better than a hint?

How does God work in TE?

If Jehovah God is not in the background of Esther story, would it make any difference?

Creationists see God either intervening miraculously, or leaving the universe to carry on according to the laws he gave it. It is basically the 18th Century Rationalist view of the universe, only with God poking his head in every now and again. But the biblical view, and the view of Christianity throughout church history, is that God not only operates through supernatural action, but providentially, through natural processes themselves. As I pointed out before, Rom 8:28 in all things God works for the good of those who love him or for those who love God all things work together for good. Now I don't profess to understand how God works, or how he ensures that all things works together according to his purpose, just that he does, and seeing God at work behind the story of Esther, or evolution, is a deeply biblical understanding of how God works.

If God is not in the background of evolution, will the evolution be any different?

Apart from the question would the universe itself exist if God had not created it and if Christ did not sustain it by the word of his power? I am sure the God who feeds the young lions and the ravens probably fed some of our ancestors along the way too. Evolution would have happened but humans would probably not have emerged.

I like to think that God was responsible for Chicxulub, without it mammals would still be scurrying around and hiding in holes, but maybe some descendant of dromaeosaurs would have developed sentience and technology and you would have internet chatrooms filled with highly evolved velociraptors. Not much difference really

 

[Mallon]

Environmental factors are also taken into consideration. When you approach the level of adaptability in bacteria you realize that they are designed to survive some of the most adverse conditions possible on earth, far surpassing a human. They do not need legs or arms or any appendage endowed upon them by Darwinists. And when you read the emerging documentation on the methodology of adaptation among other things, you realize that bacteria is actually leaving the physiology of hardiness sublime.

The fish turning into deers scenario counteracts the deers turning into whales declaration as fish coming on land have no food on land. With all their food coming from the ocean, efficiency and adaptation would be determined by the oceanic environment, not terrestrial. Darwin saw a bear catching fish in water and surmised that a bear will eventually turn into a whale. It was envisioned that the bear catching its prey in water would in fact yield a whale. But when it comes to ocean dwelling organisms which are already fish, the more they catch food in the ocean the more land dwelling they become.

You really have zero idea what you're talking about.

 

[juvenissun]

Creationists see God either intervening miraculously, or leaving the universe to carry on according to the laws he gave it. It is basically the 18th Century Rationalist view of the universe, only with God poking his head in every now and again. But the biblical view, and the view of Christianity throughout church history, is that God not only operates through supernatural action, but providentially, through natural processes themselves. As I pointed out before, Rom 8:28 in all things God works for the good of those who love him or for those who love God all things work together for good. Now I don't profess to understand how God works, or how he ensures that all things works together according to his purpose, just that he does, and seeing God at work behind the story of Esther, or evolution, is a deeply biblical understanding of how God works.

Apart from the question would the universe itself exist if God had not created it and if Christ did not sustain it by the word of his power? I am sure the God who feeds the young lions and the ravens probably fed some of our ancestors along the way too. Evolution would have happened but humans would probably not have emerged.

I like to think that God was responsible for Chicxulub, without it mammals would still be scurrying around and hiding in holes, but maybe some descendant of dromaeosaurs would have developed sentience and technology and you would have internet chatrooms filled with highly evolved velociraptors. Not much difference really

To make the argument simple:

When reason about evolutional force, I have not heard about ANYTHING related to God. If God is supporting the whole process, this VITAL support is apparently having less than a minimum role in any scientific argument. The argument of evolution process given by TE and by atheist are essential "identical" (challenge anyone to give even ONE example, which shows the difference). TE will NEVER call any supernatural process to account for ANYTHING in evolution.

In this situation, how could the TE be a viable concept regard to evolution?

 

[Mallon]

To make the argument simple:

When reason about evolutional force, I have not heard about ANYTHING related to God. If God is supporting the whole process, this VITAL support is apparently having less than a minimum role in any scientific argument. The argument of evolution process given by TE and by atheist are essential "identical" (challenge anyone to give even ONE example, which shows the difference). TE will NEVER call any supernatural process to account for ANYTHING in evolution.

In this situation, how could the TE be a viable concept regard to evolution?

Would it be fair to say you are a deist, juvie?

 

[shernren]

To make the argument simple:

When reason about evolutional force, I have not heard about ANYTHING related to God. If God is supporting the whole process, this VITAL support is apparently having less than a minimum role in any scientific argument. The argument of evolution process given by TE and by atheist are essential "identical" (challenge anyone to give even ONE example, which shows the difference). TE will NEVER call any supernatural process to account for ANYTHING in evolution.

In this situation, how could the TE be a viable concept regard to evolution?

Well,

When I read the book of Esther, I do not read about ANYTHING related to God. If God is supporting the whole process, this VITAL support is apparently having less than a minimum role in any event described in the story. The story of Esther retold by a Christian and retold by an atheist are essentially "identical". And a Christian will NEVER see any supernatural process account for ANYTHING in the book of Esther.

In this situation, why is the book of Esther in the Bible?

 

[gluadys]

To make the argument simple:

When reason about evolutional force, I have not heard about ANYTHING related to God. If God is supporting the whole process, this VITAL support is apparently having less than a minimum role in any scientific argument.

Why would you expect it to have a role in scientific argument? TE is not about deviating from science. It is thinking about the science of evolution theologically. So it doesn't need to be part of a scientific argument. Its place is in discussions of theology.

In this situation, how could the TE be a viable concept regard to evolution?

It is viable in evolution because nothing in the theory of evolution displaces the creator. However, more importantly TE is a viable concept in regard to creation.

 

[Papias]

Originally Posted by juvenissun

To make the argument simple:

When reason about evolutional force, I have not heard about ANYTHING related to God. If God is supporting the whole process, this VITAL support is apparently having less than a minimum role in any scientific argument. The argument of evolution process given by TE and by atheist are essential "identical" (challenge anyone to give even ONE example, which shows the difference). TE will NEVER call any supernatural process to account for ANYTHING in evolution.

In this situation, how could the TE be a viable concept regard to evolution?

To make the argument simple:

When reason about gravitational force, I have not heard about ANYTHING related to God. If God is supporting the whole process, this VITAL support is apparently having less than a minimum role in any scientific argument. The argument of planetary motion given by Gravity Christians and by atheist are essential "identical" (challenge anyone to give even ONE example, which shows the difference). Gravity Christians will NEVER call any supernatural process to account for ANYTHING in planetary motion.

In this situation, how could the Gravity Christianity be a viable concept regard to planetary motion?
​

....and don't get me started about that atheistic "Algebra" stuff. No God anywhere. And obstetrics - how can a living organism with a tail transition into a human, with no supernatural intervention? There is still a gap in the transitionals at week 31.




​

 

[juvenissun]

Well,

When I read the book of Esther, I do not read about ANYTHING related to God. If God is supporting the whole process, this VITAL support is apparently having less than a minimum role in any event described in the story. The story of Esther retold by a Christian and retold by an atheist are essentially "identical". And a Christian will NEVER see any supernatural process account for ANYTHING in the book of Esther.

In this situation, why is the book of Esther in the Bible?

The Book of Esther is in the Bible because Esther is a Jew. And Jews are God's chosen people.

You may say Evolution started by God's Word. I have no problem with that. But if you say that the evolution history has been continuously affected by God, then I have to ask: How do you know? And how can I tell?

So, I think that you are comparing apple with orange.

 

[juvenissun]

Originally Posted by juvenissun

To make the argument simple:

When reason about gravitational force, I have not heard about ANYTHING related to God. If God is supporting the whole process, this VITAL support is apparently having less than a minimum role in any scientific argument. The argument of planetary motion given by Gravity Christians and by atheist are essential "identical" (challenge anyone to give even ONE example, which shows the difference). Gravity Christians will NEVER call any supernatural process to account for ANYTHING in planetary motion.

In this situation, how could the Gravity Christianity be a viable concept regard to planetary motion?
​

....and don't get me started about that atheistic "Algebra" stuff. No God anywhere. And obstetrics - how can a living organism with a tail transition into a human, with no supernatural intervention? There is still a gap in the transitionals at week 31.


​

So, God says: let there be gravity.

And, God also says: let life evolve.

Is that what TE to you?

If not, then when did God do anything "special" to the evolution? If there is no need for that, then how do you know if God does anything to evolution since it began?

 

[Mallon]

But if you say that the evolution history has been continuously affected by God, then I have to ask: How do you know? And how can I tell?

Faith.

 

[Papias]

Ya know, thanks for responding in a conversational tone, even though I was a bit flippant in my post.

So, God says: let there be gravity.

And, God also says: let life evolve.

Is that what TE to you?

No. What you are describing is a Deist position. As Mallon pointed out.

The Deist sees God as setting up the natural laws, and then leaving the universe (perhaps watching, but not acting).

My TE position (I can't speak for all TE's) is that God usually acts through his natural laws. This is an active God. I see God as often acting through these (such in making the many beneficial mutations we see). I don't rule out supernatural action by God, but I don't invoke it when it is not needed. For instance, in planetary motion, or in baby development. God does form the baby and move the planets, but he does so through his natural laws. That's not the deist position, because in my view, God is acting today.

Remember, most Bibles explicitly say that it is God who is moving the planets and forming babies in wombs.

Psalm 139:

For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother’s womb.
I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
your works are wonderful,
I know that full well.

So I think we both recognize that baby formation in the womb is well understood as the actions of chemistry and physics. Yet the Bibles say that God is doing it. How? Through his natural world, just as with evolution and so on.

Make sense?

If not, then when did God do anything "special" to the evolution?

I think that God's divine process of evolution is pretty darn "special" whether supernatural miracles are involved or not. Amazing and glorious, in fact. Anything that can transform pond scum into birds, bats, baseball players and baboons is pretty incredible, right? Jesus is an awesome God!

However, I can't rule out that God did directly intervene in addition to guiding the whole process. If I had to guess, I'd guess so, but I don't know, and it's a glorious divine process either way.

If there is no need for that, then how do you know if God does anything to evolution since it began?

If there is no need for supernatural intervention, then God did it all through his natural process. I don't know which is the case, and either way, it is God who is doing it.

It seems that there is a fundamental mental shift to expand God out from being limited to acting only supernaturally, to a God who acts both ways. Being that nearly all of the action in the world we see is natural, a God that only acts supernaturally is a pretty inactive God. See why I say that TE gives a much more grand, awesome God?

Papias

 

[juvenissun]

Ya know, thanks for responding in a conversational tone, even though I was a bit flippant in my post.

No. What you are describing is a Deist position. As Mallon pointed out.

The Deist sees God as setting up the natural laws, and then leaving the universe (perhaps watching, but not acting).

My TE position (I can't speak for all TE's) is that God usually acts through his natural laws. This is an active God. I see God as often acting through these (such in making the many beneficial mutations we see). I don't rule out supernatural action by God, but I don't invoke it when it is not needed. For instance, in planetary motion, or in baby development. God does form the baby and move the planets, but he does so through his natural laws. That's not the deist position, because in my view, God is acting today.

Remember, most Bibles explicitly say that it is God who is moving the planets and forming babies in wombs.

Psalm 139:

For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother’s womb.
I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
your works are wonderful,
I know that full well.

So I think we both recognize that baby formation in the womb is well understood as the actions of chemistry and physics. Yet the Bibles say that God is doing it. How? Through his natural world, just as with evolution and so on.

Make sense?



I think that God's divine process of evolution is pretty darn "special" whether supernatural miracles are involved or not. Amazing and glorious, in fact. Anything that can transform pond scum into birds, bats, baseball players and baboons is pretty incredible, right? Jesus is an awesome God!

However, I can't rule out that God did directly intervene in addition to guiding the whole process. If I had to guess, I'd guess so, but I don't know, and it's a glorious divine process either way.

If there is no need for supernatural intervention, then God did it all through his natural process. I don't know which is the case, and either way, it is God who is doing it.

It seems that there is a fundamental mental shift to expand God out from being limited to acting only supernaturally, to a God who acts both ways. Being that nearly all of the action in the world we see is natural, a God that only acts supernaturally is a pretty inactive God. See why I say that TE gives a much more grand, awesome God?

Papias

I have no problem if God intervenes the evolution process by supernatural means.

But if God only "supports" evolution through the natural laws, then we do not need to mention God in the whole processes of evolution. The problem with that is that we can not see His support either. In contrast, we do see the support of God in the story of Esther.

TE is reluctant to give up either one of these two incompatible choices.

The Psalm you quoted says: Creation !

 

[Greg1234]

Jesus is an awesome God!