Evolution vs. Theology

[mark kennedy]

I realize your running the gauntlet and I don't want to distract you with a petty distraction but I would suggest you reconsider the use of this term.

4) Evolution involves creation through death, etc.

I realize it's a semantical point but that's really not what evolution means. What your describing is natural selection, the death of the less fit. God always intended that living creatures should adapt and change over time. They will and would have evolved no matter whether Adam sinned or not, the death of the less fit is incidental to the actual molecular mechanisms that facilitate the actual adaptations.

I think it's important to realize that there are two concepts being blended into the use of this term, 'evolution'. Darwinism is piggybacking into the life sciences by being equivocated with evolution and they are not the same thing.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Achilles6129]

I realize your running the gauntlet and I don't want to distract you with a petty distraction but I would suggest you reconsider the use of this term.

Thanks for the support

I realize it's a semantical point but that's really not what evolution means. What your describing is natural selection, the death of the less fit. God always intended that living creatures should adapt and change over time. They will and would have evolved no matter whether Adam sinned or not, the death of the less fit is incidental to the actual molecular mechanisms that facilitate the actual adaptations.

What I mean of course is that God set the initial conditions of his creation to include death. Death did not enter into the creation as the result of the fall - death for animals/humans (or whatever you think evolved into humans) was there at the beginning. God's initial creation is going to be a reflection of his nature (as shown in Genesis 1). To believe this, then, you have to believe that death is a part of the nature of God.

The problem, of course, is obvious. Death is abhorrent to God in Scripture and is against his nature, which is life. Death is cast into the lake of fire at the end of Revelation. Death is God's enemy. So theistic evolutionists have a considerable theological problem on their hands.

 

[Assyrian]

What I mean of course is that God set the initial conditions of his creation to include death. Death did not enter into the creation as the result of the fall - death for animals/humans (or whatever you think evolved into humans) was there at the beginning. God's initial creation is going to be a reflection of his nature (as shown in Genesis 1). To believe this, then, you have to believe that death is a part of the nature of God.

The problem, of course, is obvious. Death is abhorrent to God in Scripture and is against his nature, which is life. Death is cast into the lake of fire at the end of Revelation. Death is God's enemy. So theistic evolutionists have a considerable theological problem on their hands.

Wasn't Christ's death on the cross for us part of God's original plan from before the foundation of the world?

 

[mark kennedy]

Thanks for the support

Anytime, love the way you handle yourself.

What I mean of course is that God set the initial conditions of his creation to include death. Death did not enter into the creation as the result of the fall - death for animals/humans (or whatever you think evolved into humans) was there at the beginning. God's initial creation is going to be a reflection of his nature (as shown in Genesis 1). To believe this, then, you have to believe that death is a part of the nature of God.

The problem, of course, is obvious. Death is abhorrent to God in Scripture and is against his nature, which is life. Death is cast into the lake of fire at the end of Revelation. Death is God's enemy. So theistic evolutionists have a considerable theological problem on their hands.

I know what your saying, my problem is how evolution and Darwinian natural selection are the same thing to most people, nothing could be farther from the truth. Things evolve, that is adapt, by means of God's provision at creation not because of the death of the less fit. I just hate to see Darwinism equated with science and evolution when it moves people further and further away from how life actually evolves.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[gluadys]

Which is logical positivism, an epistemology poplar among Modernists.



YEC has never been deistic, the proposition is absurd.

Yet on this page of another thread you voiced a completely Deistic notion that God has no relationship with nature other than miraculous interposition.


http://www.christianforums.com/t7791373-11/

See post 101 & ff.

The only difference between you and a Deist is that you think God does work miracles after creation and the Deist thinks he does not.

Both you and the Deist exclude God from working with nature on a daily basis as described in scripture, for example, to form embryos in the womb and grow plants from seed, to bring rain in due season and provide prey for hungry young lions. None of those things are miraculous interpositions but they are all works of God according to scripture.


And I don't think you are unique among creationists in this respect. I have seldom if ever seen a creationist fully affirm God's constant interaction with nature. It seems that for creationists God is not ever-present, but an occasional visitor.

 

[Sayre]

Wasn't Christ's death on the cross for us part of God's original plan from before the foundation of the world?

1 Pe 1:20-21.

Yes.

 

[gluadys]

I realize your running the gauntlet and I don't want to distract you with a petty distraction but I would suggest you reconsider the use of this term.

4) Evolution involves creation through death, etc.

I realize it's a semantical point but that's really not what evolution means. What your describing is natural selection, the death of the less fit.

I would say you are both incorrect. Natural selection is not the death of the less fit; it is the preferential reproduction of the more fit.

After all, even the fittest die, so it is not as if death selects anything. Sometimes even the most fit do not even get to reproduce while some of the less fit do get to reproduce.

But on average the more fit reproduce more frequently and their offspring reproduce more frequently.

That is natural selection.

 

[Keachian]

Which is logical positivism, an epistemology poplar among Modernists.

Not entirely, but epistemology isn't my strong point and I don't feel like getting into a wrangling match with you about the finer details of post-enlightenment epistemological trends.

YEC has never been deistic, the proposition is absurd.

Please note that I did not say that it was something inherent in YEC but rather much of evangelicalism and also I was not accusing them of deism proper but rather functional providential deism, as Gladys rightly points out it is about limiting God's interaction with creation to only miraculous interposition. It is an enlightenment/post-enlightenment idea that is contradicted by Scripture.

Creation is first and foremost a transcendent doctrinal truth, God has been involved in human affairs since the beginning, to this day, unto the end of the age.

I would affirm this statement quite happily, but I feel I must ask in what way is God involved, is it merely as an observer? Or is he intimately guiding us through life for his glory?

The Modernist deprecates miracles something no self respecting YEC would ever do.

That may be the case, however that is not something I'm worried about as I'd have the same problem with the Modernist that I have with you. God's intimacy with creation is evident in both the miraculous and the natural.

 

[mark kennedy]

Not entirely, but epistemology isn't my strong point and I don't feel like getting into a wrangling match with you about the finer details of post-enlightenment epistemological trends.

Fair enough...

Please note that I did not say that it was something inherent in YEC but rather much of evangelicalism and also I was not accusing them of deism proper but rather functional providential deism, as Gladys rightly points out it is about limiting God's interaction with creation to only miraculous interposition. It is an enlightenment/post-enlightenment idea that is contradicted by Scripture.

Which is nothing close to what YEC maintains, Gladys is completely off center with that one. I have yet to see a single creationist who advocates a 'functional providential deism, most of them are fundamentalists and evangelicals with a devotional focus seeking God's interaction whether providential or miraculous. Deism is the old idea of a clockmaker who makes the clock and has nothing more to do with it, it was a common view in the Enlightenment and Post-Enlightenment eras. It credits God with providence but never admits to a miracle. There is no such thing as a form of Deism that limits God's interaction to miracles, it's absurd.

I would affirm this statement quite happily, but I feel I must ask in what way is God involved, is it merely as an observer? Or is he intimately guiding us through life for his glory?

The word can have a supernatural connotation that makes it awkward, miracles are really the idea of power being exercised. New birth is a miracle, no two ways about it but when the sinner repents and starts to make moral judgments based on new convictions it's not exactly a supernatural activity. God speaks to your heart and you find a new perspective on how a problem or situation should be understood. Indeed you could consider it a miracle because God is involved but it's not the same as the signs, miracles and wonders the confirmed the Scriptures as they were being established during the time of Christ and the Apostles for example.

Guess it just all depends.

That may be the case, however that is not something I'm worried about as I'd have the same problem with the Modernist that I have with you. God's intimacy with creation is evident in both the miraculous and the natural.

I have no issues with God's intimate relationship with creation, it wouldn't hamper it if I did. The problem with the Modernist is that they limit God's interaction with creation to naturalistic causes and that is done under the influence of profoundly worldly philosophies like Darwinism.

Indeed, Creationists could stand to learn more about science and especially the life sciences, at least I think they could. But they are not making the slightest effort to limit God's interaction with creation whether providential or otherwise. Theistic Evolution has a single focus, refuting Creationists. The only distinctive that marks a Creationist is an insistence on a literal reading of Genesis. It comes down to a single issue and that issue is whether or not miracles can be considered historically verifiable events, creation being the most transcendent.

I won't belabor the point but if your honestly thinking that Creationism is a profession or a defense of some kind of Deistic mentality where God's interaction is only through miracles you have grossly misunderstood Creationism. It also demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of Deism for that matter.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Keachian]

Which is nothing close to what YEC maintains, Gladys is completely off center with that one. I have yet to see a single creationist who advocates a 'functional providential deism, most of them are fundamentalists and evangelicals with a devotional focus seeking God's interaction whether providential or miraculous.

That is why the term functional is attached, by arguing against the natural as God's working they have a functional denial of God's imminence, the discussion being centered around God's providence is why providential is there and the fact that this ends up looking similar to deism in this respect is partly why deism is there.

Deism is the old idea of a clockmaker who makes the clock and has nothing more to do with it, it was a common view in the Enlightenment and Post-Enlightenment eras. It credits God with providence but never admits to a miracle.

Well, no and that's where I feel you are borrowing too much from this trend, if God's providence can be limited to a "winding up the clock, and letting it go" and still be called providential care then we are straying too far from the Biblical truth. God is intimate with his creation even in its fallen state, he still tells the winds blow here and they do, he still commands the rain to fall on the just and unjust.

There is no such thing as a form of Deism that limits God's interaction to miracles, it's absurd.

The term deism, has grown through its use in philosophical and theological parlance, at this point in time it quite often is used to talk about a lack of theistic imminence (see therapeutic moralistic deism) In the same way I feel that through discussions in the trenches of theological battles in reaction to (possibly a badly integrated) naturalism in providence there are starting to emerge trends of functional providential deism.

The word can have a supernatural connotation that makes it awkward, miracles are really the idea of power being exercised. New birth is a miracle, no two ways about it but when the sinner repents and starts to make moral judgments based on new convictions it's not exactly a supernatural activity.

I think there may be a chasm of disconnect between this statement and your acceptance of the Doctrines of Grace, the Canons of Dordt, Westminster Confession and 2nd London Baptist Confession all view both the Justification and Sanctification of the Elect as wholly supernatural activities worked in the believer by the Holy Spirit to the Glory of God.

I have no issues with God's intimate relationship with creation, it wouldn't hamper it if I did.

The more I talk to you on this subject the more difficult you make it for me to believe this.

Theistic Evolution has a single focus, refuting Creationists.

Well maybe it is not right to label myself as a theistic evolutionist then, I'm far more worried about the silent acceptance by people across the Christian spectrum of a naturalism that is divorced from God's intimate providential guidance and largely I see this in some of the objections to theistic evolution

The only distinctive that marks a Creationist is an insistence on a literal reading of Genesis.

I do not think that literary literalism is the intention, give me historical grammatical literalism any day.

It comes down to a single issue and that issue is whether or not miracles can be considered historically verifiable events, creation being the most transcendent.

This is another beef of mine especially when it comes to you wanting to claim a Calvinistic worldview (though the fact that you dismiss covenantalism and instead go for dispensationalism may explain this) the transcendant miracle in the Calvinistic worldview is the Incarnation, Life, Death, Burial, and Resurrection of Christ Jesus our Lord and the birth of his Church which he unites to himself through his Incarnation, Life, Death, Burial, and Resurrection, to replace Christ with Creation is to attack Solus Christus and Soli Deo Gloria. Creation is God's means to his goal, Christ is his goal.

I won't belabor the point but if your honestly thinking that Creationism is a profession or a defense of some kind of Deistic mentality where God's interaction is only through miracles you have grossly misunderstood Creationism. It also demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of Deism for that matter.

I fully realise that the intention of Creationism in its purest form is not functional providential deism, the problem is that far too often the overriding view of God's providence in Christianity as a whole is not a Biblical one but rather functional providential deism purely because we live in a culture where philosophically that is what is presented to us and ingrained in our thinking as to where God stops and nature begins and so often people who think they are defending Creationism end up defending FPD and people who think they are defending TE end up defending FPD and so it ends up more being a battle over which form of FPD is better than a discussion about the Biblical view of providence.

 

[toLiJC]

Who wins? How to theistic evolutionists reconcile theology with evolution? What about the Scriptures?

what is better, billions of years vanity and death, or 5-6 millennia under sin?! - there is hardly a biological or reincarnational evolution

Blessings

 

[Papias]

mark wrote:

I never said it was defined by me, I said it was by defined by Darwin.

But it's not. I've asked you several times now for any place where Darwin says "here is the definition of Darwinism", and you don't seem to have one. Dictionaries are where we get definitions. Well, at least those of us who aren't making up our own definitions by searching for quotes and suggesting that they say what we wanted in the first place.

Your purple definition doesn't tell you what Darwin's theory is nor does it explain his grand fathers fascination with mythic naturalistic gradualism.

...... because those things are not relevant. It also doesn't give the price of tea in china, nor the political views of his great great grandmother.

You are not redefining Darwinism here, your rationalizing the term down. Having gutted it of it's essential meaning you pretend it's a correction but it's little more then a diversion.

Um, no, I'm simply giving the actual definition. You know, the one in the dictionary?

This is Darwinism from the Darwins themselves:

"ORGANIC LIFE beneath the shoreless waves
Was born and nurs'd in Ocean's pearly caves;
First forms minute, unseen by spheric glass,
Move on the mud, or pierce the watery mass;
These, as successive generations bloom
New powers acquire, and larger limbs assume;
Whence countless groups of vegetation spring,
And breathing realms of fin, and feet, and wing.
​

(The Temple of Nature, By Erasmus Darwin)

Hold on, now you are giving additional different definitions? See, that's why we use dicitonaries.

Whether abiogenesis required a supernatural miracle is unknown, and irrelevant anyway.

Abiogenesis is impossible so how life came to be apart from God's work in creation is moot.

All things are possible with God.

And more to the point - life isn't, and never has been, apart from God's work of creation. After all, it IS God's work of creation.
​

You right that it's irrelevant but the clear testimony of Scripture and faith is that God is the Creator of life not the Guider of change.

God is not the guider of change? I say He is. Ever talk with a changed alcoholic, or another Christian whom God changed? God is all about change.

Oh, that's right - you say that if there isn't a non-physical miracle, the God is not around.

As I asked on the other thread, do you have a quote where Darwin says "Darwinism is defined as...."? Not that it would matter anyway, since as explained before, we get definitions from dictionaries.

Darwin is not required to define his theory in your words, it's not a magical incantation that must include the words 'defined as'.

Of course he isn't required to define it. That's why he didn't. I'm guessing Darwin knew of dictionaries as I do.

No matter where the conversation starts it always goes back to the same fallacious ad hominem attacks.

I gave a link where Metherion listed at length your ad-hominem attacks (just in that one thread). Please let me know where I attacked you personally in this thread, and I'll apologize.

The text is clear that we were made from pre-existing material, and the dust of the ground existed before apes.

It's also clear that Adam was not alive until God breathed life into him, making him a living soul. The Hebrew term for it is 'bara' and it excludes any inference of a living ape becoming a human being.

The Hebrew word for "breath" means "spirit". Thus, it seems to me (and to many Christian theologians) that Genesis there is talking about the soul.

So then you concede the point? I was resonding to where you said that God didn't use pre-existing material, and pointing that the text explictly says that he did. So you agree that God used pre-existing material now?

If you'd like to review the last time we talked about the possible details of Adam and Eve, I can do so. Remember? I laid out several possibilities.

You laid out none, you simply argue that they evolved from apes.

mark, I did so right in my debate with you, in this post(http://www.christianforums.com/t7554304/).
​

If you've heard Pope Benedict do so, then you've obviously heard a Theistic Evolutionist do so, since Benedict clearly supports Theistic Evolution.

Pope Benedict, like the RCC, reminds Catholics during every baptism and every Easter that Creation, the Incarnation and the Resurrection are inextricably linked and essential doctrine.

Of course, like any Theistic Evolution supporter, he sees God as the creator of everying as per John 1.

No where does Pope Benedict use the term 'theistic evolution' but why would he, he supports an intelligent design worldview.

He doesn't have to, since he spells it out over and over for everyone to see. Remember, we had a whole debate about this, anyone can read in at the link giving above. Look, it's not just me pointing out that the RCC position is Theistic Evolution, it's widely recognized - well, except, apparently, by you.

In the book, Benedict defended what is known as 'theistic evolution', the view held by Roman Catholic, Orthodox and mainline Protestant churches,

Pope Benedict 'believes in evolution' | Mail Online​

What you are calling theistic evolution is really a part of a much bigger worldview. AKA Modernism, ....

Um, no. It sounds like you are making up your own personal definitions again.

In other words, Humani Generis is warning against the dangers of theistic evolution.

You mean "in mark's words......"

And just for good measure, I'll do so too:

I warn against the dangers of modernism.

I'm a Theistic Evolution supporter, right?

Pointless...

​

So do you agree now that you know of at least one (and with Pope Benedict, two) examples of Theistic Evolution supporters warning against modernism?

you didn't answer the question. I asked what you thought of all those hundreds of saintly miracles. So, what do you think of them?

I think the RCC will exhaust naturalistic explanations before accepting them as miracles.

Sounds like you are still not answering the question. You had accused me of rejecting all miracles, and I pointed out that I accept at least hundreds of them. I'm asking if you accept the hundreds of miracles attributed to Catholic saints.

Blessings-

Papias

 

[mark kennedy]

That is why the term functional is attached, by arguing against the natural as God's working they have a functional denial of God's imminence, the discussion being centered around God's providence is why providential is there and the fact that this ends up looking similar to deism in this respect is partly why deism is there.

It's baseless, the Theistic Evolutionist position is far closer to Deism due to the naturalistic assumptions requisite in their Darwinian orientation. Deism is marked by it's categorical rejection of miracles which is the defining feature of Darwinian presuppositional logic. There is no such presumption in YEC, in fact the prevalence of miracles in their orientation is the very thing they are criticized for in the first place. The YEC in no way negates the reliance of Providence and God's fixed mechanisms he need not micromanage, natural law and natural rights for example.

Like I have always said with regards to the baseless rationalization. It's absurd.

Well, no and that's where I feel you are borrowing too much from this trend, if God's providence can be limited to a "winding up the clock, and letting it go" and still be called providential care then we are straying too far from the Biblical truth. God is intimate with his creation even in its fallen state, he still tells the winds blow here and they do, he still commands the rain to fall on the just and unjust.

God is always in control, there is no warrant from doctrine or convention that God must continually wind up the clock of creation. How God maintains the universe is entirely up to him and the Scriptures are either silent on the issue or offer only the most superficial of insights into how and when such a thing would occur.

The term deism, has grown through its use in philosophical and theological parlance, at this point in time it quite often is used to talk about a lack of theistic imminence (see therapeutic moralistic deism) In the same way I feel that through discussions in the trenches of theological battles in reaction to (possibly a badly integrated) naturalism in providence there are starting to emerge trends of functional providential deism.

There is never a lack of theistic imminence, the Most High is Sovereign. Naturalism and Providence are overlapping concepts that only differ with regards to the source of natural law and phenomenon, Providence just indicates that the laws of nature are a provision of God where Naturalism requires no such credit given to a Creator or Designer.

I think there may be a chasm of disconnect between this statement and your acceptance of the Doctrines of Grace, the Canons of Dordt, Westminster Confession and 2nd London Baptist Confession all view both the Justification and Sanctification of the Elect as wholly supernatural activities worked in the believer by the Holy Spirit to the Glory of God.

Indeed, New Birth at justification and the sanctification process of the Holy Spirit are effectual miraculous workings in the life of the believer. We are saved by grace, sanctified by grace and empowered for service by grace, I would not argue otherwise. I only make the distinction between a miracle that is God doing what only God can do and a simple choice or activity of the believer that while being the result of God's exercise of sovereign power still qualifies as a natural occurrence.

I have no issues with God's intimate relationship with creation, it wouldn't hamper it if I did.

The more I talk to you on this subject the more difficult you make it for me to believe this.

Only if you are wrongly equivocating Creationism with Deism which has never had the slightest justification or warrant. Creationism is based on God's intimate relationship beginning at creation and continuing throughout human history. That is the whole problem with Theistic Evolution in the first place, the doctrine of creation is transcendent in that it transcends all of redemptive history including the washing, renewing and regeneration of the Holy Spirit at and as a result of conversion.

Well maybe it is not right to label myself as a theistic evolutionist then, I'm far more worried about the silent acceptance by people across the Christian spectrum of a naturalism that is divorced from God's intimate providential guidance and largely I see this in some of the objections to theistic evolution

I have gotten that distinct impression that perhaps you are neither a Theistic Evolutionist nor a Creationist. My only real objection to Theistic Evolution is that it is not discernibly different from Darwinian logic and remains an antithetical view towards a worldview predicated on a firm reliance on the clear testimony of Scripture.

I would suggest an examination of the doctrine of creation as it includes and transcends the rest of Scripture including the role of miracles in Salvation and redemptive history.

I do not think that literary literalism is the intention, give me historical grammatical literalism any day.

I'm not sure I'm following your logic here but with historical narratives the literal interpretation is always preferred. There is nothing in the opening chapters of Genesis to suggest, let alone qualify classifying the text as figurative. The literary features enhance the literal interpretation, emphasizing, at the heart of the emphasis, the prevailing theme of God's miraculous work of Creation. This is especially strong with regards to the creation and fall of man.

This is another beef of mine especially when it comes to you wanting to claim a Calvinistic worldview (though the fact that you dismiss covenantalism and instead go for dispensationalism may explain this) the transcendant miracle in the Calvinistic worldview is the Incarnation, Life, Death, Burial, and Resurrection of Christ Jesus our Lord and the birth of his Church which he unites to himself through his Incarnation, Life, Death, Burial, and Resurrection, to replace Christ with Creation is to attack Solus Christus and Soli Deo Gloria. Creation is God's means to his goal, Christ is his goal.

That is more of the patented absurdity that appears to stem from Theistic Evolutionist rhetoric. Neither Creationists, nor Calvinists, nor any Dispensationalist I am aware of replaces Christ with Creation by crediting God with Creation. Creation was God's goal and at the end of creation week it was complete in all it's vast array. It's shameless to level these baseless accusations against Creationists who simply affirm the clear testimony of Scripture and creation as essential doctrine.

I fully realise that the intention of Creationism in its purest form is not functional providential deism, the problem is that far too often the overriding view of God's providence in Christianity as a whole is not a Biblical one but rather functional providential deism purely because we live in a culture where philosophically that is what is presented to us and ingrained in our thinking as to where God stops and nature begins and so often people who think they are defending Creationism end up defending FPD and people who think they are defending TE end up defending FPD and so it ends up more being a battle over which form of FPD is better than a discussion about the Biblical view of providence.

What I realize is that Creationism has no connection to Deism by any stretch of the imagination, you cannot possible believe that. Providential Deism sounds like a pretty strong influence with regards to Theistic Evolution since it's inextricably linked to Darwinian naturalistic assumptions.

I don't know where Theistic Evolutionists are getting this baseless categorization of Creationists as Deists but they are the ones professing, defending and propagating the naturalistic assumptions of Darwinism. If there is a class of Christian who's profession resembles functional Deism it would be Theistic Evolutionists.

 

[Achilles6129]

Wasn't Christ's death on the cross for us part of God's original plan from before the foundation of the world?

If you're trying to say that God is a God of death because Christ died on the cross, then aren't you forgetting something...namely, his resurrection? Also remember that verse that keeps coming up, Hebrews 2:14:

"14 Since, therefore, the children share flesh and blood, he himself likewise shared the same things, so that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, " Heb. 2:14 (NRSV)

what is better, billions of years vanity and death, or 5-6 millennia under sin?! - there is hardly a biological or reincarnational evolution

Blessings

What position exactly do you support? It seems to me that human beings can come out of sin if they want to. Torah legislation provides ways of expiating sin long before Christ. Noah, Enoch, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc., were all doing just fine as well.

 

[mark kennedy]

But it's not. I've asked you several times now for any place where Darwin says "here is the definition of Darwinism", and you don't seem to have one. Dictionaries are where we get definitions. Well, at least those of us who aren't making up our own definitions by searching for quotes and suggesting that they say what we wanted in the first place.

Ok, so your definition of Darwinism says that Darwinism is based on Darwin's theory of natural selection but we can't define 'Darwinism' from Darwin's theory of natural selection. You always do this, arguing in circles around semantical hair splitting that make no sense. Round and round he goes....

Your purple definition doesn't tell you what Darwin's theory is nor does it explain his grand fathers fascination with mythic naturalistic gradualism.

...... because those things are not relevant. It also doesn't give the price of tea in china, nor the political views of his great great grandmother.

So even though the purple definition clearly indicates that Darwinism is based on Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection Darwin's theory of natural selection is irrelevant. That's not what I think, that's what you just said. The Wikipedia article connects the use of the term to include Erasmus Darwin and Huxley but of course what they wrote and taught must be irrelevant as well. What I think is irrelevant is the fallacious circular logic that refuses to define Darwinism by the work of Charles Darwin, Erasmus Darwin and Darwin's bulldog.

Um, no, I'm simply giving the actual definition. You know, the one in the dictionary?

Which gave a direct reference to the theory of natural selection that was defined, you know, in On the Origin of Species.

Hold on, now you are giving additional different definitions? See, that's why we use dicitonaries.

That would require actually reading and understanding what the dictionary definition said.

I gave a link where Metherion listed at length your ad-hominem attacks (just in that one thread). Please let me know where I attacked you personally in this thread, and I'll apologize.

Not in this thread, your being fallacious in other ways this go round.

The Hebrew word for "breath" means "spirit". Thus, it seems to me (and to many Christian theologians) that Genesis there is talking about the soul.

You really don't bother looking up these things do you?

So does it make more sense that the human spirit entered Adam through his nose or that his first breath came from God? Tell you what, let's take a look at this word together because you would never do it on you own.

And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath ('breath' נְשָׁמָה nĕshamah Strong's H5397)of life; and man became a living soul ('soul' נֶפֶשׁ nephesh; Strongs #5315). (Gen. 2:7)​

Notice how the words for 'breath' and 'soul' look a lot alike? That's because the word simple means breath, the expression living creation and living soul means the same thing. It is also used to speak of other living creatures that have 'breath'. (Gen. 1:20, 21, 24, 30)

It is used synonymously for 'living creatures':

And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, (see 'soul; above, H5315) I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. (Genesis 1:30)​

Genesis is talking about the breath of life and I'm only going to tell you this once. You start arguing this in circles and I'm done with you, had more then enough of that from Theistic Evolutionists on here.

So then you concede the point? I was resonding to where you said that God didn't use pre-existing material, and pointing that the text explictly says that he did. So you agree that God used pre-existing material now?

I concede nothing because you never make coherent statements. Your definition for Darwinism is shallow and your statement about 'breath' being the human soul of Adam is in error. There was no discussion of preexisting material but Adam was made from the dust of the earth, that much is true. The ex nihilo creation, as indicated by the use of 'bara' was the life of Adam. My original point, you shamelessly tried to bury in these fallacious rationalizations still stands. Prior to God creating Adam there was no living body which rules out some converted ape.

Of course, like any Theistic Evolution supporter, he sees God as the creator of everying as per John 1.

Yea right, as long as God uses exclusively naturalistic causes.

He doesn't have to, since he spells it out over and over for everyone to see. Remember, we had a whole debate about this, anyone can read in at the link giving above. Look, it's not just me pointing out that the RCC position is Theistic Evolution, it's widely recognized - well, except, apparently, by you.

He doesn't discuss Theistic Evolution, he discusses the theory of evolution he affirms is still unproven and Modernism which describes Theistic Evolution to a tee.

Um, no. It sounds like you are making up your own personal definitions again.

Um no, your arguing in circles around the definition of Darwinism the same way you argue in circles around the definition of evolution.

So do you agree now that you know of at least one (and with Pope Benedict, two) examples of Theistic Evolution supporters warning against modernism?

No, Theistic Evolution is Modernism, they just change the word for it like you tried to do with Darwinism. You do this because you like equivocating evolution with Darwinism so you just dumb down the definition for Darwinism so you can pretend that your arguments are the same as the scientific definition for evolution. You already know this and your desperately trying to bury the genuine scientific definition of evolution so you can continue to equivocate it with Darwinian naturalistic assumptions.

Sounds like you are still not answering the question. You had accused me of rejecting all miracles, and I pointed out that I accept at least hundreds of them. I'm asking if you accept the hundreds of miracles attributed to Catholic saints.

You reject the clear testimony of Scripture regarding the Creation of Genesis 1. You do it fallaciously and you do it aggressively and you do it to the exclusion of just about anything else on here. I have given you the benefit of every doubt but now we are getting into the canon of Scripture, if you start using fallacious logic it becomes dangerous, to you.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Achilles6129]

While we're on the subject of miracles, why do theistic evolutionists reject what they believe is impossible in Genesis 1-11, and then accept what is known to be scientifically impossible elsewhere in Scripture? For example, walking on water, being resurrected from the dead, Shadrach/Meshach/Abednego in the burning fiery furnace, the parting of the Red Sea, etc.

It seems inconsistent.

 

[Sayre]

While we're on the subject of miracles, why do theistic evolutionists reject what they believe is impossible in Genesis 1-11, and then accept what is known to be scientifically impossible elsewhere in Scripture? For example, walking on water, being resurrected from the dead, Shadrach/Meshach/Abednego in the burning fiery furnace, the parting of the Red Sea, etc.

It seems inconsistent.

They don't. It was not impossible that God created in 6 days, just like it was not impossible that He created in 14 billion. It simply seems that the evidence points to Him doing it in 14 billion years rather than 6 days.

But a 6 day creation isn't impossible for God.

 

[Achilles6129]

They don't. It was not impossible that God created in 6 days, just like it was not impossible that He created in 14 billion. It simply seems that the evidence points to Him doing it in 14 billion years rather than 6 days.

But a 6 day creation isn't impossible for God.

Ah, but the evidence says he didn't walk on water either. We can do a test with 1000 people and every single one of them will fail to walk on water. That means it's impossible. So the evidence tells against walking on water.

The question is: Why read evolution into Scripture when it's not there?

 

[Sayre]

Ah, but the evidence says he didn't walk on water either. We can do a test with 1000 people and every single one of them will fail to walk on water. That means it's impossible. So the evidence tells against walking on water.

The question is: Why read evolution into Scripture when it's not there?

Why read SCIENCE into scripture when it's not there?

There is no evidence that He didn't walk on water - we accept it as a miracle. There is evidence that He didn't create in 6 days.

 

[Achilles6129]

Why read SCIENCE into scripture when it's not there?

There is no evidence that He didn't walk on water - we accept it as a miracle. There is evidence that He didn't create in 6 days.

There is evidence he didn't walk on water! Do the test yourself!

You read evolution into Scripture when it isn't there because you believe the evidence supports it. Evidence supports that Christ didn't walk on water, didn't rise from the dead, and Shadrach/Meshach/Abednego got toasted in the burning fiery furnace. Why accept one account when all the evidence is against it and reject another account because you believe the evidence is against it?