Balance of Truth as expressed in Biblical Scripture and Science

[Michael 777]

It is a vast genre of books and other things claiming atheism is faith. It does not make it true. As for the google search, I searched "Frank Turek" only to confirm my memory of his book title. (McDowell isn't a famous author either.)

Im sure there are other threads or forums to have discussions over book reviews and authors.

 

[Michael 777]

I just wanted to reestablish the point, as you have not responded in any meaningful way to criticism of your statement that "The implication of evolution theory is that there is no God."

Ok - I will try and expand on my thoughts. Today there are variations of evolution theory and as I have mentioned in other responses there is naturalism evolution theory and theistic evolution. The latter being a view that God created all things to evolve and this view agrees somewhat but not totally with naturalism evolution theory although it is weighted more on the scientific theory rather than scripture. The former is evolution theory which theorises that all living things evolved from simple to complex forms over billions of years and took place in the absence of a creator. There are various ideas on how this took place but they all agree that a creator aka God was not needed and indeed does not exist. For clarity when I state that the implication of evolution theory is that there is no God, it is based on the context in which I wrote the paragraph and that was in the context of naturalistic evolution theory.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Im sure there are other threads or forums to have discussions over book reviews and authors.

The false "atheism is a faith/religion" claim breaks out all over the place, as it did here. (And no, I am no interested in discussing books built on false premises, here or elsewhere.)

 

[Hans Blaster]

After reading the responses, I am actually dismayed that people immediately assume I know nothing about science or evolution. Anyway, I do not need to defend myself or go and research what science is. Just because I have a particular view does not make me ignorant of what the other views are or make me uneducated.

Lets move on...

And let's move on the part 2 of your OP...

In theological fields of study there are three main areas or views on creation.

1) Young Earth Creation
2) Progressive Creation
3) Theistic Evolution

Given that you speak of theological areas or views, none of these are science or scientific. Science does not use theology.

What all three have in common is the underlying and critical belief that God created all things and man was created in the image of God. There are many variations of each view but most can be grouped into the one of the 3 above.

Again, theology, not science.

What is excluded is naturalistic evolution which is the atheistic belief that nothing created everything.

As was pointed out *BEFORE* you wrote this post, evolution is science not belief and it has nothing to do with not believing in a god.

It is excluded because this is a Christian site and I assume most here believe in Jesus.

I certainly do not.

As Christians when looking at the three theistic views, we should base our beliefs and understanding firstly on scripture. As mentioned in my opening post, scripture is not a scientific book, so it will not tell us the mathematical equation for the speed of light etc. What is does tell us in quite vivid detail is the creation account not only in Genesis but is also referred to by Jesus himself who actually created all things. How do we interpret scripture in the light of scientific theory? Do we try and flex our understanding of scripture to fit scientific theory or do we hold on to scripture and rather flex scientific theory?

You are clearly doing theology, not science. What is the point of putting a post (and thread) like this in the "non-mainstream science" section if you are not going to do anything but theology. There are better places for this material on this site.

If we had to draw a moving line from left to right with scripture on the left and science on the right - where does the balance of our beliefs sit? The weight of scripture and the weight of science will show us where we place the most emphasis. Young Earth Creation will sit on the far left, with a literal understanding of scripture and Theistic Evolution will sit on the far right with a more analogous interpretation of scripture. Progressive creation will drift somewhere in the middle depending on how much is deemed progressive and how much is based on literal scripture. Where does your belief sit?

This is not a section about beliefs.

We should not debate who is wrong or right but rather appreciate that people do hold differing views on this topic. Lest keep this friendly and respectful like all Christians should.

God bless

Sigh.

 

[BCP1928]

Ok - I will try and expand on my thoughts. Today there are variations of evolution theory and as I have mentioned in other responses there is naturalism evolution theory and theistic evolution. The latter being a view that God created all things to evolve and this view agrees somewhat but not totally with naturalism evolution theory although it is weighted more on the scientific theory rather than scripture. The former is evolution theory which theorises that all living things evolved from simple to complex forms over billions of years and took place in the absence of a creator. There are various ideas on how this took place but they all agree that a creator aka God was not needed and indeed does not exist. For clarity when I state that the implication of evolution theory is that there is no God, it is based on the context in which I wrote the paragraph and that was in the context of naturalistic evolution theory.

From the perspective of science there is no discernible difference between "naturalistic" evolutionary theory and "theistic" evolutionary theory. There is only one theory of evolution.

 

[trophy33]

Ok - I will try and expand on my thoughts. Today there are variations of evolution theory and as I have mentioned in other responses there is naturalism evolution theory and theistic evolution. The latter being a view that God created all things to evolve and this view agrees somewhat but not totally with naturalism evolution theory although it is weighted more on the scientific theory rather than scripture. The former is evolution theory which theorises that all living things evolved from simple to complex forms over billions of years and took place in the absence of a creator. There are various ideas on how this took place but they all agree that a creator aka God was not needed and indeed does not exist. For clarity when I state that the implication of evolution theory is that there is no God, it is based on the context in which I wrote the paragraph and that was in the context of naturalistic evolution theory.

There is actually no significant difference between the "naturalism evolution theory" and the "theistic evolution theory" regarding the science behind it or regarding mechanism.

Only philosophical frameworks differ. Theistic evolutionists accept everything science discover, but see it as arranged by God (for example the conditions, physical laws etc.).

As the theory of gravity has no God in its scientific description, so also the theory of evolution. Neither of them implicate there is no God. Only that there is no direct involvement of God in common natural processes.

 

[trophy33]

From the perspective of science there is no discernible difference between "naturalistic" evolutionary theory and "theistic" evolutionary theory. There is only one theory of evolution.

Hm, interestingly, I wrote a very similar reply without reading yours.

 

[BCP1928]

There is actually no significant difference between the "naturalism evolution theory" and the "theistic evolution theory" regarding the science behind it or regarding mechanism.

Only philosophical frameworks differ. Theistic evolutionists accept everything science discover, but see it as arranged by God (for example the conditions, physical laws etc.).

As the theory of gravity has no God in its scientific description, so also the theory of evolution. Neither of them implicate there is no God. Only that there is no direct involvement of God in common natural processes.

No direct involvement which will be accessible to science. Michael's concerns, while sincere, reflect a distinctly Protestant view. Traditional Christian theology differentiates between necessary causes and contingent causes. Science studies, can only study, contingent causality which will be, in principle, completely explanatory of those causes.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Basic Principle 1: The Holy Scriptures are not scientific or mathematical and are not intended to be so. Their purpose is to teach us about God and His plans and purposes for our lives which have eternal consequences. The intention of the Bible is to lead us to God, and bring us into relationship with him so we can accept Jesus and be forgiven and set free. The scriptures are timeless intended for all generations so they cannot have some meaning that was never meant or understood by the original recipients.

The Bible is a history book and what category do the genealogies fall into in your statement here?

 

[BNR32FAN]

Basic Principle 3: For any scientific fact, and I must really highlight the word "FACT" to be proven as truth it has to undergo the 3 basic scientific principles. 1) An object of study must be measurable. 2) An object of study must be observable. 3)An object of study must be repeatable. Let's look at some examples of what is scientific fact and what is just theory. Gravity - It is observable as I can actually see an apple falling off a tree and hitting the ground. It is measurable as I can measure the height and time it takes to fall therefore calculating the speed of gravity. It is repeatable as I can repeat the same experiment over and over again and get the same results. Evolution - It is not measurable as nobody has actually got any biological organism to evolve in a controlled experiment. Yes I know about the thousands of bacteria that multiplied in a lab and they did show signs of metabolic change but that is adaptation not evolution because they remained bacteria. They did not suddenly become multicellular in nature nor did they have any additional DNA. Evolution is not observable as it supposedly takes billions of years and evolution is not repeatable for the same reasons. Therefore Evolution is a theory, a hypothesis and is not a proven fact. It is a popular theory so it gets thrown around like fact but it is not actually a proven fact. There is a lot of circular reasoning in evolution science. For example evolution science presumes it takes millions of years for an organism to evolve. A scientist one day finds a fossil of a slightly different shape and size than what has been found before. The scientist assumes, based on evolution science, that the fossil is an example of evolutionary change. Evolution science then uses that fossil as evidence to support evolution theory. Round and round the merry go round. The scientist could have also made other assumptions regarding the fossil but did not because of the perceived truthfulness of evolution theory.

Gravity isn’t a fact, it’s a theory. We actually have no idea what it is. There’s really so much wrong with this paragraph that I don’t have time to address right now but Google is gravity a fact. And you need to learn the difference between a prediction and a fact because they are not the same thing just like evidence isn’t always proof. It’s exactly this type of misunderstanding that results in people dismissing what the Bible teaches us because like you, they think that when they read about scientists finding artifacts that are 10,000 years old or fossils that are millions of years old that these are FACTS when in reality they not and scientists even say this themselves.

 

[Yttrium]

The former is evolution theory which theorises that all living things evolved from simple to complex forms over billions of years and took place in the absence of a creator.

There is nothing in the theory that suggests things took place in the absence of a creator. Just that species weren't created individually by poofing them into existence.

There are various ideas on how this took place but they all agree that a creator aka God was not needed and indeed does not exist. For clarity when I state that the implication of evolution theory is that there is no God, it is based on the context in which I wrote the paragraph and that was in the context of naturalistic evolution theory.

There is no such implication in evolution theory. The only implication is that the different species could form without involvement by a supernatural entity. And even if no supernatural involvement happened at all in the development of the various species, that in no way implies that there is no God.

 

[BNR32FAN]

There is nothing in the theory that suggests things took place in the absence of a creator. Just that species weren't created individually by poofing them into existence.


There is no such implication in evolution theory. The only implication is that the different species could form without involvement by a supernatural entity. And even if no supernatural involvement happened at all in the development of the various species, that in no way implies that there is no God.

But it would imply that the Bible is incorrect.

 

[stevil]

Again you have reverted to the well known tactic of atheists and that is to attack the scientific knowledge of the theist.

I am not attacking you. My pointing out to you that a Scientific theory is not at all like a hypothesis, well that is not an attack. You'd have to be very thin skinned to consider this as an attack on you. I have merely pointed out something that you said about science which was incorrect and I have suggested you spend 5 minutes looking it up so that you can be better informed. I actually thought I was helping you. Not criticising and certainly not attacking.

It is also common for atheists to take the intellectual high ground and place your belief in a speculative science like evolution.

Evolution isn't speculative science, it is a Scientific theory which means it is much more solid than any individual fact. It is a fascinating field of science and I would highly recommend to anyone to dive into it and educate themselves. I have done this and I continue to do this. I think it is really fascinating. But it is of great dismay when people rush to the internet and talk about evolution and in their posts they get a great many things wrong. All I can do is to let them know they are getting some things wrong and advise them to read up more about it.

There is a saying. "A fool knows a little and says a lot, a wise man knows a lot and says a little"
It is more fun and interesting to read and learn than it is to try to educate people on things you know very little about.

If it was empirical science then you would have a stronger argument. There is an old idiom that says 'what is good for the goose is good for the gander '. You state with such confidence that you don't believe in the supernatural yet you fail to actually research the credible texts which has led billions of people to theism over thousands of years. In fact you dismiss them as irrelevant and try use the analogy of fantasy fiction to support your non-action. Maybe you should apply your own recommendations and inform yourself regarding theology.

I don't take to the internet and write posts about scripture or theology. I don't presume to know anything about it, I don't try to dismantle it using a very poor understanding of it. If I wanted to dismantle scripture then absolutely, I would then be obliged to delve into it and learn all about it. But I don't want to dismantle it, I don't what to write about it and I don't want to learn it. I have zero interest in it.
There are a great many things and I only have limited time in my life, I am not going to waste time on things I have no interest in.

Just a correction, maybe it is just semantics, but Newton, Einstein, Heisenberg and the other millions of scientists did not create anything.

They created models of aspects of our universe. They were very significant papers and models that these people created. They allowed others to learn a great deal about the universe and to build upon these great learnings, Others can now stand upon the shoulders of these great giants of science.

They discovered what was already there.

But yes, you are right. There models are created to represent what is already there, science is a method of discovery.
Someone once said, If you burned all the science books, wiped everyone's memories. Given enough time, humanity would create pretty much the same science books, the same scientific models.

But it you burned all the religious texts and wiped everyone's memories and given enough time. You still would not get the same religious books back. Religion isn't a method of discovery.

You say the Christian scriptures are irrelevant to your life

Yes. I am glad you at least heard and understood somewhat that part. Although I am baffled as to why you insist on trying to goad me into reading or studying your Christian scriptures.

I can understand you have an excitement about this book. But you know, not everyone is going to be interested in this book.

 

[stevil]

But it would imply that the Bible is incorrect.

Does the bible talk about DNA, about alleles about speciation, about adaptation?

 

[stevil]

Most atheists have absolute faith in naturalistic evolution science or variants of evolution.

Where do you come up with this stuff? Do you just make it up, or do you read it somewhere?

To be an atheist, you do not need to know anything about evolution, you do not need to accept evolution.
Evolution has nothing to do with being an atheist.

 

[stevil]

Im sure there are other threads or forums to have discussions over book reviews and authors.

I thought that was the main point of this thread. To talk about the bible and the author of the bible.

 

[trophy33]

No direct involvement which will be accessible to science. Michael's concerns, while sincere, reflect a distinctly Protestant view. Traditional Christian theology differentiates between necessary causes and contingent causes. Science studies, can only study, contingent causality which will be, in principle, completely explanatory of those causes.

Not sure what you mean by the distinctly Protestant view and if you include it to the traditional Christian theology or not.

Protestant views are so broad that they can include almost anything and the only common thing is the protest against/rejection of the theology and the practice of the church of Rome.

 

[BCP1928]

Not sure what you mean by the distinctly Protestant view and if you include it to the traditional Christian theology or not.

Protestant views are so broad that they can include almost anything and the only common thing is the protest against/rejection of the theology and the practice of the church of Rome.

The boundary is a fuzzy one, of course, but the main difference between Protestants and Traditional Christians (Roman Catholics, Orthodox and Oriental Christians, etc.) is the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura which, together with literalist theories of divine inspiration has an effect on how the Bible is understood.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Does the bible talk about DNA, about alleles about speciation, about adaptation?

No but does the Bible give us an exact number of years from Adam’s creation to Abraham’s birth?

 

[BNR32FAN]

Where do you come up with this stuff? Do you just make it up, or do you read it somewhere?

To be an atheist, you do not need to know anything about evolution, you do not need to accept evolution.
Evolution has nothing to do with being an atheist.

That’s not even remotely close to what he said. He specifically said “most atheists”. Where did you get the idea that he said anything about having to know about evolution to be an atheist?