Panentheism: Is Science/the Concept of Evolution Inherently Spiritual?

• "Panentheism & Interspirituality – What’s Jesus Got to do With It? <<<zoecarnate"

• "Biblical Panentheism: The 'Everywhere-ness' of God—God in all things"

• Panentheism: the Other God of the Philosophers (John W. Cooper) ​

• • Panentheism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

For scholars that you can consider, one person that may bless you is by the name of Arthur Peacocke----as he's one of the main theologians/philosophers and scholars who has advocated the concept of Biblical Panentheism. For more info, one can go online here:

I do think it is possible and Panentheism is the skeleton within which science and religion are complimentary rather than in opposition. As it stands, its odd to see it claimed that one claiming God cannot truly do science, as many great scientists of the past were believers clearly in the Lord....

​

The advance of science and its discoveries relating to evolution have made the source of creation by a personal controlling God difficult to defend. But if supposing that Creation is to God as our bodies are to us, we can see how evolution is similar to the process of our bodies coming into existence.​

For some quotes fromt he article:​

Panentheism.(24) Classical philosophical theism maintained the ontological distinction between God and creative world that is necessary for any genuine theism by conceiving them to be of different substances, with particular attributes predicated of each. There was a space outside God in which the realm of created substances existed. This substantial way of speaking has become inadequate for it has become increasingly difficult to express the way in which God is present to the world in terms of substances, which by definition cannot be internally present to each other. God can only intervene in the world in such a model. This inadequacy of classical theism is aggravated by the evolutionary perspective which, as we have just seen, requires that natural processes in the world need to be regarded as God's creative action. In other words, the world is to God, rather as our bodies are to us as personal agents, with the necessary caveat that the ultimate ontology of God as Creator is distinct from that of the world (panentheism, not pantheism). Moreover, this personal model of embodied subjectivity (with that essential caveat) represents better how we are now impelled to understand God's perennial action in the world as coming from the inside, both in its natural regularities and in any special patterns of events. These three factors-the stronger emphasis on God's immanence in the world, the stressing (as in the biblical tradition) of God as at least personal, and the need to avoid the use of substance in this context-lead to a panentheistic relation of God and the world. Panentheism is, accordingly, "The belief that the Being of God includes and penetrates the whole universe, so that every part of it exists in Him but (as against pantheism) that His Being is more than, and is not exhausted by, the universe".(25)

This concept has strong philosophical foundations and is scriptural, as has been carefully argued by P. Clayton (26) -recall Paul's address at Athens when he says of God that "In him we live and move and have our being."(27) It is in fact also deeply embedded in the Eastern Christian tradition....
​

Click to expand...

​

It is claer that we already know the physical man both as ourselves and in others. Moreover, we have ideas on how it evolved this far from being "born of woman" . However suppose man's evolution continues from being born from above...with us growing in the Lord?

​

Another quote from the article by Peacock:

​

It was not long after Darwin published the Origin that some theologians began to discern the significance of the central distinctive Christian affirmation of the Incarnation of God in the human person of Jesus the Christ as especially congruent with an evolutionary perspective. Thus, again in Lux Mundi in 1891, we find J.R. Illingworth boldly affirming: ". . . n scientific language, the Incarnation may be said to have introduced a new species into the world-the Divine man transcending past humanity, as humanity transcended the rest of the animal creation, and communicating His vital energy by a spiritual process to subsequent generations. . . ."(36) Jesus' resurrection convinced the disciples, including Paul, that it is the union with God of his kind of life that is not broken by death and capable of being taken into God. For Jesus manifested the kind of human life which, it was believed, can become fully life with God, not only here and now, but eternally beyond the threshold of death. Hence his imperative "Follow me" constitutes a call for the transformation of humanity into a new kind of human being and becoming. What happened to Jesus, it was thought, could happen to all.

In this perspective, Jesus the Christ (the whole Christ event) has, I would suggest, shown us what is possible for humanity. The actualization of this potentiality can properly be regarded as the consummation of the purposes of God already manifested incompletely in evolving humanity. In Jesus there was a divine act of new creation because Christians may now say the initiative was from God, within human history, within the responsive human will of Jesus inspired by that outreach of God into humanity designated as God the Holy Spirit. Jesus the Christ is thereby seen, in the context of the whole complex of events in which he participated as the paradigm of what God intends for all human beings, now revealed as having the potentiality of responding to, of being open to, of becoming united with God. In this perspective, he represents the consummation of the evolutionary creative process that God has been effecting in and through the world.

In this perspective, the ever-present, self-expression in all-that-is of God as Word or Logos attains its most explicit, personal revelation in Jesus the Christ. But because it is (albeit unique for Christians) a manifestation of this eternal and perennial mode of God's interaction in, with, and under the created order, what was revealed in Jesus the Christ could also, in principle, be manifest both in other human beings and indeed also on other planets, in any sentient, self-conscious, nonhuman persons (whatever their physical form) inhabiting them that are capable of relating to God. This vision of a universe permeated by the ever-acting, ever-working, and potentially explicit self-expression of the divine Word/Logos was never better expressed than in a poem of Alice Meynell (1847-1922):

Christ in the Universe With this ambiguous earth His dealings have been told us. These abide: The signal to a maid, the human birth, the lesson and the young Man crucified.But not a star of all The innumerable host of stars has heard How he administered this terrestrial ball. Our race have kept their Lord's entrusted Word . . .No planet knows that this Our wayside planet, carrying land and wave, Love and life multiplied, and pain and bliss, Bears, as chief treasure, one forsaken grave.Nor, in our little day, May his devices with the heavens he guessed, His pilgrimage to thread the Milky Way, Or his bestowals there be manifest.But, in the eternities, Doubtless we shall compare together, hear A million alien Gospels, in what guise He trod the Pleiades, the Lyre, the Bear.(37)

For on Earth the epic of evolution is consummated in the Incarnation in a human person of the cosmic self-expression of God, God's Word-and in the hope this gives to all self-conscious persons of being united with the Source of all Being and Becoming that is the "Love that moves the heavens and the other stars." May I suggest that, in the second century, Irenaeus said it all, in inviting us to contemplate: "The Word of God, our Lord Jesus Christ Who of his boundless love became what we are to make us what even he himself is." (Adv. Haer., V praef.)
​

Click to expand...

lll

Others may disagree, but I think it's more than worth considering.... ​

For some solid places one can consider looking up, one can go online/investigate the following under their respective titles:

• The Creation of an Evolutionist: "Evolutionary Creation..."

• Beyond the Evolution vs Creation Debate --by Denis O. Lamoureux

• "Gerald Schroeder <<< Finding the Intelligence Within the Design 17-22"

IMHO, Gerald Schroeder is one of the best ones I think you could investigate---concerning theistic evolution, as Brother Gerald Schroeder is a scientist/Orthodox Jewish theologian..and its amazing whenever it comes to presenting the perspective of evolutuon from the perspective from Jewish Thought.

Of course, he is not alone..as in our own times, most Jewish denominations accept the science of evolutionary theory and do not see it as incompatible with traditional Judaism, endorsing the stance of theistic evolution in the process. On the issue of Jewish thought/evolution, it has been the case that several modern Orthodox Jewish scientists have interpreted creation in light of both modern scientific findings and rabbinical interpretations of Genesis....where each of these scientists have claimed modern science actually confirms a literal interpretation of Torah. They all accept the scientific evidence that the age of the Earth and the age of the universe are on a scale of billions of years, with them also acknowledging that the diversity of species on Earth can be explained through an evolutionary framework. The most significant aspect, though, is that each of them interprets certain aspects of evolution as a divine process, rather than a natural one only---and therefore, each of them accepts an evolutionary paradigm while rejecting some aspects of Darwinism.

Outside of Gerald Schroeder, others to look into would be Nathan Aviezer-another Jewish physicist, who interprets the six days of creation as broadly referring to large periods of time, an interpretation for which he cites rabbinic sources, including Maimonides and Nachmanides. The physicist/teacher---Judah Landa--was already mentioned earlier as another solid character to investigate when it comes to others reconciling the Torah with factual evidence in the scientific world.

GalactusOmega said:

Panentheism is a nice thought, and easy to dismiss as simply that. It does not address the questions of cruelty and suffering in this world, or at least it has no satisfactory answer.
.

Click to expand...

I'm not so certain that Panentheism is something that cannot serve to address the questions of cruelty and suffering in the world.



Panentheism deals with how everything is OF YHWH.

The simplest definition of Christian panentheism is simply that God is omnipresent and transcendent - that is, God contains the entire cosmos but the entire cosmos does not and cannot contain God. He is omnipresent because his uncreated energies permeate all Creation, generating and sustaining it. He is transcendent because his uncreated essence is inaccessible to us - it is wholly beyond Creation.




Panentheism shows how all there is not only emanates from God..but is experienced by Him as well. Its the idea that one's not to worship an animal or a tree since it's not the creator--but on the same token, as Chasidism ascribes to, the animal being abused is felt deeply by the Lord. He hurts with it as much as it does since that creation is directly connected to Him (As its being sustained by Him) and consequently He can feel it---just as he does with all suffering and pain in the world whenever injustice occurs. This is why many Panentheist have noted that Paul made a point in Romans to discuss how its not just humankind that's redeemed...but all of creation as well, described as "groaning" and "suffering" rather than being indifferent to it all. The Eastern Fathers and some medievals have written profoundly on the cosmic dimensions of the Incarnation and Redemption (as did St. Paul).

For further info, Classical theism views sin and the Fall as distinct from the basic structure of the world and the culmination of the kingdom of God as a gracious undertaking that is not a mere outcome of a natural process. Panentheism, however, typically views creation and the Fall as part of the cosmic process as are redemption and consummation. Christian panentheists view the earthly existence of Jesus Christ as either the central cause of the outcome of the process or a primary symbol or example of the process. Each approach is at odds with classical theism. It often seems that in the West, the concept is more difficult to understand than in the East...where more of the "mystical" aspects of the faith are more easily accepted. From an Eastern perspective is where I tend to come from on issues more often than not----as the Messianic Jewish Rabbi I learn from is a Sephardic Jew and had an extensive background being educated within the world of Eastern Christianity/the Church Fathers...including the Desert Fathers. Many other Messianic Jews disagree with his views, which I have adopted in my own journeys with Eastern Christianity. http://emissary7.wordpress.com/2010...ed-for-evanglising-those-in-eastern-religion/

Taking it further, certain groups within Judaism actually hold to the view of Panentheism. In example, one should consider the reality of what often occurs within the system of Jewish thought known as Hasidim. For Hasidic Jews actually believe God is in everything. Panentheism, popular in certain Chasidic circles, seems more than relevant if/when understanding God to be both within all existence and transcendent beyond all being. When all life as we know it is over, God will remain, the ultimate One, alone. Yet in the here and now "every creature and every form of life is a garbing of the divine presence". This has immediate moral implications....for the way in which we treat them and relate to them is the ultimate testing ground of where we stand.

For more info, one can go online/look up 2 other articles under the names of "The Rosh Pina Project (an alternative look at Messianic Jews ): Neo-Hasidism in Messianic Judaism" or Radical Judaism &#8211; Rethinking God and Tradition--- A vision of God for the twenty-first century | The Jewish Chronicle"


Jews understand that everything originates from, and is interconnected to a single source. And that source, HaShem, still interacts with, and is heavily involved in, the world we live. For the Torah has much to say on social justice, human rights, stewardship, care of the land, and the value of life - all life.


The Torah teaches us that even the smallest creatures are not overlooked by our Creator. There's a story I was able to learn of about the late Rabbi Isaac Kook, first chief Rabbi of Israel: One day Rav Kook was walking in the fields with a student when the young man carelessly plucked a leaf off a branch. Visibly shaken by this act, Rav Kook turned to his companion and said gently, &#8220;Believe me when I tell you I never simply pluck a leaf or a blade of grass or any living thing unless I have to. Every part of the vegetable world is singing a song breathing forth a secret of the diving mystery of creation.&#8221; For the first time the young student understood the meaning of showing compassion to all living things. (Spirit in Nature: Teaching Judaism and Ecology on the Trail, Biers-Ariel, Newborn and Smart, pg 22).






If you've ever seen the movie "Avatar", the concept of Panentheism as expression of concern makes more sense.














The movie takes place on Pandora, a lush Earth-like moon of the planet Polyphemus, in the Alpha Centauri star system. Pandora is sacred to the Na'vi, and the Na'vi are interconnected to Pandora through a vast bio-botanical neural network that all Pandoran organisms are connected to. ...with it being seen that the planet itself is alive/the deity that they pray to.

The Film "Avatar" seemed to be something that really was seeking to bring Panentheism into focus---despite how it was doing so without the intention of glorifying the Lord---as they made clear how the deity that the Nav'i worshipped was conscious and yet spread throughtout all of the creation fo their world. FOr with Panentheism, its not that the Universe is GOD'S body...but rather, that the UNIVERSE (which is TEMPORAL) must be sustatined by something OUTSIDE of that which is ETERNAL...and thus, when God made all in creation, it must dwell within Him to continue---with Him feeling all that goes on in it and His energies sustaining it. As with the main deity that they worshipped in the "Avatar" film, the creation itself being harmed is something that it seems God can feel...just as he grieves whenever he feels the pain that a raped victim goes through or someone being abused. Too often it seems like God has been painted as if he cannot cry/feel pain with His creation.



For more info, one can go to the following:

• How Jewish is Avatar? - Rabbi Jason Miller

• Tikkun Daily---Avatar: the Spiritual Progressive Movie of the Decade?

Anyone who saw the film will quickly note how there was a strong Eco-Spiritual dynamic within warfare that was focused upon......and that's BIBLICAL, as it relates to how often others destroy God's real-estate that He made in a very wasteful manner when they fight each other...or desire to have something at any cost. Being very much for things such as Creation Care, I was highly glad that the film sought to bring up the issue in the manner that it did.

The notion from the movie that &#8220;All living things are one&#8212;zalelu&#8221;&#8212;is another Jewish concept.


Additionally, one of the strongest themes within the film was how the Na'vi worship ancient trees. When studying what the Word of God says about trees, its interesting to see how they were treated back in the scriptures. For Cedars of Lebanon were harvested as building materials to help construct the Temple....as the daily sacrifice was practiced there and a secure supply of wood was necessary. For both Iron Age wealth and military might were dependent on charcoal as a heat source for smelting silver and forging weapons.

However, the Torah includes an edict against destroying trees even in battle.


As God said in the Word:
Here one learns the difference between using the land to survive/thrive, such as harvesting a field...and abusing the land because it conviently fits our purposes......for we have the right to use creation in order to meet our needs--but we never have the right to abuse creation to satisfy our greeds. And what God told the Israelite soldiers was essentially a rebuke for failing to leave destroying his creation out of battle. How often is this forgotten when it comes to modern warfare and collateral environmental damage....and forgetting that God places value on His inanimate creations as well. For as Francis Shaeffer wrote, "The Christian stands in front of the tree and has the emotional reaction toward it, because the tree has areal value in itself being a creature made by God. I have this in common with the tree: we were made by God and not just cast up by chance......if I love the Lover, I must love what the lover made."


Romans 1:18-25, Psalm 19 and Psalm 104 and so many others detail the works of Gods Hand and how the Heavens/Creation themselves testify to a Grand Design/Designer (as it concerns Intelligent Design)...that nothing is by accident and that the very design of life is FAR too complex to have simply happened. ...........and alongside that is the concept that even nature itself is alive, praising the Lord.




Its by His Grace that all men have rain....for in his Providential Grace, He shows grace/care for all his creatures...allowing others to survive by sending rain on the JUST and the Unjust (Matthew 5:45)....and Christ in the scriptures is portrayed as the INSTRUMENT of creation, "sustaining all things by His powerful word", (Colosians 1:16-7, John 1:3, Hebrews 1:3)---and whom by immanence is fully present in even the smallest atom....with all things connected to Him



It is with this in mind that I was glad the movie Avatar came out....

That His presence is in everything and that we should treat everything here on this Earth that is all His with the respect that it deserves goes back to the central issue of Panentheism...as it concerns ominprescence and transcendence in one...and as a result, the command solidified when it comes to treating his creation with respect & recognizing how much the Fall of Man has hindered that---just as all systems in Classical Theism describe when it comes to sin being the result of a world full of suffering.


Sadly, it seems that this is often dismissed outright under political concerns. In example, one can consider how often churches ignore issues like believers addressing OIL Spills and for that matter, various other issues of environmental concerns (i.e. cleaning up Toxic waste, recycling, renewable engery sources, sustainable development, global warming, etc) as ways of showing love for our neighbor and treating the artwork developed by God as sacred.

Many times, these thigns are deemed as "secular issues" rather than connected to the Heart of the Gospel. Most even go to the extreme of saying all concerned for the environment are simply "liberal tree huggers", making it into a political issue alone of polarization rather than one of PRACTICALITY/Responsibility. Opponents dismiss ecological concerns as an excuse to worship the world itself instead of God or simply as a secular trend.

For some good places to go that seek to address the issue reasonably, as it concerns the issue of treating creation with care/concern, one can go online/look up the following:

• Jewish Environmental Ethics

• ---"Flourish --- Skeptics, Cynics, and New York Times Bestsellers: Creation Care"
  
  &#8226; "Creation Care: More than Going Green"

• A Jewish Response to the Environmental Crisis - COEJL

• &#8216;Green&#8217; Jews gather force in environmental movement
  
  
  

GalactusOmTega said:

That's a stunningly impressive copy-paste..

Click to expand...

That's a stunningly WEAK answer, never mind that there's no real evidence of such.

Now please explain how panentheism addresses the twin issues of evil and suffering and does so in a more satisfactory manner than PanDeism

Click to expand...

Did. However, you did not explain how Panentheism did NOT address the issue of suffering in the world.

.

Please do it in your own words, and limit yourself to 500 words

Click to expand...

It is MY words and if you're going to accuse, give evidence rather than throwing around accusation. Additionally, please try to actually deal with the subject..or simply don't participate in the thread/whine on it.

.

That shouldn't be hard, I could defend PanDeism as an answer to the question of suffering and evil in less than 50 words. And I don't even believe in it. I just find it elegant

Click to expand...

Yet you've not done so. If you have an argument, give it already

awitch said:

No.
Evolutionary theory stands just fine on it's own without any need whatsoever for divine intervention.

...

Click to expand...

Can't say that I agree...


When it comes to evolution being seen as "non-spiritual", I'm reminded of the book known as "Darwin's Black Box" . Very reasonable/understandable info on some parts, as it relates to discussing the problems associated with macroevolution at the level of biochemistry and molecular biology.


The author of the book disagrees with the concept of macro-evolution and used the example of the formation of the blood-clot to make his case.

The argument for irreducible complexity goes that with blood clotting, we still have factors involved that have no other reason to exist in the chain prior to when they are applied in a very complex chain. ..with others thinking that we're still at a point today where all the factors involved would have had to have "dropped into place suddenly" for this complex function to even exist. Others also feel that this does not even mention the possibilities that the AMOUNTS of the factors need to be near perfect, or the whole does not function as desired. With the bleeding factor, others have argued that the bleeding would destroy the clot; the clot would occur in a closed system and stop blood flow...and thus, for many, On and on are the detriments of a system that is not quite perfect and they conclude that with a non-perfect system, the host dies and does not get a chance to mutate to something more useful. In their minds, it simply could not have evolved and had to have had a guiding hand.


I myself disagree on some points with the arguments aforementioned. For with the author of "Darwin's Black Box", the author (Behe ) was docked for over-simplifying/not presenting incorrectly what Darwin said in many of his views at some points...if keeping up with the many debates on the matter. Many within Intelligent Design communities EMBRACE Darwin's views of evolution since much of it was never a matter of God not existing AND Thus its a caricature to say that Darwisn' evolutionary views go against the Creator fully. For Intelligent Design does not go counter to Evolutionary thought...unless dealing with Secular Evolutionary thought.

With Darwin, even he was open to the reality that not all things in Evolutionary theory could explain complex occurrences. For in his work "Origin of Species", Darwin argued that biological life forms arose via descent with modification. And this is something that Miller docked Behe on when bringing up example in chapter 5 of his book with existing animals such as starfish and sea cucumbers that have a simpler blood-clotting mechanism, contending that they prove the viability of intermediate forms...amd that things are not as Behe stated where in certain things, if one component is missing, all breaks down.

Kenneth Miller gave a WONDERUL explanation of the issue elsewhere---as seen in "Life's Grand Design"( )

And for others you can go online/look up:

• "Evolution: Change: Life's Grand Design"

And as Darwin wrote at length on the human eye in the 6th chapter called "Difficulties on Theory", marveling at its complexity:


Again, I have some disagreements with others thinking that blood-clotting is something that could not have involved God utilizing "Evolution".




Where I stand, considering all that we deem to be random in the cosmos....if it really is God intervening, then what we see as random, God sees as not random. And in addition, this is so because He is directly causing it.


With Irreducible complexity, as it is the concept promoted by proponents of Intelligent Design, stating that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors, through natural selection acting upon a series of advantageous naturally-occurring, chance mutations. , natural selection can lead to complex biochemical systems being built up from simpler systems, or to existing functional systems being recombined as a new system with a different function. If God is behind it all, the artistic design makes sense...


Going alongside that is the reality of how the author of "Darwin's Black Box" used the mousetrap as an illustrative example of his concept ...for a mousetrap consists of five interacting pieces—the base, the catch, the spring, the hammer and the hold-down bar.

And all of these must be in place for the mousetrap to work, as the removal of any one piece destroys the function of the mousetrap. With this in mind, the author asserted that biological systems required multiple parts working together in order to function....and because of this, it was assumed that natural selection could not create from scratch those systems for which science is currently unable to find a viable evolutionary pathway of successive, slight modifications, because the selectable function is only present when all parts are assembled.

To me, what Behe said would make sense.....if we served a God who is limited to doing things in sequence only. But as He turned WATER to wine, multiply Bread, make FISH Coins appear in the mouths of Fishes, turn the rivers of the Nile to Blood, Strike the Ground/make Gnats like He did in the Exoudus saga --and can do practically anything---saying that all things cannot be made from "scratch" seems a stretch.


For with evolution, one must keep in mind the reality of miraculous acts of creation, And within scientific terms, its not impossible either. Especially as it concerns rearranging matter and making crazier things from simpler ones. In example, Biologist Kenneth R. Miller challenged Behe's claim that the mousetrap is irreducibly complex...as seen in his 2008 book "Only a Theory"


Miller observed that various subsets of the five components could be devised to form cooperative units, ones with different functions from the mousetrap and so, "in biological terms, could form functional spandrels before being adapted to the new function of catching mice." As seen in pp. 54–55 in his book, Miller recounted how one of his classmates..:
That made alot of sense when reading it. With the Blood Clotting issue, I know others have disagreed with Behes stance since one of the clotting factors that Behe listed as a part of the clotting cascade was later found to be absent in whales, demonstrating that it is not essential for a clotting system...and many other purportedly irreducible structures can be found in other organisms as much simpler systems that utilize fewer parts. These systems, in turn, may have had even simpler precursors that are now extinct.


Be it with the example of Blood-Clotting...or other complex things like the Human Eye..so complex that others doubt it couldn't have just come out of nowhere "randomly", God's hand involved always makes the difference. Lets assume that evolution is totally random. To we , who are fallible humans, it is completely random. But to God it's completely non-random..as He may've orchestrated something with a grander scheme in mind. And in our own terms, when He does do something we cannot explain, its a miracle. Where I stand, considering all that we deem to be random in the cosmos....if it really is God intervening, then what we see as random, God sees as not so "random".



Conveying in words what many of the scientific minds do often is a bit difficult--so if cool, here are some articles I think others would be interested in...if investigating/researching them under their respective titles:

• "God of the Gaps…in your own knowledge. Luskin, Behe, & blood-clotting"

• "Darwin's Black Box, reviewed by Kenneth R. Miller"

• "A Black Box or a Black Hole? A Response to Michael Behe -Denis O. Lamoureux"

• "Darwin's Black Box: Irreducible Complexity or Irreproducible Irreducibility?"

Something else to consider with spirituality and evolution is the reality of miracles. Moving on, in all realness, the way many go about tripping on Evolution/Imperfect systems or transitions, one must wonder how in the world they SIMULTANEOUSLY accept the same kind of dynamics in the miracles that the Lord did. The Exodus Account is one of the greatest examples---as there was much "MUTATION"/Random occurrence...with materials/elements that had absolutely NO connection being SUDDENLY made to connect.

Some quick examples, as found in the lengthy account and instructions surrounding the tenth plague and the Exodus (Exodus 11:1-13:16).
The issue of the Staff turning into another object ENTIRELY like a snake has serious ramifications......and is a continuation of what was said in Exodus 4:1-17 when God first called Moses/told him to throw down his staff and see it transform. The section of Exodus 4:1-17 narrates dialouge between God and Moses regarding the signs He will perform before Israel and Pharoah.....and it is framed by explicit references that will bring Moses' staff info focus. Exodus 4:3-9 goes into depth about the three signs (i.e. the turning of his hand into leprosy, the turning of the staff into a snake and the waters turning into blood)......indicating that the extent of the Lords power over the realm of nature to do things that seem SCIENTIFICALLY impossible

The miracle of turning WATER into Blood was even more of a radical miracle than the turning of a staff info a snake. And as evidenced when it came saying that even in vessels of wood/stone water was turned into blood, the extent of the first plague shows that it cannot be explained simply as the result of natural causes.

Its interesting to note that in John 2, Jesus did the same thing with water transmutation..........except that He turned the Water into wine, with no record of his adding anything else to it that was necessary for it to transform as other often had to do when making wine.

For another example
Where is it the case that GNATS are somehow related to Dust---or have the same mechanics as Dust does? Was it necessary for Gnats to be guided step by step into becoming another thing ALTOGETHER? No---as God can do ANYTHING.

There are many other miracles besides this where the natural laws of nature seemed to be violated in order to prove a point. The incident where God struck the rock multiple times and water came out ( Numbers 20:11, ) comes immediately to mind....as well as the incident with the incident in the time of Joshua in Joshua 10, where God made the sun stand still/go back. Some doubt the incident in the belief that a miracle of cosmic proportions could never have occurred naturally.......as it relates to the earth ceasing to rotate for a time. For that would have had ecological consequences of a devestating nature on the rest of the planet possibly, as we currently understand it now when it comes to the necessity for the planet to keep rotating. However, since the Bible unquestionably teaches that God brought the universe into existence (Genesis 1, Psalm 33:6) and that He owns and rules it all by his own Purposes (Exodus 19:5, Deuteronomy 10:14), this certainly would be possible. Also, Given the miracle-working God of the Bible, the traditional understanding is certainly possible (perhaps II Kings 20:9-11), paralleled in Isaiah 38:8, where the suns shadow moves backward 10 steps).


Another example coming to mind of where God suspended the natural laws of nature/things just OCCURRED.
While one of the Prophetic communities is building a new place to meet, a member of the group loses a borrowed axe head...and Elisha has past experience of manipulating the waters of the Jordan by the Lords power (II Kings 2:14), and here he is miraculously able to make the iron float like a piece of wood he has thrown in beside it.

And of course, there were many other miraculous occurrences that went down besides that in the man's ministry---such as in II Kings 4 with the Widow and her Oil being multiplied/raising a son back to life. For another example.


All of this is said to simply show the point that it seems very inconsistent for others to be for the reality of God doing miraculous events...and yet incredulous whenever it comes to thinking that things naturally cannot just occur.

GalactusOmega said:

Sigh. If you're not up for an actual discussion, there's not much more I can do.

Carry on with your copy-pasting. Maybe someone will read it, but i wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.

Click to expand...

Posting scripture is not "copy-pasting." Writing out what the word says /giving a quote is not "copy-pasting." Anyone can parrot "copy=paste" in a discussion when they don't want to deal with something or see information that's given out quickly...and it's not surprising to see the reaction by yourself, as that generally happens with people lacking ability to deal with information that's in-depth. In all reality, its a lazy response.

If I were not up for actual discussion, I would not be taking the time to write out thoughts/give scripture. If you want to discuss, there's already material you can interact with. If you cannot/will not do that, then there's no reason for you being here. Sigh

Eudaimonist said:

No.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Click to expand...

Curious as to why you quoted eudaimonia, seeing what the term means

awitch said:

Hmm...Darwin's Black Box, by Michael Behe? The leading advocate of Intelligent Design? The same Michael Behe who testified under oath that Intelligent Design was on the same scientific level as astrology?

Click to expand...

As I noted earlier in that posting, my appreciating the author of "Darwin's Black Box" on many points does not mean that I think all aspects of his work are on the same level..nor does it mean that I approve of every comment he makes. For Behe tends to disregard all aspects of evolution. When talk about evolution in Behe's context, he's about disproving Darwin's evolution , which is what he feels the atheist has embraced. Of course, even Behe was noted for having given SUBSTANTIAL room to those in the camp of Evolution whenever saying that things had to somehow have an Artistic hand behind it all.






I mentioned/stated earlier that with Behe, where I disagree with him can be best summed up in the work of Biologist Kenneth Miller..who also believes in Intelligent Design but also supports evolution. Conveying in words what many of the scientific minds do often is a bit difficult--so if cool, here are some articles I think others would be interested in...if investigating/researching them under their respective titles:

• "Life's Grand Design"
  
  
• "God of the Gaps&#8230;in your own knowledge. Luskin, Behe, & blood-clotting"

• "Darwin's Black Box, reviewed by Kenneth R. Miller"

• "A Black Box or a Black Hole? A Response to Michael Behe -Denis O. Lamoureux"

• "Darwin's Black Box: Irreducible Complexity or Irreproducible Irreducibility?"

Additionally, I wanted to be clear on what is meant by the term "Intelligent Design". For in the event you're unaware, most people assume that anything even remotely using the phrase "Intelligent Design" automatically equates to one saying they're against evolution...and that may be more so due to how often the phrase has been hijacked by others for that purpose. Where there may be a need for clarity is on how "Intelligent Design" can have differing conotations, just as it is with the concept of Evolutionist...as seen in those who are SECULAR evolutionists/humanists and Theistic Evolutionist......for there's diversity within the camp. From the "National Center for Science Education" is an article you could investigate for yourself entitled "The Creation/Evolution Continuum" . Additionally, for peer-reviewed papers supporting Intelligent Design, one can go online and look up the ministry of "God and Science", under the name of Evolution vs. Design: Is the Universe a Cosmic Accident or Does it Display Intelligent Design?



It saddening whenever it seems that people may assume "Intelligent Design" is to be equated to one thing. The truth is that there are large numbers of working biologists who do believe in God and in divine creation, while at the same time believing evolutionary theory. In example, one can go online and look up something under the name of "Finding Darwin&#8217;s God: a scientist&#8217;s search for common ground between God and evolution" ( //www.worldcat.org/title/finding-darwins-god-a-scientists-search-for-common-ground-between-god-and-evolution/oclc/41641211 ) by Kenneth R Miller