A few points

[Vance]

In response to a couple of "why do theistic evolutionists believe this way" type questions in the Creationist subforum. I would have thought that if they were really interested in finding out why we believe something they would just ask us directly, rather than sit around and ponder it among themselves. Unless, of course, they think we would lie. But no, they would not think a fellow Christian would lie . . .

Anyway, here are the answers to the questions being pondered:

1. Scientific conclusions about God's Creation are not infallible, since the evidence is being interpreted fallible humans. The interpretation of Scripture is not infallible because it is being read by humans. When there is a seeming contradiction between the evidence of God's Creation and God's Word, you must weigh the possible interpretations of each to get as close as possible to the truth.

To say that Theistic Evolutionists simply trust Man over God is simply incorrect. Biblical interpretation and interpretation of God's Creation is a choice between man and man. God created both His Creation and His Word, they can not contradict each other. But it is incredibly hubristic to believe that our human interpretation of His Word will always be better than our human interpretation of His Creation.

2. God can not deceive. Period. No Theistic Evolutionist has ever said anything to the contrary on these forums. It is because God can not deceive that we accept an old earth and that species evolved over billions of years, since if these were NOT true, then God would have created deceptively, something I don't believe He can do.

Of course, this can not be stated in absolute terms. The evidence for an old earth is about 99.99% convincing to me. The evidence for the facts of evolutionary development would only be about 98%, while the theory of evolution to explain these facts would be about 95%.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I watched with humor the thread you reference, for i constantly fight my scientific and philosophic education telling me that all knowledge is probablistic. Then to hear people using the words science and infallible in the same sentence is just plain cute, if badly misguided.

for anyone without a firm grasp of the philosophy and history of science, i just can not recommend:
David Oldroyd
_The Arch of Knowledge: An Introductory Study of the History of the Philosophy and Methodology of Science_

too highly.

on the topic of science and probabilistic epistemology i would recommend a quick study of:
prions
ulcers as infection

as very relevant to the topic, see especially how the scientific community mis-reacted to the theories.

btw.
theory =/= conjecture.

 

[Vance]

The problem is that no matter how many times we say that we DON'T believe X or DON'T do Y to come to our beliefs, they simply go on saying X and Y anyway, which is basically saying we are lying. Yes, I understand that it is easier to reject TE when you can mischaracterize it as something that it is not, but this is not really honest.

 

[mhess13]

***yawn***
doesn't it ever get old post the same old tired thing over and over and over and over and over?
Vance, you sound like a scratched record
***yawn***boring

 

[Vance]

Just as the following statements get old:

"you are putting more faith in man's knowledge than God's Word"

"The Bible plainly says . . ."

"I just take the Bible for what it says . . ."

etc, etc,

Doesn't it get old posting stuff like this over and over, as your ultimate response to everything?