A Question to the Creationists

[mark kennedy]

You've quoted my text in your comment, but I'm not clear on how they relate. Could you tell me what you think I was saying?

Even the demons believe in God, there is no special merit in believing God exists.

Indeed, I think the gospels flow very naturally from Genesis. However, if you talk to some TEs (not so many in my experience, but some), they actually do not have an interpretation for Genesis because they think it is irrelevant. They are mistaken on that last bit. But I don't think it has anything to do with whether God is able to act supernaturally (or any of the other things you mention in your post).

Yea, well....some TEs don't have a theology either. When you start to look at Genesis one of the things to consider is the birth of Issac. Issac was the name given to him by God when God (an angle actually)told Abraham he would return in a year and his wife would have a son. Sarah laughed because she was pushing a hundred years old. God brought life from a dead womb and Issac would pass the promise on to Jacob (Israel) who would father 12 sons who became the 12 tribes of Israel.

My point is this, Issac's birth was a miracle just as Christ being raised from the dead is a miracle. You can't just simply ignore the supernatural element of the Scriptures because your faith resulting in being born of the Holy Spirit is also a miracle. There is not just a literary link from the Gospel to Genesis, they both testify to the power of God being exercised in the course of human history. It has everything to do with wether or not God acts supernaturally and this point is not lost on evolutionists:

Lamarck was the first man whose conclusions on the subject excited much attention. This justly-celebrated naturalist first published his views in 1801; he much enlarged them in 1809 in his "Philosophie Zoologique,' and subsequently, in 1815, in the Introduction to his "Hist. Nat. des Animaux sans Vertébres.' In these works he upholds the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species. He first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition.(Darwin, On the Origin of Species)​

The key here is the 'miraculous interposition' of God. It has been catagorically rejected by secular scientists due to an academic bias. Our true history is found in Genesis, have you ever considered that option?

 

[jckstraw72]

God bless you for that excellent post Mark Kennedy!

 

[mark kennedy]

God bless you for that excellent post Mark Kennedy!

Thank you, what a nice thing to say. By the way, love the St. Augustine quote in your signiture.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Willtor]

Even the demons believe in God, there is no special merit in believing God exists.

It's true that it isn't enough that one acknowledge an eternal Being. So not all theistic evolutionists know God. But presumably if one comes to Christ and recognizes God as his Father (and, consequently, our Father by adoption)...

What I mean to say, as a whole, is that of the theistic evolutionists one is likely to meet on CF, we aren't talking about people who have denied the efficacy of Jesus' death and resurrection.

Yea, well....some TEs don't have a theology either.

I'd like to generalize this and point out that many _people_ don't have theology -- haven't thought about such things. I don't think it's appropriate to single out TEs. It is correct to say that some TEs have explored and considered and meditated on theology, and others have not.

When you start to look at Genesis one of the things to consider is the birth of Issac. Issac was the name given to him by God when God (an angle actually)told Abraham he would return in a year and his wife would have a son. Sarah laughed because she was pushing a hundred years old. God brought life from a dead womb and Issac would pass the promise on to Jacob (Israel) who would father 12 sons who became the 12 tribes of Israel.

My point is this, Issac's birth was a miracle just as Christ being raised from the dead is a miracle. You can't just simply ignore the supernatural element of the Scriptures because your faith resulting in being born of the Holy Spirit is also a miracle. There is not just a literary link from the Gospel to Genesis, they both testify to the power of God being exercised in the course of human history. It has everything to do with wether or not God acts supernaturally and this point is not lost on evolutionists:

Lamarck was the first man whose conclusions on the subject excited much attention. This justly-celebrated naturalist first published his views in 1801; he much enlarged them in 1809 in his "Philosophie Zoologique,' and subsequently, in 1815, in the Introduction to his "Hist. Nat. des Animaux sans Vertébres.' In these works he upholds the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species. He first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition.(Darwin, On the Origin of Species)​

The key here is the 'miraculous interposition' of God. It has been catagorically rejected by secular scientists due to an academic bias. Our true history is found in Genesis, have you ever considered that option?

I don't think that Darwin was commenting on the birth of Isaac. I'm not sure he particularly cared one way or the other.

 

[mark kennedy]

I'd like to generalize this and point out that many _people_ don't have theology -- haven't thought about such things. I don't think it's appropriate to single out TEs. It is correct to say that some TEs have explored and considered and meditated on theology, and others have not.

It's correct for me to say the only distinctive they have demonstrated on these boards is a hostility to Creationism. I think it is altogether appropriate to single them out since the vast majority of their posts are either evasive or antagonistic to Biblical Theism. You cannot escape the fact that Genesis is an historical narrative with vital theological premises that the New Testament builds on. The supernatural element of Scripture as history and as Gospel is inescapable for all but the most superficial Christian profession.

How could someone be a Christian and have no theology, it makes no sense.

I don't think that Darwin was commenting on the birth of Isaac. I'm not sure he particularly cared one way or the other.

No, he was talking about 'all change' being the result of 'natual law' not of 'miraculous interposition'. It is rather curious that TEs are conspicuously silent with regards to miracles, very curious indeed. Darwin simply assumed universal common descent, he proved and demonstrated nothing. Notice that he speaks of 'all change' and consider this statement:

It's clear, for example, that to the extent that Darwinian Evolution governs the development of life forms on this planet that is not an artifact of the Earth. Darwinian Evolution is a logic which is applicable to all life forms and all biosystems that may exist in the universe, even the ones we have not discovered. (Prof. Robert A. Weinberg, MIT Biology Professor)​

How can Darwinian logic apply to all life in the universe? It's because it's a universal a priori (without prior) assumption that all life is the result of natural law rather then miraclulous interposition. TEs invariably shun any hint of God's role in creation, even as the Designer, as if it were a foolish and empty headed thing to do. TE has attracted both believer and unbeliever with one single alure, the Darwinian a priori assumption of universal common descent must come before everything else and permeate everything else, wins you instant credibility.

That is about as contrary to Biblical theism as it gets.

 

[Willtor]

It's correct for me to say the only distinctive they have demonstrated on these boards is a hostility to Creationism. I think it is altogether appropriate to single them out since the vast majority of their posts are either evasive or antagonistic to Biblical Theism. You cannot escape the fact that Genesis is an historical narrative with vital theological premises that the New Testament builds on. The supernatural element of Scripture as history and as Gospel is inescapable for all but the most superficial Christian profession.

How could someone be a Christian and have no theology, it makes no sense.

Whose posts are evasive or antagonistic to Biblical Theism? Who are you talking about, here? Is it Gluadys? Shernren? Me?

No, he was talking about 'all change' being the result of 'natual law' not of 'miraculous interposition'. It is rather curious that TEs are conspicuously silent with regards to miracles, very curious indeed.

As above, who, specifically, are you talking about? Who is silent with regard to miracles? Surely not me.

Darwin simply assumed universal common descent, he proved and demonstrated nothing. Notice that he speaks of 'all change' and consider this statement:

It's clear, for example, that to the extent that Darwinian Evolution governs the development of life forms on this planet that is not an artifact of the Earth. Darwinian Evolution is a logic which is applicable to all life forms and all biosystems that may exist in the universe, even the ones we have not discovered. (Prof. Robert A. Weinberg, MIT Biology Professor)​

How can Darwinian logic apply to all life in the universe? It's because it's a universal a priori (without prior) assumption that all life is the result of natural law rather then miraclulous interposition. TEs invariably shun any hint of God's role in creation, even as the Designer, as if it were a foolish and empty headed thing to do. TE has attracted both believer and unbeliever with one single alure, the Darwinian a priori assumption of universal common descent must come before everything else and permeate everything else, wins you instant credibility.

That is about as contrary to Biblical theism as it gets.

He is saying that evolution acts on all life, not that miracles don't occur.

That aside, can you talk about specific TEs shunning any hint of God's role in creation? Haven't I written commentary expanding on St. Thomas' interpretation of the creation narrative?

 

[Hismessenger]

It's not that you have to believe in the creation itself to be saved but you do have to believe in the word for Christ is the word made flesh.To deny the creation as given is to deny the truth of the word which means that you dont believe in the word/Christ. By every word which proceeds out of the mouth of God whether it be God himself or His prophets.

hismessenger

 

[shernren]

No, he was talking about 'all change' being the result of 'natual law' not of 'miraculous interposition'. It is rather curious that TEs are conspicuously silent with regards to miracles, very curious indeed. Darwin simply assumed universal common descent, he proved and demonstrated nothing. Notice that he speaks of 'all change' and consider this statement:

It's clear, for example, that to the extent that Darwinian Evolution governs the development of life forms on this planet that is not an artifact of the Earth. Darwinian Evolution is a logic which is applicable to all life forms and all biosystems that may exist in the universe, even the ones we have not discovered. (Prof. Robert A. Weinberg, MIT Biology Professor)​

How can Darwinian logic apply to all life in the universe? It's because it's a universal a priori (without prior) assumption that all life is the result of natural law rather then miraclulous interposition. TEs invariably shun any hint of God's role in creation, even as the Designer, as if it were a foolish and empty headed thing to do. TE has attracted both believer and unbeliever with one single alure, the Darwinian a priori assumption of universal common descent must come before everything else and permeate everything else, wins you instant credibility.

That is about as contrary to Biblical theism as it gets.

It's funny that something I wrote about two weeks ago is very relevant to what you just said:

Let's say instead that at certain points in history God reveals His holy impassibility in transcendent as well as / instead of immanent ways. Unpacking that:

Creation's only bulwark from collapsing once again into the chaos of nothingness is God's continual loving, permitting and willing it into existence. In doing so God shows Himself to be loving, and impassible: because He has promised Himself to uphold creation (at least for now), His will to do so cannot be shaken no matter how violently man perpetrates evil against Him, against themselves and against the rest of creation. No matter how hard it tries, creation and man simply cannot commit suicide by cop, at least before the appointed time of God's final judgment. If it could, it would have shown itself capable of overriding God's otherwise holy and impassible will.

However, this continual demonstration of holy impassibility is immanent: it is mediated through the existence of creation. If creation had not existed, God would not have been able to demonstrate His holy impassibility in such a way. But God's holiness is transcendent: God is holy not only when He has a creation to relate to, but also when He does not. He is holy and impassible in and of Himself.

Miracles, then, are God's demonstration of transcendent holiness. Miracles are God's way of revealing that His holiness is so great that creation is ultimately subservient to Him, even if man is temporarily allowed to rebel against Him and still exist.

The providential action of God reveals that He is a Father, then; the miraculous action of God reveals that He is the LORD. Everything God does reveals Himself, and both providence and miracle are revelation. If we don't believe that God acts in providence, we become orphans who don't know if God still loves the universe in Himself; if we don't believe that God acts in miracle, we become hostages who don't know if God can win the universe to Himself.

Take the cross and resurrection (as we always should: any doctrine that is not demonstrable in the cross and resurrection may not be crucial to our faith). The cross is an entirely natural event: natural demagoguery, natural trials, natural suffering, natural death. God refuses to stop man, even though He could at any point, from perpetrating the ultimate injustice that has ever been seen on Earth. As a result, Jesus identifies Himself entirely with man, displays His complete humanity, qualifies Himself to be man's substitute and makes His sufferings able to pay the price for mankind's sin.

The resurrection is an entirely unnatural event: unnatural rescue from death, unnatural ground-shaking, angels and an empty tomb. God pronounces that His own holy justice has overturned the unjust human sentence which God had for a time (but no longer) permitted to stand. In His holy declaration, the order of natural things - that a dead man should lie dead to rot into nothing, one of the first things proclaimed to man after his initiation into sin - was summarily overturned. As a result, Jesus identifies Himself entirely with God, displays His complete divinity, qualifies Himself to be man's judge and makes His victory the cornerstone of the Kingdom's eventual reality.

This framework helps me succinctly restate my great problems with ID:

It reduces providence to unintelligibility, by insisting that design is something identified only in only certain small precincts of life.

And it reduces miracle to curiosity, by insisting that design is something identified only by certain suspensions of arbitrarily chosen physical and mathematical principles.

In both aspects the revelation of God has been traded for the shadow of a Designer.

Silent about miracles, indeed! Shunning any hint of God's role in creation, indeed! Someone's clearly trapped in the theater of the mind railing against imaginary opponents, indeed; I'm just not sure it's me.

It's correct for me to say the only distinctive they have demonstrated on these boards is a hostility to Creationism. I think it is altogether appropriate to single them out since the vast majority of their posts are either evasive or antagonistic to Biblical Theism. You cannot escape the fact that Genesis is an historical narrative with vital theological premises that the New Testament builds on. The supernatural element of Scripture as history and as Gospel is inescapable for all but the most superficial Christian profession.

How could someone be a Christian and have no theology, it makes no sense.

I've been on these boards for nearly five years now, MK, and I've watched your posts steadily evaporate from incisive questioning of human genomic data and liberal conceptions of Scripture into a hollow stream of indictment and abuse against theistic evolutionism. In that span of time I have never seen any creationist present a meaningful, comprehensive theology of providence, the imago Dei, Biblical inspiration, or any of the other topics one would think they would need to think through to be fruitful creationists.

Something I said a little more than a year ago still holds true:

... historically TEs have been much kinder to their creationist brethren than otherwise. When Glenn Morton left the fold of YECism he was labelled a son of the devil and a wolf in sheepskin, among other wonderful titles. Compare this to what Alvin Platinga has to say of his YEC brethren:

I happen to think they are mistaken; but their errors, to my mind, are enormously less important than the errors of many of those – the Dawkins and Provines and Sagans of this world, for example – who load abuse on them. … I disagree with the creation scientists, and, like most other academics, I don’t relish the scorn and obloquy that goes with being associated with them; but at a deep level I feel much closer to them, both spiritually and intellectually, than to their cultured despisers. (emphasis added)​

And I would love to feel much closer to you than to your cultured despisers as well, except that you yourself condemn us as approximating the spawn of the devil in so many ways. You do have a good head on those shoulders; if only you used it to really consider creation instead of promulgating a Christian McCarthyism against your bemused TE brethren!

 

[mark kennedy]

It's funny that something I wrote about two weeks ago is very relevant to what you just said:

I don't know why you think that God's distance and seperation has some special bearing on creation but the quote seems to be a tangent.

Silent about miracles, indeed! Shunning any hint of God's role in creation, indeed! Someone's clearly trapped in the theater of the mind railing against imaginary opponents, indeed; I'm just not sure it's me.

It sounds like you understood what I was saying and of course you deny it, the problem is the TEs are entirely too consistant for me to be mistaken.

I've been on these boards for nearly five years now, MK, and I've watched your posts steadily evaporate from incisive questioning of human genomic data and liberal conceptions of Scripture into a hollow stream of indictment and abuse against theistic evolutionism. In that span of time I have never seen any creationist present a meaningful, comprehensive theology of providence, the imago Dei, Biblical inspiration, or any of the other topics one would think they would need to think through to be fruitful creationists.

Do you know no shame? You made the same indictment in our formal debate and it was your posts that were devoid of theology. You not only have the nerve to judge creationists without a hearing for not assuming universal common descent, you presume to judge their theology. Creationism is the worldview of the New Testament and the clear historical foundation of the Old. I don't know where you get this 'imago dei' nonsense but it reeks of Tilich style abstractions.

When I began on these boards I was busy and only had time for the philosophical aspects. Later I was in college and had time to spend tracking down the primary source literature and finding the gross misrepresentation of the Talk Origins spamers. What the issue finally came down to is TE not being distinquishably different from their atheistic and agnostic cohorts. The only thing that distiquishes TEs is their constant assult on creationists that invariably become personal attacks.

My questions have not ceased and I was a lot more abrasive when I was pursuing the subject matter. Now the whole thing is on hold while I digest what I've learned about evolution, now I'm just studying evolutionists.

And I would love to feel much closer to you than to your cultured despisers as well, except that you yourself condemn us as approximating the spawn of the devil in so many ways. You do have a good head on those shoulders; if only you used it to really consider creation instead of promulgating a Christian McCarthyism against your bemused TE brethren!

Never called TEs 'devil's spawn', the fact is I think you are being used. If you really wanted to see this controversy end favorably for science and religion you would learn something about metaphysics and why it is essentail to the evolution/creation controversy.

Come into it shernren, your enemy is in your heart, not on these boards

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Willtor]

Mark, I think you missed post #26.

 

[mark kennedy]

Whose posts are evasive or antagonistic to Biblical Theism? Who are you talking about, here? Is it Gluadys? Shernren? Me?

TEs are united in a single focus, contradicting and criticizing creationists, I have seen no exceptions.

As above, who, specifically, are you talking about? Who is silent with regard to miracles? Surely not me.

Oh really? Tell me something, the crossing of the Red Sea in Exodus, what do you think actually happened?

He is saying that evolution acts on all life, not that miracles don't occur.

No he is not, he is saying that Darwinian logic applys to all life, even if it's undiscovered on another planet, throughout the universe. Read the quote, it's self explanatory.

That aside, can you talk about specific TEs shunning any hint of God's role in creation? Haven't I written commentary expanding on St. Thomas' interpretation of the creation narrative?

God as creator is shunned as well as Intelligent Design. The only thing left is Darwinian evolution and while TE may well be a compromise in your mind there is no discernable difference as far as I can tell. It wouldn't be so bad if not for the fact that TEs never stop bashing creationists.

Once upon a time this young man on creation/evolution that was a prolific YEC advocate. I had not seen him for some time and the last time I did he told everyone in the thread that I was a cultist. This would appear to be what it means to 'deconvert', as he called it.

I have no qualms about taking on the scientific issues from exclusivly scientific sources, it's all too easy. For years I was very carefull not to bring up the Biblical issues or ignore them completely because I knew where it would go. The TEs are convinced they are superior to creationists because that's what the Darwinian crowd wants them to think. So when they are actually confronted with what the Bible actually teaches regarding creation they think they can just contradict and criticize YECs and that's all there is to it.

I know the Scriptures and I know why modern academia doesn't like what's written there. Genesis is our true history and the Darwinian myth of universal common descent is little more then a modernist version of pagan myticism. My whole problem with TE is not that they are atheistic materialists but that they let Darwinians use them.

I don't know if you are trying to be the peacemaker or what but let me warn you if you are. Evolutionists are adept at turning common ground into no man's land and making their influence known.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Willtor]

TEs are united in a single focus, contradicting and criticizing creationists, I have seen no exceptions.

This was in response to my question as to names of posters whose posts are evasive or antagonistic to Biblical Theism. Are you equating YEC to Biblical Theism?

Oh really? Tell me something, the crossing of the Red Sea in Exodus, what do you think actually happened?

I think God caused the waters to part for Moses and the Israelites and they crossed on dry land. Please don't act surprised, though. I'd take offense. After all, it would mean that you have ignored almost everything I have ever said to you.

No he is not, he is saying that Darwinian logic applys to all life, even if it's undiscovered on another planet, throughout the universe. Read the quote, it's self explanatory.

If you think that what you just said is different from what I said, then you don't understand evolution.

God as creator is shunned as well as Intelligent Design. The only thing left is Darwinian evolution and while TE may well be a compromise in your mind there is no discernable difference as far as I can tell. It wouldn't be so bad if not for the fact that TEs never stop bashing creationists.

Once upon a time this young man on creation/evolution that was a prolific YEC advocate. I had not seen him for some time and the last time I did he told everyone in the thread that I was a cultist. This would appear to be what it means to 'deconvert', as he called it.

I have no qualms about taking on the scientific issues from exclusivly scientific sources, it's all too easy. For years I was very carefull not to bring up the Biblical issues or ignore them completely because I knew where it would go. The TEs are convinced they are superior to creationists because that's what the Darwinian crowd wants them to think. So when they are actually confronted with what the Bible actually teaches regarding creation they think they can just contradict and criticize YECs and that's all there is to it.

I know the Scriptures and I know why modern academia doesn't like what's written there. Genesis is our true history and the Darwinian myth of universal common descent is little more then a modernist version of pagan myticism. My whole problem with TE is not that they are atheistic materialists but that they let Darwinians use them.

I don't know if you are trying to be the peacemaker or what but let me warn you if you are. Evolutionists are adept at turning common ground into no man's land and making their influence known.

Have a nice day
Mark

If he had deconverted, in what way was he a TE?

 

[Papias]

Mark wrote:

the Darwinian myth of universal common descent is little more then a modernist version of pagan myticism.

So are you saying that universal common descent doesn't have evidence to support it, read from God's creation?

Papias

 

[mark kennedy]

This was in response to my question as to names of posters whose posts are evasive or antagonistic to Biblical Theism. Are you equating YEC to Biblical Theism?

You guys really do like to eat your cake and then have it. YEC is based on what the Scriptures actually teach and I think the TEs on here know this. People who have simply put their philosophy into theological terms know who they are, there is no need to write a list since I have debated them for years, once formally. The Scriptures are clear that God created Adam from the dust and Eve from a rib. What is more Romans 5 makes it clear that all have sinned because in Adam all sinned. The New Testament confirms this in no uncertain terms and TEs do not have biblical grounds for their incessant taunts of Creationists, quite the opposite, they do it dispite the clear teaching of the Scriptures.

I think God caused the waters to part for Moses and the Israelites and they crossed on dry land. Please don't act surprised, though. I'd take offense. After all, it would mean that you have ignored almost everything I have ever said to you.

Probably don't want your evolutionist cohorts to know that and I didn't intrude into the TE forum, you came in here throwing insinuations around.

If you think that what you just said is different from what I said, then you don't understand evolution.

I understand what you are saying, I just don't agree with it. Words mean things and evolution is defined scientifically as the 'change of alleles in populations over time'. What you are calling 'evolution' is actually an a priori assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic causes. This reduces God to an abstraction not unlike the pagan elementals of the ancient mythographers. I think your the one that has a listening problem.

If he had deconverted, in what way was he a TE?

You mean, 'in what way is he a TE'? The only thing that changed when he 'deconverted' from YEC is that he started to mock and scoff at Creationists. TEs are notorious for abandoning whatever substantive points are made and going straight to the ad hominem personal attacks. That's the second assumption, if you don't make the first then you are assumed to be ignorant of science and theology. That's why TEs don't have a theology that supports their world view, they don't need one.

That's not to say that many of them are not Christians but Darwinian evolution is atheistic even if it's defended by a Christian. Whether they like it or not, whether they understand it or not, whether they want to admit it or not. Now I don't have a problem with someone who honestly looks at the evidence and concludes that evolution was responsible rather God's divine fiat described in Genesis. My problem is having these naturalistic assumptions shoved down my throat while trampling sound Biblical testimony under foot. It wouldn't be so bad if it were not so constant.

You haven't made a substantive point yet, either scientific or theological. Instead you are focused on correcting and contradicting me. That's called an ad hominem fallacy and it will remain fallacious in a scientific as well as theological frame of referance.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Willtor]

You guys really do like to eat your cake and then have it. YEC is based on what the Scriptures actually teach and I think the TEs on here know this. People who have simply put their philosophy into theological terms know who they are, there is no need to write a list since I have debated them for years, once formally. The Scriptures are clear that God created Adam from the dust and Eve from a rib. What is more Romans 5 makes it clear that all have sinned because in Adam all sinned. The New Testament confirms this in no uncertain terms and TEs do not have biblical grounds for their incessant taunts of Creationists, quite the opposite, they do it dispite the clear teaching of the Scriptures.

I know you doubt my integrity, but just so I've said it: I adopted a non-literal reading of Genesis for theological reasons some time before I even came to think the earth was old -- let alone became an evolutionist.

Probably don't want your evolutionist cohorts to know that and I didn't intrude into the TE forum, you came in here throwing insinuations around.

I suspect that most of my evolutionist "cohorts" agree with me. I think this notion of opposition to miracles is all in your head, Mark. Not that I doubt you have memories of evolutionists saying that there are no miracles or at least being evasive. But I think they are constructed memories. I probably haven't been in as many threads as you, but I have never seen anything remotely like this said -- on the contrary, all I see are TEs trying to correct you on this very point.

I understand what you are saying, I just don't agree with it. Words mean things and evolution is defined scientifically as the 'change of alleles in populations over time'. What you are calling 'evolution' is actually an a priori assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic causes. This reduces God to an abstraction not unlike the pagan elementals of the ancient mythographers. I think your the one that has a listening problem.

What I am talking about is "change in the frequency of alleles in populations over generations." I presume that this is what was meant by Prof. Weinberg.

You mean, 'in what way is he a TE'? The only thing that changed when he 'deconverted' from YEC is that he started to mock and scoff at Creationists. TEs are notorious for abandoning whatever substantive points are made and going straight to the ad hominem personal attacks. That's the second assumption, if you don't make the first then you are assumed to be ignorant of science and theology. That's why TEs don't have a theology that supports their world view, they don't need one.

That's not to say that many of them are not Christians but Darwinian evolution is atheistic even if it's defended by a Christian. Whether they like it or not, whether they understand it or not, whether they want to admit it or not. Now I don't have a problem with someone who honestly looks at the evidence and concludes that evolution was responsible rather God's divine fiat described in Genesis. My problem is having these naturalistic assumptions shoved down my throat while trampling sound Biblical testimony under foot. It wouldn't be so bad if it were not so constant.

You haven't made a substantive point yet, either scientific or theological. Instead you are focused on correcting and contradicting me. That's called an ad hominem fallacy and it will remain fallacious in a scientific as well as theological frame of referance.

Have a nice day
Mark

I'm not here to make a scientific or theological point. I am here to correct and contradict you because you are saying things about me that aren't so.

 

[mark kennedy]

I know you doubt my integrity, but just so I've said it: I adopted a non-literal reading of Genesis for theological reasons some time before I even came to think the earth was old -- let alone became an evolutionist.

Fascinating, how did you get past what the actual text says? It says from the dust of the earth, not modified from apes. Something else, what do you do with Romans 5 or Luke's geneology? Paul links Adam's sin to everyone's, hard to imagine a theology that would require a figurative reading of an historical narrative.

I suspect that most of my evolutionist "cohorts" agree with me. I think this notion of opposition to miracles is all in your head, Mark. Not that I doubt you have memories of evolutionists saying that there are no miracles or at least being evasive. But I think they are constructed memories. I probably haven't been in as many threads as you, but I have never seen anything remotely like this said -- on the contrary, all I see are TEs trying to correct you on this very point.

Don't tell me what I've seen on here and evolutionists correct creationists out of an aire of superiority, not the substance of their posts. TEs correct me even when I'm right, they correct me when it's just a matter of semantics or opinion. TEs just correct creationists because their atheistic and agnostic cohorts have convinced them they are superior, even in their theological persuasions. I have found TEs to be weak intellectually and adicted to a fallacious line of argumentation seeded with naturalistic assumptions. You should not be supprised that a Christian might mistake you for a secular humanist.

What I am talking about is "change in the frequency of alleles in populations over generations." I presume that this is what was meant by Prof. Weinberg.

No Prof. Weinberg was using the Darwinian ontology, in that context evolution is ubiquitious to all of life. It's one of the appeals of the theory of evolution that it unifies all branches of biology.

I'm not here to make a scientific or theological point. I am here to correct and contradict you because you are saying things about me that aren't so.

No, you are here to contridict and conflate scientific issues, that's what TEs do. It's rather curious that TEs become indignant when you point of the distinctly worldly premise of their position. At least secular scientists will focus on scientific fact, even if they twist it to fit their homology arguments. TEs don't even do that and when it comes to theological issues or Scriptural principles they will dart to the ad hominem remarks immediatly.

I don't know if your a Christian or not, you sound legit. The fact remains that Darwinian evolution rejects God both as personal and active in human history, starting with the creation. Don't pretend you are standing on solid theological ground, I know better and I suspect you do as well.

 

[crawfish]

Don't tell me what I've seen on here and evolutionists correct creationists out of an aire of superiority, not the substance of their posts. TEs correct me even when I'm right, they correct me when it's just a matter of semantics or opinion. TEs just correct creationists because their atheistic and agnostic cohorts have convinced them they are superior, even in their theological persuasions. I have found TEs to be weak intellectually and adicted to a fallacious line of argumentation seeded with naturalistic assumptions. You should not be supprised that a Christian might mistake you for a secular humanist.

Wow.

At least you creationists aren't condescending.

 

[crawfish]

Don't tell me what I've seen on here and evolutionists correct creationists out of an aire of superiority, not the substance of their posts. TEs correct me even when I'm right, they correct me when it's just a matter of semantics or opinion. TEs just correct creationists because their atheistic and agnostic cohorts have convinced them they are superior, even in their theological persuasions. I have found TEs to be weak intellectually and adicted to a fallacious line of argumentation seeded with naturalistic assumptions. You should not be supprised that a Christian might mistake you for a secular humanist.

Wow.

At least you creationists aren't condescending.

 

[Willtor]

Fascinating, how did you get past what the actual text says? It says from the dust of the earth, not modified from apes. Something else, what do you do with Romans 5 or Luke's geneology? Paul links Adam's sin to everyone's, hard to imagine a theology that would require a figurative reading of an historical narrative.

I didn't need to get past what the actual text says. Nor did evolution enter into it. But I said both those things in the post to which you are, here, responding.

Don't tell me what I've seen on here and evolutionists correct creationists out of an aire of superiority, not the substance of their posts. TEs correct me even when I'm right, they correct me when it's just a matter of semantics or opinion. TEs just correct creationists because their atheistic and agnostic cohorts have convinced them they are superior, even in their theological persuasions. I have found TEs to be weak intellectually and adicted to a fallacious line of argumentation seeded with naturalistic assumptions. You should not be supprised that a Christian might mistake you for a secular humanist.

I'm going to tell you what you have seen on here (even though you tell me not to do so): You have seen TEs trying to argue that they accept miracles, even specific miracles, especially the resurrection of Jesus Christ. You have seen them deny the literal reading of Genesis in favor of a figurative one. From the latter, you have inferred the negation of the former. But it just isn't so. You really can't tell me what I believe and don't believe. That isn't how it works.

You say I carry myself high -- this is an easy trap when the discussion is whether I believe what I say I believe. After all, I know better than you. I am sorry if I have adopted an unbecoming attitude, though.

No Prof. Weinberg was using the Darwinian ontology, in that context evolution is ubiquitious to all of life. It's one of the appeals of the theory of evolution that it unifies all branches of biology.

What is the Darwinian ontology?

No, you are here to contridict and conflate scientific issues, that's what TEs do. It's rather curious that TEs become indignant when you point of the distinctly worldly premise of their position. At least secular scientists will focus on scientific fact, even if they twist it to fit their homology arguments. TEs don't even do that and when it comes to theological issues or Scriptural principles they will dart to the ad hominem remarks immediatly.

No. I was right. I'm here to correct and contradict you because you are saying things about me that aren't so.

I don't know if your a Christian or not, you sound legit. The fact remains that Darwinian evolution rejects God both as personal and active in human history, starting with the creation. Don't pretend you are standing on solid theological ground, I know better and I suspect you do as well.

What is the difference between evolution and Darwinian evolution?

As to theological ground: The first thread in which I posted in which you were also a participant, you rep'd me for my interpretation of Genesis. We have come a long way from that, haven't we?

 

[lucaspa]

TEs are united in a single focus, contradicting and criticizing creationists, I have seen no exceptions.

That is because creationism -- in all its forms -- is a falsified scientific theory. It's not bashing "creationists" the people, but rather rejecting creationism the theory.

Oh really? Tell me something, the crossing of the Red Sea in Exodus, what do you think actually happened?

Like Willtor, I believe Moses appealed to God and God parted the waters. That's a belief. I have no scientific evidence for or against, nor do I expect any to be found. If the "naked archeologist" is correct, there is archeological support in the form of stele in Greece.

No he is not, he is saying that Darwinian logic applys to all life, even if it's undiscovered on another planet, throughout the universe. Read the quote, it's self explanatory.

And, yes, Darwinian evolution would have happened to all life, just like gravity would be operating on that other planet. What's the problem? Why would you think God would use a different material method to create the diversity of life elsewhere? Would you expect God to hold that planet in orbit by a different material method? Why?

God as creator is shunned as well as Intelligent Design.

If you are speaking of Dawkins, then yes, God as creator is shunned. But that is because Dawkins is an atheist. ID is shunned because the evidence shows that this version of creationism is false.

The TEs are convinced they are superior to creationists because that's what the Darwinian crowd wants them to think. So when they are actually confronted with what the Bible actually teaches regarding creation they think they can just contradict and criticize YECs and that's all there is to it.

I would submit that TEs get criticized from both sides. Creationists criticize because we accept what God's Creation tells us instead of worshipping the Bible. IDers reserve some of their most scathing criticism for TEs. Phillip Johnson has voiced many of your arguments long before you have, but in much more insulting terms.

Atheistic evolutionists hate us because we will not accept that evolution = atheism. What's worse, atheist apologeticists cannot falsify our religious position the way they can YEC. Therefore they also save some of their most scathing criticism for TEs.

I know the Scriptures and I know why modern academia doesn't like what's written there. Genesis is our true history and the Darwinian myth of universal common descent is little more then a modernist version of pagan myticism.

Then you do not know why modern academia does not like creationism. But you have your history backwards. It started with Biblical literalists not liking academia in the late 1800s as academia settled on Higher Criticism. Biblical literalists did not like the discovery that traditional views of the authorship of scripture was in error.

BTW, which creation story in Genesis is "our true history"? There are 3, and they contradict. That should be a neon sign to you and others that scripture was never meant to be "true history".

My whole problem with TE is not that they are atheistic materialists but that they let Darwinians use them.

LOL! The reason militant atheists criticize TE so harshly is that TE and TEs are NOT atheistic materialists. Instead, we tell atheists that philosophical materialism is not supported by science. We tell them that "natural" does not = without God.

Ironically, it is the YECs and other creationists that adhere to the atheistic faith. They do accept that "natural = without God because they insist there has to be "gaps". If there are no gaps, then they say God is not there. But that is just what the atheists say. The only difference is that creationists insist there are gaps, but atheists insist there are not. But both sides accept that a lack of gaps means no God.