A simple question

[Critias]

Science, as science, has no opinion on whether God is the origin of all life. It is not a scientific question. Category error, as has been pointed out.

And that is my point. That Science will never credit God for creating. And if that is considered a good thing, then is it also a good thing for a Christian to never credit Jesus for saving them?

Paul taught that God's creative powers are to be seen so that man is without excuse. We have science that will not credit God with creating, and because they will not, they move in the opposite direction, looking for other reasons for the origin of life.

I see that as a problem because the philosophy of evolution is looking for something other than God as the creating force behind this world. I see often that *some* theistic evolutionists do the same by saying natural selection is the creative force. What happened to God?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

That Science will never credit God for creating. And if that is considered a good thing,

i don't think you get the argument. science is deliberately TRUNCATED, it doesn't talk about God or about morals or about right and wrong. metaphysics does. and a metaphysics is wrapped around science by each person, but this metaphysics is NOT part of science, but rather part of that person's worldview. it is a problem of levels or of categories. do you really want the divisiveness that religion shows daily to be imported back into science?

because the philosophy of evolution is looking for something other than God as the creating force behind this world

again you mistake the philosophy of EVOLUTIONISTs with the science of evolution. science doesn't look for, nor even care about first causes of the something behind everything else. That is not a scientific category, that is people talking about the metaphysics they have created from or out of science. please understand that categories, levels are crucial to getting the discussion right.

criticize the metaphysics of people, look at the meta-science that controls science, but whatever try to get the level distinction working for you, not as a root of confusion.

....

 

[Critias]

That is because there is only one theory of evolution in biology. The personal religious options of scientists and those interested in science do not change the theory, only how they integrate the theory into their personal metaphysics.

Just as what a juror believes about the guilt or innocence of the accused does not change the evidentiary basis of the charge. A fingerprint on a crowbar used to pry open a window is equally true both for those who consider it proves guilt and those who consider it insufficient to establish guilt.

You bring up some very good points, but I think you either left out or don't see that even scientists impute their beliefs into their work. Not all of their beliefs, but what they assume does get into science. They are necessary, and they are part of what the scientists believe.

I like the court room example. Both lawyers, defense and prosecuting, have the same evidence, both interpret it differently. Have we ever had people go to jail who did not commit the crime? If so, then mistakes are part of the picture, as well as the whole case being dependent on who is the most believable or better speaker.

I suggest it is the same science. There is one piece of evidence and different sides interpreting the evidence that come to different conclusions. The majority rules is not always the best approach in creating your beliefs. One must first decide what they consider to be their standard by which they will judge the various interpretations. I see creationists using the Bible as their standard. I personally don't see anything wrong with this. I honestly don't see how others do see something wrong with this. Especially, when there is 2000+ years of Apostles, teachers, pastors and Jesus Christ who teach us to do this.

I see theistic evolutionists using a naturalistic basis for their beliefs. That is why I said they can be called theistic naturalists, because many believe in God and nature as co-creators. God created nature, nature created everything in nature.

The same goes for the evidence for evolution and the theory of evolution. They don’t change no matter what opinion a person holds about them or what philosophical framework colours one’s understanding of them.

Really? Let me point you to a washington post article that shows some scientists doing what you say they don't do.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/08/AR2005060802385.html

I hate the word “origins” in this context. It is so vague. One needs to be specific about what sort of “origins” is being discussed. This is also a poor way to describe the function of a theory. A theory does not “search” for anything. It describes and explains natural phenomena. Theists do not “search” for origins in God. They affirm creation by God as an article of faith.

Considering who created and how creation happened are two different categories of questions. What divides creationists and TEs is the creationist insistence that God did not use natural means to generate bio-diversity. In particular, God did not use natural means to form the physical being of humanity.

Origins simple means at the point when something comes into existence. Origin of species is looking for when species came into existence. Origin of life is looking for when life came into existence. So science is looking for when and the source of all things. Such as common ancestor, how did the big bang begin, how did life come from non-life, etc.

The Bible says God created life, He is the origin of all life. Yet, science is looking for that origin, and theistic evolutionists are in support for looking for the origin when they so strongly uphold evolution and abiogenesis. In order for evolution to begin - in a science perspective - abiogenesis must have happened somehow. Life must have came from non-life somehow, unless aliens created us, or heaven forbid science says God created us then evolution happened. But science cannot say God created us, they can assert aliens creating as Crick did, but not God. Yet, you cannot uphold alien existence with science.

This is a theological and hermeneutical question. It does not affect the theory of evolution one way or another. If one accepts that God did use natural means, then it is legitimate to check out what those natural means were. This in no way cancels out belief in creation.



It is much more like saying, “I know God made me, and I want to learn about the natural process of conception so that I will understand better how God made me.”

Evolution's purpose is not to learn about the species and what they do, that is part of it, but the purpose is to trace back to see where it all began, the origin of it all. Hence, common descent. So, you are saying God created me, but I need to go find out how and who created me.

I expect the reason you see theism and evolution as contradictory is because you have not established a correct concept of the boundaries of science. As Karl and artybloke have pointed out, you are making category errors that confound theology, metaphysics and science. So you attribute philosophical and theological concepts to evolution which science does not deal with. Once you have pieced out what is and is not science, what is and is not metaphysics, you will be better able to handle each category appropriately.

Are we stating that the theory of evolution is without philosophical ideas? I did not attribute theological concepts to evolution. I stated evolution does not look for God, nor will it declare God, so there is no study of God, hence no theological concepts at all.

Metaphysics is simply a philosophical principle. And philosophy is part of the theory of evolution. It is needed for the assumptions made and to reason for them. It is the investigation of nature by logic and reason. It is philosophy, and it cannot be without it. Science and philosophy go hand in hand, you cannot separate the two.

The name of Darwin’s book was not Origin of Life, it was Origin of Species. The theory of evolution is not about the origin of life, but about the relationships of species past and present. The question of the origin of life falls under the category of abiogenesis.

Let me also point out that the fact of abiogenesis is not in doubt. No one, theist or otherwise, doubts that there was no life on the primitive earth and now there is. No one, theist or otherwise, doubts that life was brought into existence from what is not alive. The theist believes that the transition from non-life to life was brought about by an act of God i.e. that God is the author of abiogenesis. The only question remaining is whether God did so by overriding the properties of non-living matter (super-natural means) or by using the properties of non-living matter (natural means).

The scientific exploration of abiogenesis is a search for possible natural pathways of generating life from non-living matter. It has nothing to say one way or another about such natural pathways excluding God as the creator of life. That is not a scientific question and science provides no answer to it.

So, then the question is, what are theistic evolutionists doing to correct the philosophical ideas that go with science? Scientifically, abiogenesis says nothing about God. That is a theist assertion, not a scientific assertion.

What I see is theistic evolutionists spending all their time telling creationists that they are a bunch of idiots and need to go read their text books instead of spending their time reading the Bible. That their interpretation is garbage and the evolutionists interpretation is the right way. I have yet to meet or see one theistic evolutionists who actually spends the majority of their time arguing against the philosophies of science that exclude God by default. Rather, if one goes to the open forum, you will atheists and theists teaming up to give a pounding to anyone who goes against evolution. Now, the theists could be creating a relationship with the atheists at the expense of a believer so that later they can witness, but sinning to witness is not the way Christ taught.

Category error again. There are no philosophical reasonings for the theory of evolution. The basis of theory is evidence not philosophy. There are philosophical and theological ponderings on the meaning of evolution, but they come after the fact of evolution is established. They are not the basis of the theory, and the theory does not favour one over another.

There are no philosophical reasons for the theory of evolution? Are you sure you want to make that claim? That philosophy comes after the "fact" of evolution? That is a backwards look at science and how it works. Assumptions are the beginning of science and assumptions are a form of a philosophical idea because they require logic and reasoning.

So when you say there are "no philosophical reasonings for the theory of evolution" you are telling me there is no logic and reason for the theory.

I think I agree with you!

The main error is that you think science is hostile to the very idea of God. Science most certainly can accept the possibility that God is the origin of all life. What it cannot do is establish scientifically that this is so. Nor that it is not so. From surveys I have seen the majority of evolutionists are theistic evolutionists.

That is incorrect to say. I don't think I even said that science is hostile to God, do you have a quote of me saying that?

Yes, from surveys I have seen almost 90% of the United States are True Christians.

You are restating what I said. The assertion or at least implication that natural=godless is very frequent in creationist posts on this forum. If I have time, I will dig some out for you. Or you might look at “all posts by gluadys”. I have objected to this line of thought so many times, you are sure to find something.



And yet they do have a problem with humans being a product of evolution. Evolution is also a natural process created and put into motion by God. Why the inconsistency? Why the constant assertion that evolution is incompatible with theism—as you, yourself said earlier.

I don't think all of evolution is incompatible, but common descent, pre-Adamic man, all species from one single cell over billions of years just doesn't make sense in my mind. It may work perfectly for you, and that is fine, just doesn't work for me.

I read of Jesus creating things that look as if they have age and history, yet they do not. He can do the same with the universe. I have tried to reconcile a complete mythological account of Genesis and it doesn't make sense to me when I do. It may make perfect sense to you, but not me.

Many think Acts is a purely historical book, yet in it, it says all men came from one man. The New Testament is full of accounts that attribute Genesis to being a historical account of what God did do. For my own faith in Christ, I have no choice but to believe Him and who He has sent to speak for Him.

Yet they say that evolution is undirected and purposeless and hence cannot be part of God’s creation. Evolution happens. It happens in God’s world. As a natural process it has no internal consciousness of purpose any more than gravity or electricity or radioactivity. But how does that exclude the possibility that God has purposes for evolution?

If that is what God used to create, then God did have a purpose for it. Science mind you says nothing about God creating, nor will it ever attribute creating to God, even in abiogenesis it will look for another source.

You miss the point. These all show mastery over nature by resorting to super-natural power suspending the ordinary course of nature. Not the type of mastery that is expressed through using natural processes as they are.
I am not against miracles, including the possibility of creating things mature. I am against ignoring the evidence that God did not work this way. Humans have no say over how God chooses to create. We can only look at the evidence in hope of discovering how He chose to create. That evidence does not favour the thesis that God created things in a mature state.

I think you are confusing evidence and interpretation.

The theory of evolution is not about the origin of life; it is about the relationships of species to each other, past and present. I believe we do know who and what the origin of life is, but that we do not know how life originated. Knowing who created life does not tell us how he did. The “how” question is what science seeks the answer to. It does not attempt to answer the “who” question.



Abiogenesis is not a philosophy. It is a fact. Life did come from non-life. For a theist, the generation of life from non-life is an act of God. The open question is whether God used natural or super-natural means.

Again, I don't think you understand what philosophy is. All science is back by philosophy. It has to be to provide reason and logic for the assumptions put forth.

Again, science does not say God is the source of life. It is still looking for the source, even though they most likely have been told God is the source. In their continuing search, after being told, they have refused the idea that God is the source.

 

[Critias]

Worshipping the earth? Why dredge up an implied accusation which manifestly does not apply to anyone in this forum? Take this sort of thing to the open forum, where it might have a pertinent application.

I was under the assumption that many non-Christians read this forum very often. So it is directed at them. Sorry for the confusion.

Do you equate the fact of God’s immanence with pantheistic worship? Maybe you need to review some basics of Christian theology.

You know Peter said that he will constantly remind all believers of what Christ did, the basics of Christianity. So, I agree, and I do review the basics of Christianity because I don't want to let my eyes off of Jesus Christ.

Now, it reads as if you meant that as more of an insult or something, by saying without saying that I don't basic Christian theology. I will assume that you were not attempting to insult me.

That’s fine. If you wish to interpret the scripture that way, that is your right. Note that this is a theological objection to evolution based on your personal hermeneutics. So, this says nothing about the truth or falsehood of evolution. Only that you adopt a hermeneutic which is inconsistent with scientific observations and conclusions. If you can live with that, that is your choice.

I disagree with this interpretation, because I find it inconsistent with the nature of God revealed in scripture.

Quite true, my personal hermeneutics as well as those taught in seminary school.

Yes, many do hate if personal hermeneutics go against science. By your statement it would seem that you base your hermeneutics off of science.

So we agree on this point. Great!



The point is that the philosophies don’t come with the theory. We should always object when people imply or state that they do. This is something creationists and TEs could and should work together on, precisely because some prominent scientists are sloppy in this regard. It is easy to understand why people get the impression that evolution is tied to a naturalistic philosophy when one reads Dawkins or Dennet or watches Discovery channel. So it is easy to understand why many Christians are suspicious of the science. But disentangling this false equation is important. Only when we insist on separating the science from philosophical interpretations of the science, can we get better journalism, better curricula and better teaching of the science.

I just love your continued anthem that theories in science don't come with a philosophical idea. That means theories are not based on logic and reason, which is sometimes very true.

Evolution cannot escape the philosophy that has been created for it.

No, the theory of evolution is all science. Different people incorporate it into their philosophies in different ways. And science is not, as some creationists seem to think, a house of cards built on unsupported assumptions drawn out of a hat.



TEs agree fully that God is the origin of life and there is no need to search for another. Evolution is not about seeking the origin of life at all. Abiogenesis seeks the origin of life. But it is not about seeking another origin of life. It is about seeking out how God drew life out of non-living matter.

I find that a lot of people are not in the least concerned with God’s methodology. Their attitude is that it is enough to know that God created. What the process of creation looked like does not interest them at all.

But that is the fundamental interest of science. If you understand that, you will understand that science is never hostile to the concept of a creator God. It is just that science is no more interested in who created, than many Christians are in how God created.

It is another category error to treat these two different interests as if they were one and the same.

So, if one doesn't follow the theory of evolution, one is not interested in God's methods? It can't be that they just disagree with the conclusions made?

I personally love God's methods. They are never what people expect them to be. Usually the majority is completely surprised by what God does. Two fish feed five thousand men, which isn't including the woman and children there. That is rather astounding. That would be the difference between evolutionary science and creation.

Creation, God just does it.
Evolution, must have many steps and processes before it can be.

Gluadys, you do just come up with some of the best arguments, I believe by accident:

Science can never say God is the source because science cannot study God.

There are no philosophical reasonings for the theory of evolution.

I couldn't agree more with you!

 

[neverforsaken]

to me, science does not answer questions the bible cant. But rather science answers the questions the Bible was never meant to answer.

 

[depthdeception]

to me, science does not answer questions the bible cant. But rather science answers the questions the Bible was never meant to answer.

This is an excellent point. Also, it is an example of why something such as the doctrine of "Biblical inerrancy" is the beginning of a capitulation to scientific empiricism. If the Bible is the Scriptures, there is no need to substantiate it based upon historical criticism or scientific explanation. The application of these categories to the Scriptures is an attempt to establish the bible as being something else than it actually is.

 

[Sojourner<><]

This is an excellent point. Also, it is an example of why something such as the doctrine of "Biblical inerrancy" is the beginning of a capitulation to scientific empiricism. If the Bible is the Scriptures, there is no need to substantiate it based upon historical criticism or scientific explanation. The application of these categories to the Scriptures is an attempt to establish the bible as being something else than it actually is.

What exactly do you think it is?

 

[Scholar in training]

It's not that science has more authority, but science and the Bible must work together. What we see in nature are records of how God made the world: in this case, fossils. Why should those fossils, part of God's "creation", go ignored or their validity be denied because their existence contradicts one interpretation of Genesis? I think that if what we see in nature contradicts our interpretation of the Bible, it is our interpretation of the Bible that needs reworking.

 

[depthdeception]

What exactly do you think it is?

I think the Scriptures are exactly what they claim to be-- a testimony to Christ, the Logos of God, and to God's activity in history of salvation.

 

[depthdeception]

It's not that science has more authority, but science and the Bible must work together. What we see in nature are records of how God made the world: in this case, fossils. Why should those fossils, part of God's "creation", go ignored or their validity be denied because their existence contradicts one interpretation of Genesis? I think that if what we see in nature contradicts our interpretation of the Bible, it is our interpretation of the Bible that needs reworking.

Agreed, but one must also be critical of one's "observations" of nature, as they will change as worldviews grow and evolve.

 

[Sojourner<><]

question one: is it always the case that the most straightforward interpretation is the best interpretation or even the correct interpretation?

The bottom line for myself personally is the correct interpretation. In the case that multiple possible interpretations exist, I want to know which interpretation is most likely to be the correct one, and how it is scripturally supported.

question two: why is it so horrendous a notion to accept that the biblical authors framed what they wrote according to the accepted science of their day? how does that make it obligatory on modern Christians to continue to accept their science as relevant?

I don't think the scientific method existed in their day. You either did or didn't know the truth.

question: what is wrong with using science to help us understand scripture? It seems to me that when we do so, we learn to discriminate what is essential in scripture from what is peripheral.
(as an aside I have found the same to be true of inter-faith dialogue. I have a much better understanding of what is unique and precious in the Christian faith since I learned more about other faiths.)

I don't see anything wrong with wanting to know how God did it. But that doesn't mean we'll ever know the answer while we're on this earth. The danger is that we, being stupid humans, have a tendancy to lie to ourselves, and then to believe the lie. Personally, I feel that it would be healthy for each one of us to remind ourselves that we don't know everything, nor can we.

I don't want to approach issues envolving salvation, but when we start to monkey around with some other pseudo truth that just so happens to contradict the truth that God has laid down for us, it can be dangerous.

I believe it is necessary because God is a God of truth. All truth, including scientific truth, comes from God. Therefore the truth of the bible must help us understand science and the truth of science must help us understand scripture. Every truth is consistent with every other truth, and none has priority over another. No truth of the bible can deny any truth of science or vice versa.

That would be like saying that some part of God's own nature is self-contradictory and false.

I agree.. However I believe that the day science finally arrives at the truth, there will be no complication with its compatibility with scripture.

 

[Sojourner<><]

I think the Scriptures are exactly what they claim to be-- a testimony to Christ, the Logos of God, and to God's activity in history of salvation.

And in the testimony of our origins?

 

[Sojourner<><]

It's not that science has more authority, but science and the Bible must work together. What we see in nature are records of how God made the world: in this case, fossils. Why should those fossils, part of God's "creation", go ignored or their validity be denied because their existence contradicts one interpretation of Genesis? I think that if what we see in nature contradicts our interpretation of the Bible, it is our interpretation of the Bible that needs reworking.

I'm getting a feeling here that you might think that those who put their total trust in the Bible (perhaps you could call them fundamentalists) ignore these things, including the fossil record. This isn't true. Creation scientists have a number of good arguments on these topics that make alot of sense to me.

 

[Scholar in training]

I'm getting a feeling here that you might think that those who put their total trust in the Bible (perhaps you could call them fundamentalists) ignore these things, including the fossil record. This isn't true. Creation scientists have a number of good arguments on these topics that make alot of sense to me.

I don't mean to offend you, but the arguments I've seen from the fundamentalist corner have almost always been struck down on this site. Geology, in particular, disproves a global flood.

 

[Critias]

i don't think you get the argument. science is deliberately TRUNCATED, it doesn't talk about God or about morals or about right and wrong. metaphysics does. and a metaphysics is wrapped around science by each person, but this metaphysics is NOT part of science, but rather part of that person's worldview. it is a problem of levels or of categories. do you really want the divisiveness that religion shows daily to be imported back into science?

Science doesn't have to talk about God, nor would I ask it to. But I don't see anything wrong with giving God credit for what He has done.

It is not metaphysics to give God credit for what He has done.

Do you see Christianity as divisive?

again you mistake the philosophy of EVOLUTIONISTs with the science of evolution. science doesn't look for, nor even care about first causes of the something behind everything else. That is not a scientific category, that is people talking about the metaphysics they have created from or out of science. please understand that categories, levels are crucial to getting the discussion right.

criticize the metaphysics of people, look at the meta-science that controls science, but whatever try to get the level distinction working for you, not as a root of confusion.

....

Do you want to claim that science doesn't care about first cause? That science really doesn't care about common descent? That is in search of a first cause in the evolutionary chain.

That is a rather odd statement to make.

 

[depthdeception]

And in the testimony of our origins?

THe bible is not concerned with origins. The message throughout is the same--God is one, and has revealed Godself through the eternal Logos, Christ. Even the discussion of "origins" in the bible is thoroughly theological--it does not intend to prove that God is creator, or that God used a certain mechanism in creation. Rather, the "origins" bits are used to express a theological idea about who God is and how God has acted in salvation history. Speculations beyond this is unknown in Scripture, for the writers were seeking to do answer the questions we seek about "origins." Therefore, we should not presume to think that we will find these answers in the bible.

 

[Sojourner<><]

I don't mean to offend you, but the arguments I've seen from the fundamentalist corner have almost always been struck down on this site. Geology, in particular, disproves a global flood.

None taken, but are you referring to something other than radiometric dating and/or the fossil record?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Do you see Christianity as divisive?

is the mode of baptism: dunking, dipping, sprinkling, or ?
use wine or grape juice in Communion?

to answer your question.
(i could point out that almost any scientific discussion in this forum eventually gets hijacked into some divisive theological discussion, but that is so obvious that i don't need to *grin*)

Do you want to claim that science doesn't care about first cause? That science really doesn't care about common descent? That is in search of a first cause in the evolutionary chain.

the term: first cause, since Aristotle has meant the Prime Mover, the originator, or in our discussion God.
see:
http://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/4causes.htm

so science has no interest in first causes, nor for that matter-final causes(the elimination of teleology), being interested primarily in efficient causes alone of the 4.

so common descent is not at all related to first causes, but rather is an explanatory theory to understand things like nested hierarchies and homology, completely within the domain of efficient causes.
...

 

[Critias]

is the mode of baptism: dunking, dipping, sprinkling, or ?
use wine or grape juice in Communion?

Maybe you can explain your point here.

to answer your question.
(i could point out that almost any scientific discussion in this forum eventually gets hijacked into some divisive theological discussion, but that is so obvious that i don't need to *grin*)

That might be because you are in the origins *theology* forum. I must emphasize theology.

the term: first cause, since Aristotle has meant the Prime Mover, the originator, or in our discussion God.
see:
http://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/4causes.htm

so science has no interest in first causes, nor for that matter-final causes(the elimination of teleology), being interested primarily in efficient causes alone of the 4.

so common descent is not at all related to first causes, but rather is an explanatory theory to understand things like nested hierarchies and homology, completely within the domain of efficient causes.
...

I wasn't aware that we were speaking of Aristotelian doctrine. In that case, I believe science appeals to the material and the efficient cause.

What I gather from your statement is that science is not interested in our beginnings. That goes against what science is doing today. Examples, big bang theory, abiogenesis, and evolution. Those have to do with our beginning and I was under the assumption that we are talking about this.

Science is trying to find out how we got here. They ignore the fact that God created us here and are in search for another reason. Science is looking for our origins, using evolution, abiogenesis and the big bang theory.

Why Christians go along with this, as if they too are trying to find out where we came from, is rather odd.

 

[depthdeception]

Science is trying to find out how we got here. They ignore the fact that God created us here and are in search for another reason. Science is looking for our origins, using evolution, abiogenesis and the big bang theory.

You are a little misleading in your utilization of langauge here. Science does not "ignore" the "fact" that God created, for science cannot establish as "fact" that there is a God, or that God created anything. This is an unfair critique of science, for it is expecting science to make assumptions that are antithetical to its very nature (observation, experimentation, replication--can't be done with something that is "other" that which is natural).

Why Christians go along with this, as if they too are trying to find out where we came from, is rather odd.

I do agree with this. By going along with this methodology, Christians are capitulating in the face of science without even realizing it. If Christians want to establish the "science" of creation by a supernatural god, then they must be prepared to accept the answers which science give to them. It is improper and unfair to attempt to utilize science to prove a theological point, and then turn around and blame science for "ignoring" God. Science cannot help but do this, and if did any other than this, it would no longer be science--it would be faith.