A simple question

[gluadys]

Critias, it will take me a while to digest your thoughtful posts. I am very pressed for time at the moment, so don't be discouraged if I don't reply for 4-5 days.

 

[Critias]

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).

No one person can establish God created as fact that all can see and be tested. No one. But by faith we can. So I am not asking science to do anything that it cannot do. In fact, I am not asking science to do anything. I am simply stating that because science has this stance, it will never credit God for what He has done.

This is not an unfair critique. God deserves credit for what He has done, plain and simple. To simply toss aside the fact that God is the creator for the sake of "scienctific rules" is making an excuse. Paul says men are without excuse.

Let me make an example, someone says to you that Jesus Christ's death has saved you. You say to them, that cannot be tested therefore I cannot acknowledge that Christ has saved me by His death, but I won't deny it either.

Wouldn't you agree that Jesus deserves our acknowledgement of what He has done for us? So does God. And science will never acknowlege God and give Him credit. Because they will not, they will continue to search for the source of all things, when it is God.

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.

I don't think anyone has not "accepted" questions by evolutionists or science. The answers given have not been what evolutionists want to hear.

This is not about theology in science. It is about giving credit to the Creator, not the study of Him. And if you would like to assert that it is, then I can equally assert that science contains theology within it because it is studying God's created world.

Yes, wouldn't that be awesome if all scientists were faithful to God? Do you know that as Christians, everything we do ought to be based on our faith? We ought to be focusing our eyes on Jesus Christ and living every moment for Him, not for us. We each fail at this, no exceptions, unless one wants to claim to be without sin.

So our work should be being based off our faith, because we should always be acting on our faith. Why would that be such a terrible thing?

 

[Critias]

Critias, it will take me a while to digest your thoughtful posts. I am very pressed for time at the moment, so don't be discouraged if I don't reply for 4-5 days.

Take your time Gluadys.

 

[Smidlee]

No one person can establish God created as fact that all can see and be tested. No one. But by faith we can. So I am not asking science to do anything that it cannot do. In fact, I am not asking science to do anything. I am simply stating that because science has this stance, it will never credit God for what He has done.

This is not an unfair critique. God deserves credit for what He has done, plain and simple. To simply toss aside the fact that God is the creator for the sake of "scienctific rules" is making an excuse. Paul says men are without excuse.

Let me make an example, someone says to you that Jesus Christ's death has saved you. You say to them, that cannot be tested therefore I cannot acknowledge that Christ has saved me by His death, but I won't deny it either.

Wouldn't you agree that Jesus deserves our acknowledgement of what He has done for us? So does God. And science will never acknowlege God and give Him credit. Because they will not, they will continue to search for the source of all things, when it is God.

I agree. With all the nature shows I watched thought the years I have never heard once anyone give God credit for anything. Before I got on the internet a few years ago I knew nothing about ID or ICR and thought all scientist has a big 4-by-4 stuck in their eye.
Even a while back a scientist claimed the human brain was wired for God. He gave three reasons why evolution would have done such a thing. So even when science deals with God it doesn't give Him any credit. I find a four reason why our brains was wired this way; So that we could have a relationship with God but that's forbidden in science since "Intelligents" isn't allow in biology.

 

[depthdeception]

No one person can establish God created as fact that all can see and be tested. No one. But by faith we can. So I am not asking science to do anything that it cannot do. In fact, I am not asking science to do anything. I am simply stating that because science has this stance, it will never credit God for what He has done.

This is not an unfair critique. God deserves credit for what He has done, plain and simple. To simply toss aside the fact that God is the creator for the sake of "scienctific rules" is making an excuse. Paul says men are without excuse.

How is it not unfair? First you say that you are not asking science to do what science cannot do. But then your turn around and criticize it for tossing aside the "fact" (which is not a "fact") that God is creator! If you want to let science "be science," then let is alone. But don't criticize it for doing something that it cannot help but do.

 

[Critias]

How is it not unfair? First you say that you are not asking science to do what science cannot do. But then your turn around and criticize it for tossing aside the "fact" (which is not a "fact") that God is creator! If you want to let science "be science," then let is alone. But don't criticize it for doing something that it cannot help but do.

You know, if you think it is great that when science studies God's created world and refuses to credit God with what He has done, you are free to your opinion.

I personally think God deserves the credit. That is just me though.

 

[depthdeception]

You know, if you think it is great that when science studies God's created world and refuses to credit God with what He has done, you are free to your opinion.

I personally think God deserves the credit. That is just me though.

I do not disagree that "God deserves the credit." My point, however, is that science cannot be expected to "give God the credit," for this would be antithetical to the tenants of scientific pursuit.

 

[Critias]

Yes, I know what you are saying. Science shouldn't have to credit God for what He has done. That is the problem.

Why don't we just include that Christians don't need to credit Jesus for what He has done.

Science studies God's creation. Christians study Jesus' teachings.

 

[depthdeception]

Why don't we just include that Christians don't need to credit Jesus for what He has done.

This doesn't make any sense, give what we are talking about.

 

[Marshall Janzen]

Science studies God's creation. Christians study Jesus' teachings.

The problem is that you are comparing methods with people. Science is a method of study. Christians are people. Methods don't praise God. People do.

Scientists (not science) can indeed give God the credit for all they are able to explore. Many scientists do.

 

[Critias]

I am comparing methods with people because people created methods.

Shall I rephrase it as such:


Science studies God's creation. Christian theology studies God through the use of the Bible.

If you are all for science that studies what God has created and not giving Him the credit, but rather looking elsewhere for the source of life, then that is your choice.

As I said, I prefer to give God the credit rather than take the prideful route of saying science or scientists don't need to give God the credit.

 

[depthdeception]

I am comparing methods with people because people created methods.

Shall I rephrase it as such:


Science studies God's creation. Christian theology studies God through the use of the Bible.

If you are all for science that studies what God has created and not giving Him the credit, but rather looking elsewhere for the source of life, then that is your choice.

As I said, I prefer to give God the credit rather than take the prideful route of saying science or scientists don't need to give God the credit.

Someone said earlier that there is science, and then there are scientists. Science, as a methodology, can only be what it is, and can only lead to certain conclusions (the existence of God and that God created the universe not being possible conclusions). Scientists, theologians, etc., however, can suspend the necessary conclusions of certain methodologies, and can insert other conclusions (even thought this violates the previous methodology--however, this is one's perogative, for as you said, methodologies are created by people). Therefore, if you have an issue, you should take it up with people who utilize methodologies, not the methodolgies themselves. After all, methodologies do not assign meaning or value to certain conclusions--they simply provide the criterion by which one might reach a conclusion.

 

[gluadys]

Part One of Three I'm afraid. Sorry for beng long-winded, but you are asking good questions which deserve a substantive response.

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.

You are forgetting that there is a difference between scientists and science. Yes, the work of scientists does often incorporate their beliefs. Certainly the way a scientist interprets science will reflect the scientist's beliefs.

This is why science is a public endeavour. This is why a scientist cannot simply publish their work and expect it to be recognized as science. The individual's work is submitted to the critique of her peers in peer-review, in conferences, in journals where other scientists, with other pre-conceptions, will challenge the original paper, and will challenge the interpretation the paper incorporates.

Even an interpretation that is wholly accepted by one generation (e.g. the notion that evolution is a progression from lower to higher forms of life) will be challenged and discarded by another generation for one that agrees better with factual evidence.

The result is a corpus of knowledge which is evidence based, not based on personal world-views. It is this corpus of knowledge which is science, not the scientific work of individual scientists (except as it contributes to this corpus) nor the personal interpretations of individual scientists.

Individual scientists will still give their personal spins to the corpus of scientific knowledge. But each one will spin it differently according to their personal beliefs. So Dawkins interprets evolution in accord with his atheism and Miller interprets evolution in accord with his Catholicism. Neither Dawkin's atheism, nor Miller's Catholicism is part of science or the theory of evolution.

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.

Christians have every right to interpret the fact of evolution and the evidence supporting the theory of evolution from a Christian perspective. We have every right to challenge an atheistic interpretation of evolution. If the atheistic interpretation seems dominant, then we need to develop more believable, better speakers who will present the case for theism more persuasively than Dawkins and Dennett, et al present the case for atheism. We actually have an advantage in that most people are already convinced of theism. That opportunity should not be wasted.

The problem with creationism is that it allies itself with the atheists and says the atheistic interpretation of evolution is the correct interpretation. So it tosses the baby out with the bath-water and beats its head against the fact of evolution instead of separating it from the philosophy of atheism and focusing on the latter. What Christian leaders and teachers should be doing is showing that our faith is never out of step with the facts and Christians can also be evolutionists. Fortunately many Christian scientists are already doing this. But they need more support from the Christian community.

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.

What is wrong with it is that your picture is incorrect. Creationists do not use the same evidence as science does. They pick and choose which evidence they will use and ignore any evidence which falsifies their case. If they really used all the evidence, they would be forced to admit that the scientific conclusions are correct.

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.

It is not a matter of believing nature is a co-creator with God, but that nature has its life and being in God and that God is in nature as well as over nature. It is a logical conclusion from the immanence of God in all things. Nature cannot be active as "co-creator" unless God is active in nature.

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-dy...5060802385.html

This has nothing to do with incorporating a philosophical basis into one's research and analysis. Even if it did, I never said scientists don't do this. I said science is not based on the personal philosophies of scientists.

As for this article, it is speaking of the impact of money and politics on scientific work. Note:

And more than 15 percent admitted they had changed a study's design or results to satisfy a sponsor,​

This is a huge problem that can endanger the live of millions if the sponsor is a major corporation seeking to sell something dangerous. Or at least not known to be safe.

A preliminary analysis of other questions in the survey, not yet published, suggests a link between misconduct and the extent to which scientists feel the system of peer review for grants and advancement is unfair. That suggests those aging systems need to be revised, the researcher said.​

Again, a large and legitimate problem. Peer-review is essential to keeping science honest. If the system itself is unfair, the basis of scientific honesty is undermined.

Neither of these problems speaks to the issue you have been raising.

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.

Again, this is category error. Life, indeed, must have come from non-life somehow. But science does not forbid at all saying that God created life and then it evolved. Even if science discovers a natural process of abiogenesis, this does not exclude God. It only says that God used natural rather than supernatural means to generate life from non-life. And God has used natural rather than supernatural means to develop species over time. So the scientific search for the natural origin of life and of species is not antithetical to a theology of creation unless your theology of creation insists that God is restricted to using miraculous means of creation.

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.

While science can permit a theology of creation as an interpretive framework of its work on the origin of species, the origin of life, or any other origin, no, it cannot directly say that God created, simply because there is no scientific basis for saying so---nor can there be since God is not and cannot be an object of scientific study. The very concept of training science on God is IMO blasphemous.

And scientists cannot assert that aliens created us. They can only speculate. There can be no scientific inquiry along these lines unless and until an intelligent alien species is discovered. Besides, it only postpones the ultimate question. For one would then have to determine the origin of the aliens.

One of the basic problems here is that you are taking every pronouncement and suggestion which comes from a scientist as "science". This is not the case.

 

[gluadys]

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.

No, not "how and who". Just "how". As far as evolution is concerned the who could well be God. And evolution does not seek the "origin of all" only the origin of species. It assumes that at least one population is already alive and evolving.

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.

In the sense you are using "philosophical ideas", yes. Evolution neither looks for God nor falsifies God. It does not look for an alternative to God. It looks for natural explanations for the origin of species. Since "natural" does not exclude the activity of God, what one makes of science's success in discovering such explanations will depend on the personal philosophy of those who contemplate the results of scientific inquiry. Nothing bars a pro-theist interpretation of evolution.

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.

Now here is where I can agree with you. There is a philosophy of science in metaphysics, which is not to be confused with the day-to-day empirical operation of science. It has two basic components, one ontological and one epistemological.

The ontological component is realism (as opposed to idealism). In short there really is a universe that exists outside of our minds. We are not living a holographic existence.

Theolgically this means we are not a dream in the mind of God. God really did make a real world in which the creation is distinguishable from the creator. Note that this theology is also basic to classical western theism, as it is not to many other theologies. It is no accident that modern science arose in the context of European Christendom. Even those scientists who have repudiated theism still operate on the basis of philosophical realism, and to that extent deny theologies which blur the distinction of creator and creation.

The epistomological component of the philosophy of science is that the universe is knowable via human sense and reason. As you may well be aware, epistomology deals with the whole question of how we know what we know (or think we know) and the question of the extent to which what appears to our senses correlates with what actually exists is a very real one. The "thing in itself" could be very different from what it appears to be given our sensory apparatus and our mental habits of placing things in categories that make sense to us. Science takes the philosophical stance that there is a real and reliable correlation between our perception of nature and the reality of nature. It also takes the stance that reason and logic are reliable guides to truth.

Theogically, this is consistent with traditional Christian perspectives on this issue. Mainstream Christianity has always held that our God-given capacity to use reason and logic is evidence of the image of God in which we were created, and that our perceptions (at least our collective perceptions) are not normally deceptive. One of the striking things about 18th-19th century science is the very active involvement of evangelical Christians, including many clergy. These Christians very much believed that the exploration of nature was an exploration of the work of God, and often referred to nature as God's second "book" of revelation. TEs are the modern inheritors of this line of evangelical thinking. And one of the things I find most disturbing about modern creationism is that it has moved to denying this basic theological standpoint. Time and again, the fall is invoked as obliterating the image of God in us to the extent that human sense and reason is totally incapable of comprehending anything aright. In contrast to standard Christian theology of the past, modern creationism not only asserts that faith extends past what reason can discern (such that reason alone is insufficient for salvation); it decrees that faith actually contradicts sense and reason so that we must believe the contrary to what the evidence suggests. IMHO, this is a move toward heresy.

Neither of these two philosophical principles can be validated by scientific method; they are not testable or falsifiable. So they rightly belong in the philosophy of science, not in the corpus of scientific knowledge. But they do form the philosophical basis of scientific work, and whether they have thought about it or not, virtually all scientists ascribe to these beliefs. Note that neither principle affirms theism; both are capable of a non-theistic interpretation. But both are also capable of a theistic interpretation and can and have been used by Christian scientists as a motivating principle for engaging in scientific work. So there is no philosophical basis in science which is anti-God or anti-Christian.

So, then the question is, what are theistic evolutionists doing to correct the philosophical ideas that go with science?

Speaking out against the inappropriate inclusion of atheist philosophy in science. It would be great if creationists helped out with this. Instead creationists have decided that atheists are right and science is necessarily atheistic. So instead of speaking out against inappropriate insertions of atheism into science, they speak against science itself.

Let me give you an example of this: Back in 1982, I was just being introduced to "creation science" and young-earth creationism. I attended a lecture by Duane Gish at Brock University in St. Catharines, ON. Near the very beginning of his lecture he introduced a definition of evolution by Julian Huxley. This definition was clearly based on Huxley's atheism. No one who believed this was a correct definition of evolution could accept evolution and also accept Christianity.

But during the Q&A, when I asked why a Christian should accept Huxley's definition of evolution as correct, I was merely given the assertion that it was, and that definitions of evolution friendly to theism were not good definitions of evolution. I was not given a reason why Gish took this position.

So here is a Christian whose whole basis of thinking on evolution begins with the proposition that the atheists are right! Huxley is more right about evolution than Asa Gray or Theodosius Dobzhansky or B.B. Warfield.

I just don't buy that reasoning. It astounds me that any Christian would think atheists are better interpreters of evolution than Christians are. But I see it time and time again from creationists.

Scientifically, abiogenesis says nothing about God. That is a theist assertion, not a scientific assertion.

As it should be. Fact is fact for both the theist and the atheist. A natural pathway of abiogenesis, if found, would be fact. But as a fact it neither supports atheism, nor denies theism.

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.

Not "instead of"; rather "as well as". Text books and scientific journals is where you will find science. The bible is where you will find the Word of God. Newspapers is where you will find politics, economics and culture. Christians should read all three. And then ask both "how do these scientific and political, etc, realities help me better understand scripture?" and "how does scripture help me better understand these extra-biblical realities and how to deal with them as a Christian?"

That their interpretation is garbage and the evolutionists interpretation is the right way.

Their interpretation of science is garbage. That is why they need to learn science better.

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.

There is no philosophy of science that excludes God by default and most of the atheists in this forum recognize that. I have personally taken to task a newbie atheist who promoted the idea that evolution disproves God (don't know if I can find the thread given the deficiencies of the search function). More to the point, so did other atheists!!

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.

That knife cuts two ways. And given the level of dishonesty displayed by creationist institutions, I wouldn't suggest trying to use it against TEs.

There are no philosophical reasons for the theory of evolution?

Other than the basic philosophical stances outlined above on which all science rests. Beyond that, the only basis for the theory of evolution is evidence. Evolution is an observed fact. The theory explains that fact. Just as the theory of gravity explains the fact that apples fall from trees instead of flying up into the clouds and planets continue in orbit around their star.

That philosophy comes after the "fact" of evolution?

Philosophy does not determine what is and is not fact. It may suggest how to interpret facts, but that interpretation is subject to further testing against the facts, both those already known and those yet to be discovered. For example, Darwin did not know that DNA even existed, much less its role in genetic inheritance. But once that was figured out, it was easy to see that it had implications for his theory of descent with modification.

If Darwin was right, DNA sequencing must show a a specific pattern of similarity across species. Please note, not just similarity, but a "specific pattern of similarity". This is something creationists often ignore.

It is a fact that the specific pattern of genetic similarity which must be the case if evolution is true is the specific pattern we actually find. No philosophy can create that fact. Nor can it determine the scientific assessment of the implications of that fact. All a philosophy can do is interpret the scientific conclusions based on that fact.

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.

No, observations are the beginning of science. Logical inference (not assumptions pulled out of a hat) are the beginning of theory formation. For example: what led to big bang theory was an initial observation that galaxies, with a few local exceptions, all show a red shift in their spectrometry. The logical inference from this fact is that they are all moving away from each other. This in turn raises the question: why are they all moving away from each other? And that led to the hypothesis of the big bang.

Science does not rest content, however, with finding a hypothesis. In fact, that hypothesis was immediately challenged by a different possible explanation: steady-state theory. So then the inferences of both theories had to be worked out and tested against more math and more observations. As you are probably aware, the balance of scientific opinion did not shift decisively to the big bang theory until the discovery of the cosmic background radiation which steady-state theory could not account for, while big-bang theory predicted it.

Again, no philosophy decides that red-shifts or cosmic background radiation is true or false. Nor can a philosophy determine the scientific import of those facts. All philosophy can do is interpret the scientific conclusions based on this evidence.

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.

Is logic philosophy? Is it not rather a method of avoiding fallacious reasoning no matter what the subject of discussion is? I will grant that the basic rules of logic were worked out by (among others) philosophers, because sound reasoning is important in philosophical discussions. But note that all philosophers from all schools of philosophy appeal to the same basic rules of logic. So logic as a method of thinking and arguing transcends particular philosophies.

Making sense of evidence is the reason for the theory of evolution as it is for all scientific theories. That is why, to attack evolution, an opponent needs to study the evidence and the reason it has led to the conclusions presented by science. If she can show different evidence that changes the picture, or a fallacy in the inferences from the evidence, she can make a scientific case. Most creationists don't do that. Instead they agree with atheists that evolution is necessarily bound up with atheism, and attack evolution, thinking that thereby they are attacking atheism. Instead they are putting themselves out of step with observed facts of nature and making fools of themselves without putting a dent in atheism. If anything YECism is a major producer of atheism.

e.g. See post 4 here

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. This is what I was replying to:

The main error that science in general is against is the Creationists claim that God is the origin of all life. Science cannot accept this,...​

emphasis added

 

[gluadys]

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.

And it won't make sense until you study the evidence and the reasons science has come to these conclusions.

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.

He can, but the evidence is pretty clear that he didn't. Again this requires study of the evidence. As for the interpretation of scripture, I find most people encountering a mythological approach are still hanging onto a lot of assumptions based on a literal approach. Mixing the two approaches does not make sense of either one, so I can appreciate your dilemma.

The New Testament is full of accounts that attribute Genesis to being a historical account of what God did do.

No it is not. No reference in the New Testament requires the creation accounts of Genesis to be historical

If that is what God used to create, then God did have a purpose for it.

Exactly.

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.

Because of its own limitations science cannot say anything about God. Please stop treating this as a wilful refusal to speak of God. Science does not look for another source than God. It looks for a natural explanation of how things happened. Only if you believe that a natural explanation excludes God do you have any grounds for calling this "another" source. Why would a Christian consider nature, the work of God, to be an alternate to God?

I think you are confusing evidence and interpretation.

I think you are refusing to even look at the evidence.

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.

Does not because it cannot. But science is not looking for the source of life. We all know that the material source of life is non-living matter. Science is testing out the proposition that ordinary processes of chemistry can transform non-living matter into living matter. This is not in any way a refusal to accept God as the source of life. It is only (for theists) an inquiry into the means God used.

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.

Thank you, I was not. It is just that the worshipping the earth remark sounded like an accusation. So I may have been more harsh than necessary. I appreciate the clarification.

I do think, however, that we need to keep in mind that Christianity is rather unique in giving a relatively equal importance to God as transcendant and God as immanent. Yet I often find that when speaking of God as immanent, I get a knee-jerk reaction from fundamentalists, as if this ordinary statement of classic Christian faith was an attack on God as transcendant. I think one can over-emphasize transcendance to the point of forgetting the implications of immanence. (The same sort of thing often derails statements about Christ's humanity. Affirmation of Christ's humanity is often taken as an attack on his Deity, rather than as a simple affirmation of Christian belief.)

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

taught in seminary schools committed to that hermeneutic. There are plenty of seminary schools which teach otherwise.

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

Actually it is the other way around. I accept science because of my personal hermeutics.

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

No philosophy has been created for it. Some (not all) atheists have laid claim to the theory of evolution as bolstering their lack of faith in/rejection of God. There is no reason why Christians should allow them to make good that claim.

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?

If one is interested in God's methods one will study the science, one will learn what observations suggested evolution, what observations have confirmed that evolution happens, and what observations and inferences lead to the conclusion that evolution has occurred in the past as it does today. If there is a basis for disagreement about the conclusions, they can be identified.

My experience in discussing evolution with creationists is that most of them are not willing to take the first step of actually studying the science. And I have had creationists tell me bluntly that they are not interested in how God created, only in that God created. To them "how" is a trivial question not worth investigating.

Because this group of creationists (and I realize it does not apply to all) is uninterested in science, yet see the science of evolution as anti-thetical to their beliefs, they propose disagreements with evolution that are simply not relevant. Hence the existence of PRATT lists. A genuine disagreement with the theory of evolution will at least show an understanding of what the theory actually says. This is, regrettably, very rare.

Evolution, must have many steps and processes before it can be.

All evolution requires is the existence of a living population. It does not require many steps and processes before it can be. The steps and processes are evolution.

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!

 

[Critias]

Ah man! I am gonna need some time to respond to this as well as read all of this!

 

[gluadys]

Ah man! I am gonna need some time to respond to this as well as read all of this!

One thing about a forum is that you can take all the time you need.

 

[shernren]

Well said, gluadys.

 

[Critias]

Christians have every right to interpret the fact of evolution and the evidence supporting the theory of evolution from a Christian perspective. We have every right to challenge an atheistic interpretation of evolution. If the atheistic interpretation seems dominant, then we need to develop more believable, better speakers who will present the case for theism more persuasively than Dawkins and Dennett, et al present the case for atheism. We actually have an advantage in that most people are already convinced of theism. That opportunity should not be wasted.

The problem with creationism is that it allies itself with the atheists and says the atheistic interpretation of evolution is the correct interpretation. So it tosses the baby out with the bath-water and beats its head against the fact of evolution instead of separating it from the philosophy of atheism and focusing on the latter. What Christian leaders and teachers should be doing is showing that our faith is never out of step with the facts and Christians can also be evolutionists. Fortunately many Christian scientists are already doing this. But they need more support from the Christian community.

What is wrong with it is that your picture is incorrect. Creationists do not use the same evidence as science does. They pick and choose which evidence they will use and ignore any evidence which falsifies their case. If they really used all the evidence, they would be forced to admit that the scientific conclusions are correct.

I think that is a fallacy to state creationists do not use the same evidence as evolutionists. Making such a statement infers that creationists have some other form of evidence that is not really evidence at all, that they are deceitful in every aspect of their scientific approach right down to the evidence they use. That is a large claim to make about every single person who is a creation scientist. You would have personally know and see everything they do actually be truthful in making this claim. Otherwise, it is just showing your biased against creationists, without giving them the benefit of the doubt, that we as Christians are commanded to do.

Your last sentence feels rather strange to me. It sounds like you are saying you want conformity rather than diversity which stimulates advancements within science. That if all scientists used all of the evidence, they would all agree together. That would never truly happen in reality.

This has nothing to do with incorporating a philosophical basis into one's research and analysis. Even if it did, I never said scientists don't do this. I said science is not based on the personal philosophies of scientists.

Science is based on scientist’s logic and reason; otherwise they cannot give an interpretation of what they are studying.

As for this article, it is speaking of the impact of money and politics on scientific work. Note:

And more than 15 percent admitted they had changed a study's design or results to satisfy a sponsor,


This is a huge problem that can endanger the live of millions if the sponsor is a major corporation seeking to sell something dangerous. Or at least not known to be safe.

A preliminary analysis of other questions in the survey, not yet published, suggests a link between misconduct and the extent to which scientists feel the system of peer review for grants and advancement is unfair. That suggests those aging systems need to be revised, the researcher said.


Again, a large and legitimate problem. Peer-review is essential to keeping science honest. If the system itself is unfair, the basis of scientific honesty is undermined.

Neither of these problems speaks to the issue you have been raising.

But it does speak about the scientists themselves will change and alter things for their own reasons or needs. So it is not far fetched to think that scientists would base their interpretations off of their own beliefs.

Again, this is category error. Life, indeed, must have come from non-life somehow. But science does not forbid at all saying that God created life and then it evolved. Even if science discovers a natural process of abiogenesis, this does not exclude God. It only says that God used natural rather than supernatural means to generate life from non-life. And God has used natural rather than supernatural means to develop species over time. So the scientific search for the natural origin of life and of species is not antithetical to a theology of creation unless your theology of creation insists that God is restricted to using miraculous means of creation.

Again, I disagree that this is a category error. I didn’t say science has forbid saying God created life. What I did say was that because science has declared God as un-testable because He is intangible, science by default doesn’t look to God to be the origin of all life. Because science has this position, it continues to look for the origin of life and goes in the direction where it will not point to God.

You are incorrect to state that if science refers to natural processes for abiogenesis that it means God did it. Science can never state this, ever, unless it changes its rule – per say – on testing the intangible.

Again, we are not talking about theology. We are talking about science looking for the origins of life and that because it will never look to God, it will look to another source that has nothing to do with God. That is the interesting thing that has happened to science since the enlightenment. It cannot point to, conclude of, or give credit to God being the source of all life. It needs to have an alternate answer that is not God.

God is truth, correct? If you go in the opposite direction, are going towards the truth?

While science can permit a theology of creation as an interpretive framework of its work on the origin of species, the origin of life, or any other origin, no, it cannot directly say that God created, simply because there is no scientific basis for saying so---nor can there be since God is not and cannot be an object of scientific study. The very concept of training science on God is IMO blasphemous.

I completely disagree that the concept of science on God is blasphemous. Why, because theology is a science; the study God.

No, not "how and who". Just "how". As far as evolution is concerned the who could well be God. And evolution does not seek the "origin of all" only the origin of species. It assumes that at least one population is already alive and evolving.

Ok, evolution is the how, the who is abiogenesis. Both are naturalistic and will never point to God within science.

Speaking out against the inappropriate inclusion of atheist philosophy in science. It would be great if creationists helped out with this. Instead creationists have decided that atheists are right and science is necessarily atheistic. So instead of speaking out against inappropriate insertions of atheism into science, they speak against science itself.

Let me give you an example of this: Back in 1982, I was just being introduced to "creation science" and young-earth creationism. I attended a lecture by Duane Gish at Brock University in St. Catharines, ON. Near the very beginning of his lecture he introduced a definition of evolution by Julian Huxley. This definition was clearly based on Huxley's atheism. No one who believed this was a correct definition of evolution could accept evolution and also accept Christianity.

But during the Q&A, when I asked why a Christian should accept Huxley's definition of evolution as correct, I was merely given the assertion that it was, and that definitions of evolution friendly to theism were not good definitions of evolution. I was not given a reason why Gish took this position.

So here is a Christian whose whole basis of thinking on evolution begins with the proposition that the atheists are right! Huxley is more right about evolution than Asa Gray or Theodosius Dobzhansky or B.B. Warfield.

I just don't buy that reasoning. It astounds me that any Christian would think atheists are better interpreters of evolution than Christians are. But I see it time and time again from creationists.

First off, you didn’t answer my question. Instead you pointed the finger at yec’s saying they are one of the problems. I am not going to disagree that yec’s are part of the problem. I see this as a two way street here, even if I think yec’s are correct on the interpretation of Genesis, to a degree. I think a lot of this problem, if not all of it, is in the communication between the two camps – te and yec. It is not just one who is the victim, in fact neither are. It is the Body of the Christ that is yet again the victim.

Clear communication is clouded with people from both sides who want to show how right they are. Whatever side one is on, some feel it is their duty to correct. I agree with this and believe we all should be trying to correct each other. But…if one does not have a clear understanding of God’s Word, that means serious study and prayer of the Bible, reading it for all it is worth, then one has no right to speaking as if they have. Secondly, if one is correcting, it should be done in a humble manor, at least twice and if their correction is refused, then they should let it go with that person they are correcting. It is not wise of Christian to keep pummeling a person until they change. It is our job to plant the seed and allow God to reap the harvest.

As it should be. Fact is fact for both the theist and the atheist. A natural pathway of abiogenesis, if found, would be fact. But as a fact it neither supports atheism, nor denies theism.

I think facts are distorted by mankind and they tend to change with time, as we have seen with previous scientific “facts”.

Not "instead of"; rather "as well as". Text books and scientific journals is where you will find science. The bible is where you will find the Word of God. Newspapers is where you will find politics, economics and culture. Christians should read all three. And then ask both "how do these scientific and political, etc, realities help me better understand scripture?" and "how does scripture help me better understand these extra-biblical realities and how to deal with them as a Christian?"

I don’t think the philosophies of the world were intended to be used to better understand Scripture. I believe that is the Holy Spirit’s job, not the worlds. I personally don’t find politics helpful in hermeneutics, nor do I find economics to be helpful. Science is just science, it doesn’t point me towards God because it doesn’t talk of God.

I think looking at culture is a way to understand people to better understand how to present the Gospel to them.

 

[Critias]

Their interpretation of science is garbage. That is why they need to learn science better.

I find that rather prideful to say. That shuts out the fact that a creation scientist could ever teach you anything about science. I would bet that a PhD creationist would know more about science than those who aren’t PhD scientists.

There is no philosophy of science that excludes God by default and most of the atheists in this forum recognize that. I have personally taken to task a newbie atheist who promoted the idea that evolution disproves God (don't know if I can find the thread given the deficiencies of the search function). More to the point, so did other atheists!!

Naturalistic science excludes God by default. You yourself have said science cannot study God so it does not speak of God nor points to God as the source of anything.

I think that is wonderful that you have taken the task to speak against the atheistic philosophies.

That knife cuts two ways. And given the level of dishonesty displayed by creationist institutions, I wouldn't suggest trying to use it against TEs.

As I said, this is a two way street here. I have seen it said here that some te’s post here because of the creationist movements such as AIG and ICR. So, if that is true, is it necessary to attack the yec’s or to combat the problem of atheism instead?

Instead of being humble and taking the fight where it ought to be – atheists – te’s have instead focused on yec’s here, where many of not all have no affiliation with those institutions but are attacked because of those institutions.

This is not an example of turning the other cheek, is it?

Likewise, yec’s ought to just let the te’s make their personal attacks against them without coming back with the same. Instead state what you believe and why you believe it with Scriptural support and leave it at that.

Other than the basic philosophical stances outlined above on which all science rests. Beyond that, the only basis for the theory of evolution is evidence. Evolution is an observed fact. The theory explains that fact. Just as the theory of gravity explains the fact that apples fall from trees instead of flying up into the clouds and planets continue in orbit around their star.

Philosophy can stand on its own. Science cannot stand without philosophy. Most things cannot stand without philosophy. Philosophy is the reasoning behind what is being said or asserted. Science makes interpretations, those interpretations are philosophical in the way that they rely on logic and reason to make their case.

Not all evolution is an observed fact. I have not heard of anyone observing a transitional ape-like ancestor to man.

Philosophy does not determine what is and is not fact. It may suggest how to interpret facts, but that interpretation is subject to further testing against the facts, both those already known and those yet to be discovered. For example, Darwin did not know that DNA even existed, much less its role in genetic inheritance. But once that was figured out, it was easy to see that it had implications for his theory of descent with modification.

If Darwin was right, DNA sequencing must show a a specific pattern of similarity across species. Please note, not just similarity, but a "specific pattern of similarity". This is something creationists often ignore.

It is a fact that the specific pattern of genetic similarity which must be the case if evolution is true is the specific pattern we actually find. No philosophy can create that fact. Nor can it determine the scientific assessment of the implications of that fact. All a philosophy can do is interpret the scientific conclusions based on that fact.

Philosophy is used to give an interpretation of the evidence. It is tested against other interpretations made by scientists. In all reality, it is quite possible that common descent is completely misunderstood by science.

What really strikes me as funny is that many te’s do not even give consideration that animals and man were made in much of the same way and obviously would share similar DNA. Man and a rat share 92% similar DNA. Where is the rat on Darwin’s Tree?

My argument was not that philosophy establishes a fact, but it does establish an interpretation, that if accepted by a good argument can become a fact.

Is logic philosophy? Is it not rather a method of avoiding fallacious reasoning no matter what the subject of discussion is? I will grant that the basic rules of logic were worked out by (among others) philosophers, because sound reasoning is important in philosophical discussions. But note that all philosophers from all schools of philosophy appeal to the same basic rules of logic. So logic as a method of thinking and arguing transcends particular philosophies.

Making sense of evidence is the reason for the theory of evolution as it is for all scientific theories. That is why, to attack evolution, an opponent needs to study the evidence and the reason it has led to the conclusions presented by science. If she can show different evidence that changes the picture, or a fallacy in the inferences from the evidence, she can make a scientific case. Most creationists don't do that. Instead they agree with atheists that evolution is necessarily bound up with atheism, and attack evolution, thinking that thereby they are attacking atheism. Instead they are putting themselves out of step with observed facts of nature and making fools of themselves without putting a dent in atheism. If anything YECism is a major producer of atheism.

And Christ is the stumbling block to non-believers.

And it won't make sense until you study the evidence and the reasons science has come to these conclusions.

I have studied it and the Bible thoroughly. The best way to make both work together is to call Genesis 1-3 a myth and I believe this is not the intended meaning of Genesis that the author wanted the reader to understand.

He can, but the evidence is pretty clear that he didn't. Again this requires study of the evidence. As for the interpretation of scripture, I find most people encountering a mythological approach are still hanging onto a lot of assumptions based on a literal approach. Mixing the two approaches does not make sense of either one, so I can appreciate your dilemma.

All the evidence is, is interpretations. Your approach to Scripture should not be mythical or literal; these are styles of writing, not hermeneutical approaches. In all honestly, Christians should be reading the Bible looking for the author’s intended meaning, not for a specific type of writing style. That is why so many have bad interpretations of the Bible.

I believe you have clearly laid out your approach to Scripture: because science says evolution and common descent that took billions of years, you are interpreting Genesis based on this. This is imposing the meaning into the text or the reader hermeneutical approach. You are not looking for what the author intended to say, but rather you are imposing your own beliefs into the text.

No it is not. No reference in the New Testament requires the creation accounts of Genesis to be historical

“In the beginning of the word, God created them male and female.” “For all mankind came from one man.”

These are paraphrases from the Bible, Jesus and Paul. They do require a historical Genesis 1-2.



Because of your own hermeneutical approach to Scripture, where you impose the meaning into the text, you won’t see this.

Because of its own limitations science cannot say anything about God. Please stop treating this as a wilful refusal to speak of God. Science does not look for another source than God. It looks for a natural explanation of how things happened. Only if you believe that a natural explanation excludes God do you have any grounds for calling this "another" source. Why would a Christian consider nature, the work of God, to be an alternate to God?

“Cannot” is a choice made. It is a silent refusal.

I don’t think there are naturalistic explanations for God creating this universe and this earth, just as there are no naturalistic explanations for Jesus turning water into wine, in a mere instant.

I think you are refusing to even look at the evidence.

As I said, I have looked at the interpretations of the evidence that conclude common descent and I don’t see it being compatible with an author hermeneutic. It can be made to be compatible when one does as you have done, impose your meaning onto the text.

taught in seminary schools committed to that hermeneutic. There are plenty of seminary schools which teach otherwise.

Quite right! There are seminary schools that are committed to teaching that one should impose their meaning into the text.

Actually it is the other way around. I accept science because of my personal hermeutics.

I honestly think, by what you have said thus far, that science has dictated your hermeneutical approach.

If one is interested in God's methods one will study the science, one will learn what observations suggested evolution, what observations have confirmed that evolution happens, and what observations and inferences lead to the conclusion that evolution has occurred in the past as it does today. If there is a basis for disagreement about the conclusions, they can be identified.

My experience in discussing evolution with creationists is that most of them are not willing to take the first step of actually studying the science. And I have had creationists tell me bluntly that they are not interested in how God created, only in that God created. To them "how" is a trivial question not worth investigating.

Because this group of creationists (and I realize it does not apply to all) is uninterested in science, yet see the science of evolution as anti-thetical to their beliefs, they propose disagreements with evolution that are simply not relevant. Hence the existence of PRATT lists. A genuine disagreement with the theory of evolution will at least show an understanding of what the theory actually says. This is, regrettably, very rare.

I would think the best way to get to know God is through the Bible and prayer, not science. Through the Bible one can learn how God works, His methods. Science again, says nothing of God’s methods, but rather dogmatically asserts naturalistic methods.



Whether one wants to accept it or not, the beginning of all things was a supernatural event, not a naturalistic event. It is one that cannot be repeated or tested. If it cannot, then science should not be investigating it because of its own stance.

All evolution requires is the existence of a living population. It does not require many steps and processes before it can be. The steps and processes are evolution.

Hence, the conclusion of my argument that without the steps and processes evolution would not be.